Mr. Chairman, as far as the definitions in clause I are concerned, I wish to move that in line 13 on page 6 the figure “9” be omitted and that “10” be substituted. This is a printer’s error. A different office is being referred to. Then, in line 34 on page 6 the figure “9 (1)” is to be omitted and substituted by “10 (1)”. This is also an error which unfortunately crept in. An office falling under section 10 is referred to here. I accordingly move—

substitute “10”; and in line 34, to omit

“9 (1)’’ and to substitute “10 (1)”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause that gives previous provincial councillors considerable additional advantages. As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, I feel that they have already been very adequately compensated for the services which they rendered in the council. I therefore see no reason why they should have an increase in those benefits. I shall object to this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move —

The word “pensionable” is wrong, because it would result in the Prime Minister's pension being reduced to that of an ordinary member. I do not think this is the intention of any of the members. This is merely a word which has crept in and it was not in the original draft, nor did it occur in the original version that was sent to members for perusal.

Say thank you!

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this is the important clause in the Bill. This is the clause that gives enormous additional benefits to members who occupy special offices in this House and in the Other Place. As I mentioned yesterday, it gives increases in benefits in the case of Ministers equal to 100 per cent increase in pensions. Additional Whips also get a 100 per cent increase. Then there is an 80 per cent increase to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House; there is a 100 per cent increase to commissioners-general and the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. So it goes right down the line until we reach the Leader of the Opposition, who gets a 20 per cent increase in his pension. I do not believe that any argument has been advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister to justify these huge increases in pension benefits. I shall oppose this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 12:

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

1. (1) If any person dies who is receiving a pension under section 6, 8 or 9 or who would have been entitled to such a pension if he had not died but had ceased to be a member on the date of his death, and is not survived by a widow to whom a benefit is payable under section 11 or, if such person is survived by such a widow, and she dies, there shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be payable to each of his children a pension of an amount equal to two-ninths of the pension which he has so received or would have so been entitled to or of an amount obtained by dividing four-ninths of such last-mentioned pension by the number of such children, whichever may be the lesser amount.
2. (2) If a member dies who would have been entitled to a benefit and interest in terms of section 7 if he had not died but had ceased to be a member on the date of his death and is not survived by a widow to whom a benefit is payable under section 11, there shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be payable to his children an amount to be divided amongst them in such manner as the Secretary may determine, equal to the amount of any benefit and interest to which such member would have been so entitled.;

in lines 37 and 38, to omit “the the children of a member”; in line 38 to omit “(a)” and to substitute “to the children of a person referred to in that subsection”; in line 40 to omit “member” and to substitute ” person”; and in line 48 to omit “(1) (b)” and to substitute “(2)”.

What is involved here, is briefly that in terms of the original clause 12 a person must still have been a member at his death in order to entitle his widow or children to benefits. If at his death he is not survived by a widow, the children also come Into it. But the position will now be that at his death both his widow and minor children will receive benefits, and the children after the death of his widow as well. In brief, this is what it amounts to. I think I shall content myself with this explanation.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for moving these amendments. They undoubtedly do meet a shortcoming that existed in the original Bill. These amendments will give added security particularly to younger members of the House who unfortunately due to circumstances might be placed in a position where they leave dependent children who might not otherwise have been able to receive any benefit as a result of the fact that their father was a member or a past member of this House. These amendments give added protection to these persons and we welcome them.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS; Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill has now reached the Third Reading stage and we would like to say that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as an important piece of legislation which will afford a degree of security to persons who have served in either of the Houses of Parliament. We believe that it is necessary that such provision should be made. This scheme has been in existence since 1951 and we know that various amendments and improvements have been brought about in the past so as to improve the pension scheme. Sir, we know too that pensions in the private sector, as well as in the State service, have been improved and that this is not a position which remains static. This legislation therefore aims to bring about the necessary improvement. We believe that it is fair and just in that the improvements which are being brought about here will be paid for by members of this House and of the Senate by way of increased contributions. I would like to say with regard to clause 2, dealing with the increase in contributions to be paid by members, that this is an aspect which unfortunately seems to have escaped the attention of the hon. member for Houghton. As far as the contributions are concerned, I want to point out that there have been increases in the contributions over the past few years. In 1965 the contribution was 5 per cent; it was then increased to 7½ per cent; it is now being increased to 8 per cent, and, of course, it is 8 per cent of the new basic salary of R6 500, which means that the contribution will now amount to R520 per annum, as compared with the previous contribution of R300 per annum. Sir, this is an increase of some 73 per cent in the contribution payable.

I think it is important to mention this fact, particularly since many people outside may be under a complete misapprehension as to what the contents of this Bill really entail. Sir, I know that I am not allowed to quote from a Press report on this debate, but when one looks at the reports in this afternoon’s newspapers, one sees that only one speech is reported and that is the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. No other speech has been reported at all to show what the contents of this Bill are. In the report of the speech of the hon. member for Houghton, not one word is said about the fact that increased contributions have to be paid by members in order to make these increased benefits possible. This is an extremely important principle which is involved, particularly in view of the fact that the 8 per cent contribution that is made is in fact twice the contribution that is made by civil servants, which was reduced in 1968 to 4 per cent. Consequently the basis of this legislation makes it clear that increased contributions are required to meet increased expenditure as far as these improved benefits are concerned. I believe that it is the duty of this House to see that adequate provision is made for the people who are serving in this House and in the Other Place and who serve the public in general as public representatives. This Bill provides improvements. It is a consolidating measure, and the hon. member for Houghton, in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, in effect also opposed the other provisions of this Bill, if one takes it to the conclusion to which it is often taken when a person opposes anything at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. We on this side of the House believe that this is a necessary Bill and one which serves the purpose it is required to serve.

First of all I wish to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I am not responsible for what is or what is not published in the Press. [Interjections.] It is nice of hon. members to think that I am able to dictate to the Press what they should publish. I am delighted that they think I have such powers. But let me give them a bit of advice, since it seems to irk them so terribly that I get publicity where perhaps they do not. They only have to say something worth reporting. It is as simple as that. If they want any assistance or advice, this is the advice I give them. Shall I put it this way: Am I responsible for anything that is reported in the Cape Times or other papers?

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to what the hon. member said, and in all fairness I think I must be given that opportunity, since you, Sir, allowed him to put his point of view. I may also say that in the course of my speech yesterday I mentioned that increased contributions would have to be paid. In fact, I gave the exact figures. I said that what it would amount to over the next 10 years is that members would contribute R5 200. together with the R3 250 which they would have paid over the previous 10 years, thus indicating a rise in contributions from R325 a year to R520 a year, but in return for that they would be getting for life a pension of R6 500 per annum, which I said was a pretty good return by anyone's standards. So nobody can say that I did not refer to the increased contributions. If it was not reported, that is not my fault. Of course there are increased contributions, but by anybody’s standards it is a good return and hon. members should not grumble at having to pay this increased contribution.

May I ask a question?

No. What the hon. member for Umbilo said about Civil Service pensions does not really advance his own argument very much, because civil servants do not end up with a 100 per cent pension after 20 years. At the very most they end up with three-quarters of their salaries. They do get a gratuity of 4,5 per cent, which I also mentioned yesterday. But none of that comes near the pension which is now being granted, especially to those occupying special offices in Parliament. As far as the widows of public servants are concerned. I do not think they continue to draw their pensions if they remarry. So I think these are differences which might be brought out.

I have nothing further to add to the arguments I used yesterday. I have nothing whatever against members being rewarded for their years of service. But whether they are young members or old members, they all come into this House knowing what the conditions are. They come into this House not only for the monetary reward, but they come in because of the kudos and the various other advantages of being a Member of Parliament and everything it carries with it. They come in because they are political animals, as I said earlier, and we do not have to look for special rewards for this political job. We all know exactly…

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am just finishing off. We all know exactly what coming into politics entails and we all know the risks that obtain. We know the insecurity. I must say that we opt to do this and for that reason I do not think we can expect such tremendous rewards. Furthermore, very few people rely entirely upon what they get in this House and many people have got means which are far beyond my own. I say this because this point is always raised in this House. I do not have farms which I can offset against my other income, such as many hon. members in this House. For all these reasons and for the reasons I gave earlier, I think the additional benefit which the House is now asked to vote, particularly to those members carrying special offices, are far in excess, percentagewise, of any additional reward which they should be getting. I am going to vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question before she sits down?

She has already sat down.

Order! No.

Mr. Speaker, nobody ever denied that this Bill is going to bring increased benefits to hon. members. These are benefits long overdue. Therefore I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Houghton.

I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for the help he has given us. I must also acknowledge at this stage the hon. member’s assistance in the formulation of this amendment. I must also thank him for his elucidation of the contents of this Bill. I want to say something “worth reporting”, in the words of the hon. member for Houghton, by moving that the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chair, man, I have a few positive ideas I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and which I wish to discuss with him. One of the great problems of the Coloured population is that they are not industrious and that they are not productive enough. This was recognized years ago, and the training centre at Faure was established. Excellent work is being done there. Industrialists want those people as fast as they can get them. If they have been there for three months and are disciplined, the industrialists want them. What has now happened there? The Act states that Coloureds between the ages of 18 and 24 must register at their place of work. However, there is something drastically wrong, because no one can do anything and the Police can. not apprehend any person if he does not report. The result is that there are not enough people available for that one single centre. I think that this section should be changed in conjunction with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, for I feel that there is a need for at least six or seven centres in this country for Coloureds. The fact of the matter is not that there are so many idle layabouts, but that there are so many people who are unproductive. There are many young Coloured men who spend their time selling a few bottles here and reselling a few vegetables there. They can be used more productively, and I think the time has arrived for that Act to be changed in consultation with that Council.

I think we on this side of the House all want to associate ourselves with the idea expressed by the Minister, i.e. that there should be a narrowing of the gap between the salaries of White and Coloured teachers. We must all admit that the salaries of Coloured teachers had lagged behind. Since the Government took over Coloured education, I think I am correct when I say that White teachers received salary increases on three occasions, and the Coloured teachers on only one. I think this must be rectified. I want to pay the hon. the Minister and the Department a compliment today. We have heard many complaints and jeremiads here, but there is also a positive side to the argument.

On the Cape Flats one can with one’s eyes see what has happened and how many classrooms for Coloured children have been built. In a very short time provision was made for 70 classrooms. The Department did the work itself by making use of Coloureds at the rehabilitation centre in Kraaifontein. There is a rehabilitation centre in Kraaifontein, and it is those people whom the Department used to build those classrooms in these rapidly growing Coloured townships. It is worth taking the trouble to go there and have a look at them. I think the Department can feel proud of what they have established at Kraaifontein and what Kraaifontein has in turn established as far as these classrooms are concerned.

I think the Department can also be very proud of what they are doing at the Landdros Hotel which is owned by Coloureds and which now serves as a training centre for Coloured waiters. Hotel owners in the Western Cape have always complained that Coloureds do not want to work in hotels, and that Bantu then have to be employed. I think this was attributable to a lack of discipline, but if these people can be disciplined in such a way as is at present being done at the Landdros Hotel, they will be able to replace all the Bantu working in hotels here in the Western Cape. It is a fact that when those people have received their training they are very reliable workers, and as far as I am concerned, much better workers, too, than the Bantu for this purpose.

Three years ago we undertook a tour here in the Peninsula on the invitation of the Department. Now, after three years, we went again. Three years ago things did not look too favourable, even where there were new houses standing. On the Flats it seemed as if they were standing in the middle of a desert. Today fine townships are developing there, and after three years it really looks like an oasis. I think it must have been a revelation for the United Party members who went on that tour. There are still depressed areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained about housing. but those poor houses still date from their time. We began this tour in District Six in regard to which there was such a tremendous conflict. This terrible situation dated from their time. Our policy has not yet had a chance to unfold there, because we had this tremendous struggle and because we had incitement by that side among the Coloured population. In truth, we were only able to begin to take positive action in 1964, Only since 1964 was a measure of co-operation received from the Coloureds. We need not be ashamed of what has been established. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Department and the Coloured Persons Council for what has now, under this new dispensation, been established precisely because there has been that co-operation.

The tragedy in regard to this entire matter is that the United Party with their policy wants to take the Coloureds back to something which has already failed. Where we now have the Coloured Person’s Representative Council, with its executive, they want to undo it. It is the United Party which is jealous. Not the Coloureds, but the United Party, do not want the liaison which exists on the highest level, for which the Coloureds themselves asked. They say that this should not be done on the highest level, but that the United Party should also be represented there. If I may advise the Executive of the Coloured Person’s Representative Council, I will tell them that, if they want to do something positive, they must retain this liaison on the highest level, for these are the leaders who represent the Coloureds on the highest level. I would tell them that they must not return to what has failed, but that they must retain this liaison. The United Party is advocating liaison with this Parliament. They are doing so as a delaying tactic, as they have done all these years. They will, on a Select Committee, on which they are represented, not come forward with one single positive idea. All the ideas they have expressed since this debate began yesterday, have been tried and all have failed. Coloured representation in this House established nothing for the Coloureds in South Africa. No-one can point to the results of that, just as the representation the Bantu had here did not accomplish anything either. I want to tell the Coloured population today that they must no longer allow themselves to be led by the noses, they should not listen to the beguiling voice of the United Party promising them equality. Since 1854 and since they obtained the franchise the Coloureds have been promised equality. But what did it bring? Integration caused the Coloureds to end up in the slums of District Six. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury has now told us very rowdily how Coloured representation in this House failed. The Coloureds were represented here for 12 years, after a policy announcement of the National Party in 1948. At the time it was lauded as the solution. Does the hon. member now want to tell me that the Coloured representation we had here, and which the late Dr. Verwoerd was not prepared to do away with, was a failure? Does the hon. member want to tell me that the handiwork of his party, the recorded policy of his party, was such a resounding failure? Is that what the hon. member is telling us? No. he cannot influence this Committee with that type of argument.

Before I leave the hon. member’s speech and go on to something else, I just want to put a question to him. He congratulated the hon. the Minister here on the fact that there will now be a narrowing of the gap between the salaries of, inter alia, professional Whiles and Coloureds. I should like there to be no misunderstanding in this connection. As I understood the announcement of the hon. the Minister it will mean that there will not only be a narrowing of the gap, but that a time will in fact arrive when the salaries will be the same. I may have misunderstood the hon. the Minister, and I should like to have certainty in this connection. Does the hon. member for Malmesbury understand me? [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Minister explain that point to me.

I shall read out the statement again.

I am glad the hon. the Minister is going to make it clear again, because I should just like to remind the Committee that, relatively speaking, that side of the House was until very recently strongly opposed to the question of narrowing the gap. I do not want to criticise them now; I do not want to rub salt into the wound. In fact, I want to congratulate the hon. members. It will not be the first time that that party has with good results copied the policy of the United Party.

When the hon. the Minister rose for the first time yesterday, he said that he was dealing with a very important matter, a matter for which the country had been waiting a long time. He said this to us because there is in South Africa today a controversy in regard to the Coloureds and their relations with the Whites in South Africa. This is a controversy which has been unleashed and is today almost raging among all thinking Nationalists. They are, more than any other, the people who are concerned about this. What is the essence of that controversy? It has nothing to do with socio-economic upliftment; it has nothing to do with education. These are very important matters. I concede that. I believe they are extremely important. But the essence of the controversy which has developed among the Afrikaners today, has developed as the result of one single question, i.e. what is the political home the Coloureds will have to occupy in the future pattern of South Africa. That is the polemic. That is the essence of the controversy.

Let us now consider the matter in this way; Until the recent announcement of the parallel development policy the approach of the Nationalist Party to both the Bantu and the Coloureds was precisely the same. The Coloureds and the Bantu, as far as political philosophy was concerned, slept under the same blanket; they slept on the same bed.

That is not true.

Yes, they slept under the same political blanket. It was so to such an extent that the National Party even removed the Coloured representatives from this House, in exactly the same way as they had done to the Bantu representatives.

I do not want to go into this matter but as far as the Bantu are concerned, the National Party did at least have a theoretical answer, but nothing more. They were able to give a theoretical answer because they could offer the Bantu an area of their own. They could offer them territorial separation. They lagged behind a little with the same type of decision in regard to the Coloureds. But recently they had to arrive at the conclusion—they had no option— that there was simply no separate area for the Coloureds. The moment that decision was taken, and I wonder how final it is, the entire viewpoint of the National Party as regards the Coloureds in South African politics collapsed like a pack of cards. Figuratively speaking, the Coloureds were kicked off the bed from underneath that blanket. Today they are lying out in the political vacuum which was created, the thinking Nationalist says that things cannot be allowed to continue in this way. We are not dealing here with a small minority group, we are dealing with two million people in South Africa and sooner or later we shall have to give these people a say in the political structure, the organic unity of South Africa,

Territorial separation, the one alternative of the Nationalist Party, has fallen away; it no loner exists. Now. there is another alternative, which is total integration. That was their view: either separation or integration, Which one of the hon. members on that side of the House now stands for the alternative of total integration? Not one. The substance of their territorial separation policy has been destroyed. Total integration they do not want, and now they tell us that they have begun to think. What are they thinking of? There are no further alternatives left, apart from the third alternative, the policy of the United Party. That is the only alternative. If hon. members on that side tell us that they are thinking about it, they are simply leading the people of South Africa up the garden path. They are simply trying to find methods of taking the policy of the United Party and making it theirs. They want to steal our policy without the people realizing it. Now we hear the words “full human rights”, “equal human rights”, “no ceiling and no roof over the Coloureds”. Sir, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I want to say that I marvelled at his childish honesty yesterday. How can a man of his integrity—and that I accept—and honesty towards the Coloureds stand up here in the House of Assembly of South Africa and try to explain a policy which is certainly quite groundless? How can the hon. gentleman tell us that there is no ceiling? How can he try to create the impression that there will be two Parliaments? Sir, he may just as well say that there will be three or four Parliaments. The question is not how many Parliaments there are in South Africa. The question is: “Which Parliament governs South Africa?” If that hon. the Minister tells us that he is prepared to extend his hand to the Coloureds and that he wants the Coloureds to take his hand, then I say to him through you, Sir: I marvel at your willingness, but you cannot expect the Coloureds to take your hand unless you make of the Coloureds, not second-class inhabitants of South Africa, but people with status, by means of political representation in this highest council chamber of South Africa. Now I want to say something else to the Minister and what I say to him now will come to haunt him. There is no doubt about that. The more the Nationalist Party proceeds with the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloureds, the higher the Coloureds’ level of education becomes, and the more Coloured matriculants there are in South Africa, the greater the political vacuum of the policy of the Nationalist Party will be, and the greater the frustration of the Coloureds will become, The greater that frustration, the nearer these people will approach to the point of explosion in South Africa. That is what my Leader has warned against. We foresee the day when the White people of South Africa—if I may use the word used by the hon. member for Moorreesburg— may need their ” Brown” compatriots, and where will we find them? Will we find them on the side of our enemies or on the side of our friends? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland has carried on very pompously now about full human rights for the Coloureds. I should like to ask the hon. member for Maitland…

You are asking it too late now.

Sir, surely the hon. member can reply. He is interrupting now. He will be able to reply to me. I should like to ask the hon. member for Maitland: Does he regard it to be full human rights for the Coloureds if his party restricts them to six representatives in this House? Did the eyes of his party only open the other day, for only certain Coloureds with certain qualifications had the franchise in one province? Are those full human rights?

Mr. Chairman, may I reply? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, we are grateful for this debate, which served more than any previous debate to indicate the vast difference between the approach of responsibility by the Government in respect of the Coloured problem, and the approach of opportunism of the Opposition, and has again become apparent now from the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland. Mr. Chairman, I think it became clearer to any observer from this debate that there is on the part of the Government a real application of thought and of practical methods to develop the Coloured population of South Africa into an asset for themselves and an asset for South Africa.

Who wrote that?

I wrote it myself; I am not ashamed of it. The hon. member will find it well worth the trouble if he would also think before he speaks and set his ideas down in writing. Sir, I am now going to give the hon. member for Maitland even more of what I wrote down after having first thought about it. It is that this debate also indicated that as far as the standpoint of the Opposition is concerned, the Coloureds are merely utilized by them to suit their political purpose, and that they do not really concern themselves about the lot of the Coloured population itself. That is their approach. When I say this, Sir, then I also say it in respect of the statement which was recently made by the leader of the party of the hon. member for Houghton. In addition, this debate disclosed that parallel development, in our particular situation in South Africa, is the only guarantee of progress and development among the Coloureds. This was demonstrated to us by the figures and the data conveyed so effectively by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs here yesterday. In the second place the debate showed that this policy of parallel development in fact affords opportunities for positive plans for the Coloureds among the Whites, the Party in power, because as a result of parallel development the area of friction which previously existed, has been eliminated. In the third place it disclosed that this policy affords full scope and opportunity for those who are sincere in their intentions. I want to emphasize the words “sincere in their intentions” in the same sense in which the hon. the Minister referred to this yesterday, i.e. that we should not merely play with the Coloureds, and intimate to them that our intentions towards them are not honest. For those who want to help the Coloureds to help themselves, there is every opportunity under this policy to do so. In the fourth place it indicated that it has enabled the Government in particular to do much that is positive for the Coloureds. Again I want to refer to the particulars furnished yesterday by the hon. the Minister. But then, in the last place. it also showed that this policy is affording the Coloureds themselves, and particularly the leaders among the Coloureds, an opportunity to speak up for themselves and to speak up on behalf of their own people, and not only to speak up, but also to act in the interest of the Coloured population itself.

Mr. Chairman, the trouble with the United Party is that its thinking is dominated by the old colonial outlook, i.e. that patching-up work is done to a situation such as that of the Coloureds, which they then want to try and justify on moral grounds. They are trying to soothe their own conscience. Sir, surely that is the same approach we had during the colonial era, i.e. to give such a group of people a vestige of political rights, and then not to concern yourself further about their fate. The United Party learns the hard way. They are always a few decades behind the National Party in their thinking, as far as this matter is concerned as well. The Progressive Party on the other hand paints a wonderful theoretical Heaven on earth for the Coloureds.

No, just citizenship.

Yes, Sir, we know that expression by now. The hon. member has said “just citizenship”. The hon. member for Maitland has now spoken about full citizenship, but what does it mean? He paints that picture without being able to apply in practice what he is preaching. Sir, I want to say today that if the policy of the Progressive Party were to be applied in respect of the Coloureds, it would be a policy of discrimination in its worst form.

Are you not discriminating now?

Why?

I say it will be a policy of discrimination because that is a rich man’s party whose outlook it is to give those handful who have made progress a place in the sun, but to ignore the vast majority of the Coloureds who actually need a helping hand, and not to concern themselves about them. That is why I say the approach of the Progressive Party is discriminative.

May I ask a question?

No, I have only 10 minutes time. The hon. member can rise after me and speak. One of the leaders of the Coloured population himself said, a day or two ago. to an Afrikaans afternoon newspaper, that he accused the Progressive Party, and that organization NUSAS as well, for having created bad relationships between Coloureds and Coloureds and between Coloureds and the White community. I want to go further today and say that the role of the Progressive Party, as now disclosed by its new leader who is trying to build a new image for himself and his party, is to try to influence the Coloureds, or certain sections of them they are able to influence, to deny and demolish the positive institutions we have established in their own interest. I want to join that Coloured leader in warning that if the Coloured population were to fall for this Progressive Party subterfuge, it would be seeking its own downfall. Everyone in this House will probably concede today that the Coloured population in South Africa finds itself in a less favourable position and that it finds itself in that position not for reasons which came about under the policy of parallel development, but for reasons which had been developing for decades and generations before the advent of this Government as a result of circumstances in South Africa, and which had been developing as a result of circumstances which that side of the House had more opportunity to do something about. Every sober observer will also probably admit that the kind of approach of the Progressive Party and of the United Party in the past brought the Coloureds nothing positive. And in the same way everyone must admit that if we want to do something to this position in which the Coloureds at present find themselves, it will have to be a process of evolution, taking into account the reasons for the backward position of the Coloureds, and that it cannot be a process of revolution, as the Progressive Party is trying to prescribe.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said that the conference and symposiums which are being held among Nationalists are signs of mistrust in the Government’s policy of parallel development, and the leader of the Progressive Party sees in that phenomenon an opportunity to believe that the youth support him and his party. I want to set them straight today and tell them that they are completely wrong. That dialogue on the Coloureds and their lot among a broad spectrum of Nationalists, is proof of how the National Party-orientated public of South Africa is joining the Government in thinking and thinking seriously and honestly about this matter, and how it is prepared to help the Government to do something positive for the Coloureds.

In the end it is not going to depend on you, but on the Coloured people themselves.

The leader of die Progressive Party, with his approach, will not accomplish anything positive for the Coloureds, for he does not want to teach them to help themselves. [Time expired.]

I shall leave the hon. member for Stellenbosch and the hon. member for Houghton to each other, for during the last two elections there has only been one party in South Africa which has made progress, and that is the United Party, and this shows that young South Africa rejects both those parties. [Interjections.] When I closed yesterday evening, I was saying that South Africa, including young South Africa was, as it had seldom done in the past, laying bare to its absolute core and discussing the question of the political future of its Coloured community, I had expressed the hope that when the Whites ventured into this sphere, they would not be prejudiced against this community, but that they would view the entire matter in its correct perspective, Mr. Chairman, if there is one case which it has been possible to make out in the course of this debate, it is that South Africa is the fatherland and the homeland of both Whites and Coloureds, that Whites and Coloureds form part of one South Africa.

What does that imply for us? In the first place it means that Whites and Coloureds on a social, residential and at least to a local management level and a community or group level, can move forward together along a parallel course, according to South African traditions, conventions and customs. In the second place, when the political rights of the Whites and the Coloureds are placed side by side, the common South Africanism of the two communities or groups and the common love and loyalty towards one South Africa is a factor in any future development. The Coloured community, without a homeland of its own in which its political aspirations can be realized, compels you and I to confer upon the Coloureds political rights and the franchise in South Africa, up to the highest level. We can differ as to the method, but South Africa accepts that owing to the social, residential and the community or group dividing lines in terms of South African traditions, conventions and customs, would be advisable to grant this on a separate voters’ roll and to grant defined representation in this House to the Coloured community of South Africa. Without this basic background, these people will for all time remain mere subjects and can never become true citizens of South Africa. Co-ordination and common survival among the Coloureds as a group and the Whites as a group requires drastic action.

Recently the hon. the Prime Minister, according to Die Burger of 23rd February, admonished young South Africa at Stellenbosch and said that the Coloureds were not an appendage of the Whites. But he went on to say that the best opportunities for people of another colour in South Africa lay in separate development. Sir, with all due respect, as far as the South African Coloured community and the Government’s philosophy is concerned, this statement means very little indeed.

Morality has become the watchword when members on the opposite side discuss South Africa's race relations policy in this House. Give unto others what you want for yourself, the sky is the limit, multi-nationalism, equal opportunities, one man one vote and no solid, immovable ceiling above those of another colour. The hon. the Prime Minister has now admonished the youth of South Africa and told them that the Coloureds are not an appendage of the Whites. The approach of this Government and the Coloured policy of this hon. Minister ensures in fact that the Coloureds will always bring up the rear and will always remain an appendage of the Whites. Let us be honest: Does this Government give the Coloureds everything they appropriate for themselves? Is the sky the limit for the Coloureds of South Africa as well? Is multi-nationalism also the end result for the Coloureds? Do the Coloureds have equal opportunities in all respects? Do the Coloureds in South Africa have one man one vote? Is there no solid, immovable platform above the Coloureds of South Africa when we come to the argument of the hon. member for Newton Park that the Coloureds in South Africa will have no say whatsoever about the defence and the foreign affairs of the country?

I have already during the course of this Session tried to indicate that separate development or multi-nationalism, in terms of the Government’s philosophy, was tacked on to the Bantu, hut that what remains for the Coloureds was White domination. The shift in emphasis during the course of this session by members of the opposite side from separate development in respect of the Coloureds to parallel development indicates clearly the watering-down of the multi-nationalism philosophy of the National Party in respect of Coloureds. What do the Coloureds have today? A Coloured Persons Representative Council with limited powers and a Government-nominated majority. This idea of a Coloured Persons Representative Council—we would call it a Coloured Communal Council, according to the speech made by my hon. Leader yesterday—fits very aptly into the federal pattern idea of the United Party. But then hon. members opposite speak about morality! The powers as spelt out by my hon. Leader give the Coloured Communal Council which we envisage far more and far more responsible rights than are at present being given to the Coloured Persons Representative Council by this Government. I am giving only one example, i.e. the right of those people to demand taxes in order to look after and to administer their own affairs. In addition to that my Leader said that there must be representation for those people here in this House, by their own people if they so prefer. In addition to that will be a standing statutory liaison committee consisting of members of this Council and members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

What morality is there in a permanent inferior body for the Coloureds in terms of the Government approach?

I want to know from this hon. the Minister whether he accepts that the Coloured must, as a permanent community within one geographic territorial entity, enter the future together with the Whites of South Africa. Does he expect the love and loyalty of the Coloured community together with the Whites towards one common fatherland of South Africa? Does he grant the Coloureds their legitimate citizenship together with the Whites of South Africa? We must understand each other very well in regard to this aspect. We on this side of the House accept the principle of decentralization of government in respect of the Coloureds, but only to administer affairs and to control what affects the Coloured community personally. I take it that the powers and functions of the present Coloured Persons Representative Council are geared to function in the same way as the White provincial councils administer and control matters of personal interest for the Whites. But if the hon. the Minister or his Government are able to tell us whether they accept the Coloured community of South Africa as a permanent community within the one geographic territorial entity, as citizens of the same South Africa, and require and expect the love and loyalty of the Coloureds towards South Africa, just as in the case of the Whites, we have taken a further step in the right direction.

What is the future of the Coloured Persons Representative Council? Would it be a body with limited powers, a permanent back seat occupant, an appendage of the Whites or does this Government have the courage to give the Coloured community its legitimate representation here in this House so that they can also share in those matters affecting the country as a whole? This is after all the country in which they are permanently resident and the country towards which they have loyalty and love. This is the country whose citizenship the Coloureds bear together with us.

There is the alternative, i.e. White domination over the Coloureds, which means a Coloured Persons Representative Council which will at all times occupy an inferior position to this hon. House, will at all times be an appendage of the Whites and will always bring up the rear. The days of this bluff and this rotten apple are numbered. The Coloureds of South Africa see the dishonesty of this Government lying before it in all its naked reality. This also sees, and they view the approach of the Nationalist Party with scepticism.

Mr. Chairman, of course, I also listened with interest to the hon. young member at the back who, in his impetuosity, does sometimes look more like a person who is already getting senile. Nevertheless, I must listen to the ideas of members on the opposite side of the House. My attention was drawn in particular to what was said by the hon. member for Maitland. He gave out that the statement made by the hon. the Minister yesterday had now introduced something new into our policy. If the hon. member knows what is going on in this House, he ought to know that I said four months ago that we were thinking along the lines of narrowing the salary gap between Whites and non-Whites. I laid down certain conditions, and I repeated them yesterday.

You were thinking of that.

Of course. And we are still thinking of that, and we are also doing something about that. But we are not going to say every day what is being done. We do enough, and we speak less than the members opposite do.

The same applies to the question of compulsory education. Months ago I indicated here to the hon. member what we intend doing and what we had been doing over the past number of years. And yet that matter is brought up year after year. In the meantime we are engaged in giving those people what they on their part can absorb. We must also have regard to what we, on our part, can contribute to the very best of our ability.

I should like to elaborate on a few points which I mentioned yesterday. One of these is the question of the bad feelings which exist in this country between the White and the non-White groups. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who was the main speaker, yesterday referred to this matter in particular. At the time he pointedly emphasized that Mr. Tom Swartz, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, expressed concern at a possible fifth column, which could develop as a result of the grievances of the people, because they could not get certain things. I think he missed the gist of what Mr. Swartz meant. He said, and I quote—

That is precisely what I said.

My initial charge yesterday was that there were political groups and individuals who did everything in their power to bedevil the bad feelings between our population groups and between man and man. They often do so for motives which cannot stand the light of day. I thought of a few cases, and, in fact, I mentioned a few of them, but I did not have enough time to develop the argument fully. I spoke of the United Party, and I referred to the way in which the United Party brought up these matters early and late, sometimes in an irresponsible manner.

That is nonsense.

Yes, that may be the hon. the Leader’s opinion, and he is entitled to it. I also referred to the Progressive Party, which never failed to promise people the sun, the moon and the stars from day to day. Then I also referred to the Labour Party of the Coloureds. I referred to the Labour Party, because I have the right to speak about them, because they echo the opinions of the Whites and because they only want integration and nothing else. In fact, this has repeatedly been published in their own press. I referred to them as people who, through boycott actions and nothing but a measure of incitement were stirring up this feeling, and to my regret I must say that the press is also taking a hand in this. They are taking a hand in this by continually referring to this type of thing. In this way they are by no means helping to bring about better relations among people. It is even possible that there are well-meaning people who hold Nationalist views, who are Nationalists, and who are also doing it in this way.

As against this, however, not a word is ever said about the good work mentioned here by the hon. the Minister. Nothing is said about the good work done by the Department of Coloured Relations, which is working day and night and does not only talk. There is the Administration of Coloured Affairs, and the Coloured leaders, some of whom have been elected and others nominated. However, this is not relevant, for this is how it has always been in the process of development. I raised this point yesterday. The Coloured leaders who are co-operating with us, and the White officials who are assisting the Coloureds is order that justice may be done to their administration—there are still a thousand of them—and the cooperation of the Coloureds during the recent festival, deserve our appreciation. I want to refer in particular to the cooperation which we obtained in the course of the recent festival amongst all strata of society, notwithstanding the subtle and open boycott action that was in progress there. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister expressed yesterday a word of thanks to these people and to the Whites who put their hands into their pockets and established the Mission Trust. Furthermore, we should minister to the spiritual needs of the Coloureds in cases where they have severed their ties with the church, and in referring to that, we are not referring to a particular denomination, We want these people, too, to believe firmly in the spiritual values.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister did not mention this here yesterday, but a short while ago I heard of an insurance company which was already paying its Coloured employees and its White employees the same salaries. The only principle that is valid here, is the principle of productivity, the principle of value and the principle of what a person produces. I have little appreciation for negative persons. I also here little appreciation for those people who are obsessed with the political aspect of the matter at a time when the practical aspect should receive attention and at a time when the socio-economic need of these people is crying to high heaven. As Dr. Verwoerd said, there is a time for everything.

If there is any time left, I should like to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on one or two points that were raised by him yesterday. He tried to create the impression yesterday that the words “parallel development” were something new. I want to tell him that as long ago as during the years preceding 1950, Dr. Malan spoke about parallel development, which, like two railway lines, never converged: however, between those railway lines there were sleepers. In 1968 the present Minister of Labour, who was Minister of Coloured Affairs at the time, said that no matter what happened, the development in South Africa would proceed along the course of parallel development. Hon. members opposite cannot remember, and then they come forward with a new story every time. [Interjections.] The memories of hon. members are rather short when it comes to these matters. They forget certain matters too easily. The National Party has been developing its policy under the eyes of the United Party, and when, all of a sudden, they see that this policy is successful, they say that it is their policy. How desperate an Opposition must be of it cannot make a good suggestion at least once a year? There may be things which hon. members opposite suggested and which are good… [Interjections.] Give me a chance t0 make my speech, or do hon. members not want to listen? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to services which we had to delegate to the Coloureds, and amongst other things he mentioned health. Does he not know that these people hardly have as many doctors as I can count on my fingers? They cannot take over their own health services. On many State administrative levels we still have to assist the Coloureds in every respect.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also a stranger in the Jerusalem as regards the local authorities granted to them. In all 43 consultative committees, 25 managing committees, six partly elected committees and quite a number of management boards in rural areas have been delegated to Coloureds. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned a liaison committee, on which members of Parliament as well as members of the Opposition would serve. I now want to ask hon. members opposite whether they will co-operate. Are they going to abandon the negative influence they have been exercising on the Coloureds, and are they going to co-operate on the basis of parallel development? If not, surely they will only be handicapping our work and we shall only be wasting our time with such a committee. In any case, the people who are the spokesmen for the Coloureds today, want to continue along the course of parallel development, and if we afforded hon. members opposite the opportunity of serving on such a committee, surely they would bedevil this development.

No.

Of course. Hon. members opposite do not want to commit themselves to co-operating for the good of these people. Hon. members opposite referred to Mr. Swartz and his grievances, and then they Want to hold these things against the Government. But has the charge against him not always been that he is a puppet? Mr. Swartz and his people speak frankly. He has every right to speak frankly, and if he differs with us, he says so. We are doing our best to meet him half way, and if we differ with him, we say so. We acknowledge the human dignity of these people.

Hon. members also referred to facilities for Coloureds in the Nico Malan Theatre. Are hon. members opposite not aware that these people have the Joseph Stone Auditorium, which seats 450 people? Have they ever been there? Do they not know that the Coloureds also have the Luxurama? Do they not know that in this regard the Coloureds had better facilities before we were given such facilities? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the previous time I spoke, I was discussing the Progressive Party and the effect their attitude had on the Coloureds. Now I want to go on to say that the Progressive Party’s point of view, which it has been putting forward in regard to the Coloureds, will by no means help to improve the Jot of the Coloureds, because that party does not take an interest in the Coloured population as such. That party is only interested in the Coloureds for the political advantage it may derive from showing such an interest. What the Progressive Party will in fact succeed in doing, is to take the United Party in tow in regard to this matter, as it has apparently succeeded in doing already. I say this because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition repeated here last night quite a number of things which Mr. Colin Eglin had said the other night. One of the things he mentioned, was that all the removals that were still to take place under the Group Areas Act, should not take place. [Interjections.] The United Party is also echoing his opinions. It also believes in separate residential areas so that there may be order, but as soon as one tries to perfect that order, it is prepared to run after the Progressive Party. Further proof to the effect that the United Party has been taken in tow, is what happened at that conference to the hon. member for Turffontein and his friend. This is one piece of evidence in support of my statement. It was for that reason that the hon. member did not discuss Coloured Affairs in his first speech yesterday, but held in this House a United Party youth conference. That is why our Coloured population will not make any progress with these two parties.

As far as the United Party is concerned, I want to ask the hon. members today, when they have so much to say about full citizenship and rights and the progress of the Coloureds, whether there can be any full citizenship if their representation in this House is limited to six. What is more, in this debate we are still waiting for a reply to this question: Who is going to elect those people? Until a few years ago the United Party’s standpoint was: Back to the common voters’ roll: but the names of people could only be included in that roll on certain conditions, i.e. only in the Cape Province and only Coloured males. I should like to know from the United Party by whom these six representatives in this House are going to be elected, and by whom this so-called communal council is going to be elected. I want to remind them today that there was a time when they had such a dual system, when some people were elected to this House, admittedly not from Coloured constituencies, but at the mercy of the Coloured electorate alone. Parallel to that there was a body, which they now want to call a communal council, namely the old Coloured Advisory Council.

Oh!

I can understand why the hon. members are saying “Oh”. The hon. member should merely consider what happened when those two bodies existed side by side, something which they now want to re-introduce, but did not work out. The Coloured Advisory Council, which was established by his party, was subsequently dissolved by his own Government, because that Council boycotted the meetings. I hope that hon. members will, from the lessons of the past, now learn what their policy amounts to.

Allow me, Sir, just to say in conclusion that in its intentions our Government is honest and sincere about the progress of our Coloured population. In the newspapers we read about meetings, where pleas are made for the economic progress of the Coloureds, for this or that to be done and for this or that not to be done. I want to say today that I believe in this. I do not believe in restrictive legislation in respect of the economic progress of the Coloureds, but I believe that, if we as Whites want to be honest with the Coloureds which they expect from us, we on our part should grant them all the assistance we can and see to it that their own business undertakings, also within the Coloured areas, are developed as rapidly as possible, I do not say this because I want to suggest that they do not have the right to buy in White areas as well, for they do the have that right. However, White businessmen should not speak or aot against the development in Coloured areas of business undertakings of their own by advancing the argument that our economy cannot afford to give them their own undertakings. One of the most important tests of the honesty of the White South African towards the Coloured population is that we should also grant them those opportunities which we grant ourselves, and that we should give to them and help them so that they may be afforded those opportunities as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to a few other matters, I want to say that the hon. the Minister is also the Minister of Rehoboth Affairs. In November last year he paid a visit to Rehoboth, and on that occasion he opened new administration offices there. I have here a rather sensational report, which was published in Dagbreek and in which it was stated that there had been demonstrations, in the course of which posters displaying the words ” Pig” and “Loots—go away” were used. Subsequently the newspapers carried reports to the effect that they refused to pay taxes. I should very much like to hear an account from the hon. the Minister on what is going on there, and what progress the Government has made in bringing about more contentment amongst the people there. Sir, in the course of this debate there has emerged a certain phenomenon, which makes fruitful debate very difficult. Whenever we quote here what was said by leaders of the Coloured community itself—not us, but men like Mr. Tom Swartz and others who have been airing grievances—it is being said that we are prompting them. I think it is insulting of Ministers to adopt that attitude, namely that a Coloured leader cannot think for himself. Sir, if there is one thing which is eventually going to cause the Coloured Council to end in failure, it is that the Government refuses to listen when legitimate grievances are aired by Coloured leaders. All one gets from that side, is to hush things up, to pretend that nothing has happened and then to lay the blame al the door of the Opposition. That is the surest way of ensuring that the Council will eventually end in frustration and failure.

But there was another phenomenon, i.e. the use of fine-sounding words, but words which have absolutely no connection with reality. Sir, I appreciated the speech made by the hon. member for Piketberg. He is the only person on his side who displayed any realism in this entire debate, much more so than the hon. the Minister did. He did at least speak of full citizenship, and said that shortcomings still existed. The Minister followed this up by saying that there would be no ceiling for the Coloureds; that it would be possible for them to reach as high a political level as that of the Whites. At the time I merely put a simple question to the hon. the Minister, namely whether he envisaged a time, even in the most distant future, when this so-called White Parliament would have no control over anything affecting the Coloureds. He simply ran away from this question. Sir, several members referred here to their policy of ” full human dignity” for the Coloureds. But apartheid, as implemented by the Government, and human dignity are quite inconsistent with each other. The apartheid which is implemented by the Government, is a negation of human dignity, and one cannot mention the two words in the same breath. I want to mention an example to the hon. the Minister. Situated just beyond this street is the Metlife Building, where the Administration of Coloured Affairs is housed. The lifts in that building are clearly labelled “Coloureds” on the one side and “Whites” on the other side. I understand that there is a third lift which is labelled “non-Whites”, but I did not see it. Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: What happens when Mr. Frikkie Gaunt and Mr. Tom Swartz or Dr. Dick van der Ross enter the building at the same time on their way to the office of one of the three? Does the one have to enter the one lift and the other the other lift? Is this an acknowledgement of human dignity? I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will have the courage to reply to it today. What is the object of separate lifts in what is now the head office of the Department of Coloured Affairs? Does it have any meaning other than the Coloureds being told by their Government, “You are not good enough to enter the same lift with me”? What other meaning does it have? I want to put this question pointedly to him: Is he in favour of this kind of thing? If he is in favour of it. what is the motive, and does he regard this as an acknowledgement of human dignity? Has he ever asked himself what a young White child or a Brown child is to think when he witnesses this kind of thing? The first thought that will cross the mind of a White child will be that the Coloured person is not good enough to ride in the same lift with a White man. Sir. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a reply to this. As long as this kind of thing exists, where one tells another man, “You are not good enough to enter the same lift with me,” members on that side should not speak of human dignity, for these two things are just not reconcilable.

Sir, the question of the Nico Malan was raised here. The fact of the matter is that R12 million was spent, and that the Coloureds helped to pay that amount, and the end of the story is that even students who are studying the arts, drama, at a Coloured university, are not allowed to see the top-class performances and recitals presented there. Is that an acknowledgement of human dignity?

Are you against separate universities?

Sir, there are also various Afrikaans and English universities, and long before the National Party came into power, there was a Bantu university. This has nothing to do with apartheid. Sir, the hon. the Minister is the person who has to look after the interests of the Coloureds. I want to ask him whether he approves of what happened here in the case of the Nico Malan theatre, which is an insult to the Coloured community. As long as this kind of thing exists, hon. members in this House should not come forward with fine-sounding words about human dignity, for these are merely words which are hanging in the air and do not mean a thing. But of all the statements we heard from the hon. the Minister, the most unrealistic one is that the Coloured Council can develop up to a point where there will be no political ceiling above the heads of the Coloureds.

What about residential separation?

As far as residential separation is concerned, our policy is that we shall not do what they are doing, unilaterally, i.e. simply to take a man by the scruff of his neck and to cast him to the winds. We say that when people sit together and deliberate, and when they say “Let us divide the facilities”, just as the English and the Afrikaans-speaking sections sit together and then decide that there will be an English university and an Afrikaans university, then it is not apartheid. When people deliberate and when they make a just division, which suits everybody, it is not apartheid. That is the attitude we adopt, totally different from the unilateral compulsion applied by them; all the best parts are given to the Whites, and all the worst parts, all the bushy and all the windy parts, are held out to the Coloureds. That is our objection. I have yet to come across a single Coloured person, or an Indian or any other person, who has any objection to a fair division being made in a case where both interested parties jointly deliberate and decide on any matter. That is the difference between the two sides of this House.

But I say the most unrealistic point of view is that one can develop the Coloured Council into something on which there will be no ceiling. I want to tell the Minister that there is not one authority on constitutional law who will support that view, and if he can find such a person, bring us that man who will be able to explain to us, constitutionally, how the Coloured Council will ever have any special powers. Sir, today we are voting here R75 million for the Coloureds, an amount which will go to that council. Last year I asked the Minister this question, but he did not reply to me; however, I now want to ask him again to tell me over what part of that amount of R75 million that Coloured Council will have any power of disposal. One cent, or 100 cents or R1 000 or the R75 million? Or must they comply in full with the requirements prescribed for them by the hon. the Minister and the Government? The point is that they do not have the power to pay their own teachers salaries equal to those of the Whites. That amount of R75 million is merely a book amount. Previously it was tinder the control of Parliament, and all that has happened now, is that it is under the sole control of the Minister, and he tells the Coloured Council. ‘‘You get so much: this is for teachers; this is for welfare services; this is for administration” —and all they have to do, is merely to say yes. It is. therefore, of very little value. The residential and the living pattern of the Coloureds is such that whenever one travels along any arterial road or, by train, along any railway line, one finds that the Coloureds are living in residential areas, all of which form part of a White municipality, and this position will never change. There are a number of major concentrations, but in most cases the Coloureds will remain living in that pattern. On every level they are under the municipality or under the divisional council. or under the Provincial Council or under the House of Assembly. On every level the Coloured Council will be hanging in the air like a political appendix, a body which will have to ask on every political level, “Please, Master, on the municipal level you should kindly do this for our people; please, Master, on the divisional council level you should do this for us.” And this position will never change. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, many hon. members have taken part in this discussion. I want to thank all of them, on both sides of the House. I suppose you will permit me, Sir, to express a special word of thanks to the chairman and the vice-chairman of my Coloured Affairs group, and to the members of that group. I just want to add that I think all of us have probably been thinking yesterday and today of the secretary of this group, who is a friend to all of us, i.e. Mr. Gaffie Maree, the hon. member for Namaqualand, who is lying sick in hospital. He is my former benchmate. Our best wishes go out to him.

Mr. Chairman, really, I am not going to reply again this afternoon to the further political discussions conducted here. If I were to do that, I would have to discuss the whole matter from the beginning once again. I read my speech this morning, and I have it here with me. I am satisfied with the speech as it stands recorded. I think that if hon. members were to read that speech of mine, they would find in it a reply to every point that was raised here. Before proceeding to other matters, I just want to quote two passages from my speech. Two or three hon. members, and now again the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well, referred to the “ceiling” and the “parliaments”. What did I say? The hon. member for East London City put the following question to me:

I replied to that in the affirmative. Then the hon. member went on to say—

To this my reply was as follows—

will also be liaison, and we shall build up a system for living side by side in the political sphere as well.

To this I now add that the liaison will be the key-stone.

Now I just want to refer to the question of salaries, to which reference was also made by the hon. member for Maitland. The hon. member has already been told that it has been National Party policy for many years to narrow that gap. In practice that is what we are engaged in doing from day to day. The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that here in this Parliament at the beginning of this year. What did I say yesterday? I now want to quote in full the only passage in my speech which deals with salaries. It reads as follows—

Continuing, I said—

These are the two passages which I wanted to quote by from my speech, Furthermore, I just want to say now that I am going to reply to certain practical questions that were raised here. I shall be very brief.

As far as the hon. member for Zululand is concerned, I just want to tell him that the Dunns will remain where they are. Ownership will be transferred to them. On my part I am doing the little I can to expedite the matter. Moreover, I am still giving attention to the position of the indigenous Coloureds of Zululand.

As far as the Estimates and the expenditure of the Coloured Persons’ Representative council are concerned, I just want to say that it is true that the Executive Committee prepares a draft budget every year. This does admittedly follow in the footsteps of the Estimates for the previous year, but it is prepared by them. This is usually done between August and October. The budget is then submitted to me. Last year’s budget was also submitted to me. I examine it and I have the right to effect changes. Last year I did not effect any changes. I sign it, and then it is forwarded to the hon. the Minister of Finance for approval. If he wants to negotiate in that regard once again, he does so through me, and then it is sent back to the Executive Committee. Last year there were no further negotiations. Once the Minister of Finance has agreed to it, it appears in the Estimates as a lump sum. Subsequent to that we vote it here as a lump sum. The chairman of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Council, who is also their Minister of Finance in embryo, and who is at present the member of the Executive Committee charged with finance, then submits those estimates to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Those Estimates are then discussed by them. They have a Second Reading debate, just as we have. Subsequent to that the Estimates are discussed by them at a Committee Stage, item for item, just as is the case in this House. They criticize and they put forward suggestions. The entire Budget is therefore dealt with by them, and not one single cent of that amount may be spent prior to such expenditure having been approved by the Coloured Council. The procedure is, therefore, exactly the same as the one followed here by us. Hon. members may say that shortcomings still exist, but they should appreciate that this is the initial stage. How does one make a start with anything?

May I put a question? Do they, for instance, have the power to change the Budget in such a way that they may pay their teachers the same salaries as are received by White teachers?

No, they do not have that power as yet. The Budget is, of course, adjusted to the salaries that are paid That goes without saying. For instance, if their salaries were increased, next year’s Budget would obviously be adjusted so as to make provision for that. They do not have that power as yet, for they are still a separate part of our Public Service. Surely, not in my time, but in the distant future, they will have that power.

How distant?

Sir, now those hon. members want to know when, how and where it is going to happen. The fact of the matter is that we have placed ourselves on a course, which we can justify to those people. It will take time and hard work, but we shall attain that goal.

The hon. member only put a question to me in regard to Rehoboth Affairs. It is true that when I paid a visit there last year, there were posters and demonstrators. Actually, I felt sorry for the people at Rehoboth.

Where was the pig?

I think by that time the pig had already been slaughtered. As I have said, I actually felt sorry for those people for do hon. members know what happened? We went there from Windhoek, but we were delayed. The car in which I was travelling, broke down. I was subsequently given a lift by two detectives. When we arrived in Rehoboth, the detectives said to me, “Sir, would you mind if we drove round the back as there is a big tree under which I can park the car?” Then he drove round the back, and I noticed a group of people standing approximately 200 yards away from us. Then I said to the detective, “Could we not drive up to them? Are they not perhaps here to welcome me?” They turned out to be the group of demonstrators. The detective’s reply was, “Sir, they can do so in a moment.” Then he drove round the back in order to park under the big tree, and we entered the building by the back entrance. It was only then that I was told of the demonstration outside. On hearing that, I said, “Please tell the people to wait for a while. I want to come out so that they may at least have the satisfaction of staging their demonstration.” What I mean by that, is that if a person takes so much trouble, he should after all be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate. In a message I had them told to be so kind as to wait, but after our talks had been completed, and when I went outside, there was not a single one of them left. All I saw of the demonstration, was what was reported in the newspaper.

The hon. member wanted to know from me what attitude prevailed amongst those people at present. I am very pleased to be able to say that at present the attitude is much better than it was before. The other day their council, which did not want to get into touch with me at all, wrote me a letter, in which they asked whether they could see me. I replied that I was very pleased and that the door of my office was open to them. An appointment was subsequently arranged for last week or the week before last, and they were to come down to Cape Town to see me in my office, but after that a minor hitch developed, and they asked whether the interview could be postponed until after the Parliamentary session. I do not know whether they want to see my in Pretoria. At any rate, I am going to pay two visists to Windhoek for agricultural purposes, to open a congress and to open a show. I may just see them at the same time. However, I can tell you, Sir, that a major change has taken place. Hon. members can take this from me; they may ask me again next year. I think that the matter will be quite in order next year.

Then the hon. members for Walmer and Malmesbury put questions to me in regard to the cadet centre. Unfortunately it has not filled to capacity. We have room for 800 boys, and at the moment there are only 480. Now, it is rather difficult to plan another one for the Western Province if that one is not full. The hon. member for Malmesbury wanted to know whether we could not inquire into the reason why it is not full. There is a reason—it has to do with the registration and the production of their registration cards. We just know the boys who need it. The magistrates and the police know them. When we approach them and ask them where their registration cards are, they have eight days during which to produce them. They do not really want to go, and during this period of eight days they simply disappear. At the moment we are trying to see whether we cannot overhaul that administrative machine in order to get them there. We do not want people there who do not belong there, but we should like to get people there who have a need for being there, because we can do something worth-while for them. We want to teach them discipline. I attended a passing-out parade; I must say that one can be proud of those men. They show something. They remain there for three months, and for the rest of the year’s training, they are placed out with employers, who submit regular reports on them. We are very happy with the progress, for the employers’ reports state that those who have undergone the three months’ training and have been approved by us—some of them stay a little longer—are good workers. The scheme is working very well. We are keen to fill this one, for we are by no means unwilling to establish a second one in the Western Cape as well, if it proves to be necessary. What I do want to tell the hon. member for Walmer, is that this will possibly require a statutory amendment to the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Act next year. We shall ask next year that the Act be amended in order that we may fill this centre with these boys whom we cannot get hold of at the moment. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member for Walmer that I am more than sympathetic to the possibility of starting one in the Port Elizabeth area, even if this one is only 50 per cent full. If he should run into the Secretary for my department, he is welcome to discuss the matter with him at any time. I have already given instructions to that effect. We have not reached the planning stage as yet, but I think he may safely accept that we are very sympathetically disposed towards the idea of proceeding with that project.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? To what kind of employers do you send these people?

All kinds of employers, but mostly to factories. We do not simply place them out anywhere. We place them with employers, whom we feel are capable of following up and implementing the object of the scheme properly for us.

Are they properly paid?

The MINISTER; I do not know. They are of course paid the wages that any person starting in that line of employment receives. That is all I can say.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I asked in my speech last night whether the Minister envisaged that the activity or the scope of training could be broadened, so that, in addition to the disciplinary training they received, they could have technical training of some sort as well?

I know the hon. member inquired about that, and I was going to say something about the matter. That is also a matter that is under discussion. I can tell the hon. member that there are, of course, apparently some difficulties. For instance, I think that perhaps we will have to extend the period of training at the centre. It all depends on what type of basic techniques we want to teach. If, for instance, you want to teach a cadet the basics of carpentry, you will have to have a room or a building and the various machines and tools. We think it is a very good thing to give some sort of basic training even if you have to teach a man merely to lay a few bricks.

*Here in the Cape these people may also be taught to make fishing-nets, etc. One may also give these people an idea of the work done in the hotel industry. Once such a person leaves the centre, he will already have an urge to do something in a specific sphere. It is a good idea to increase his readiness for employment. I believe that this is one of the major needs among the Coloureds. I may just mention that the hon. the Prime Minister told me that I was to carry on with the development of these centres for cadets. He stands by me in this matter.

Then there is also the question of mechanics. We support the idea of mechanics very strongly. The Department of Labour has already discussed this matter with the trade unions. The position is that the trade unions have no objections, but then the apprenticeship of the Coloured lad as a mechanic apprentice must be served under a Coloured mechanic. The White trade union does not have any objections, but it is not prepared to apprentice Coloured lads to members of the White trade union. This is as far as the matter has been taken. Unfortunately we cannot take the matter any further in that respect. It is a matter which has my sympathy, and I am very keen to do it, but on that point we find ourselves faced with a closed door. As an alternative we are now trying to promote the matter as much as possible at the other end. Through the Coloured Development Corporation we are trying at present to assist as many Coloureds as possible in starting garages in the Coloured townships. The condition is that they must employ Coloured mechanics and enrol Coloured lads as apprentices. That is what is being done now.

Have any garages in fact been established in Coloured townships by the Coloured Development Corporation? Or is this something that is only envisaged but not as yet put into operation?

No, I think we have assisted a few. We have been negotiating with some of the oil companies in that direction. The matter will be further pursued. When I visited one or two of these townships not so long ago I did notice a few garages and filling stations. That is about all that I wish to say today.

Would the hon. the Minister before he sits down please reply to the issue I raised last night about the improvement in the working conditions of Coloured workers on farms and the fact that they are not under any proper supervision as far as hours of work and wages are concerned? A quarter of a million people are affected.

I did not deem it necessary to reply, because I think the Deputy Minister or somebody else replied. I could be under a wrong impression. It is a statement of fact to which I would not like to commit myself. I also am a farmer.

There are good ones and bad ones.

I also have my people in my employ. Just as you have good ones and bad ones in agriculture you have them in all walks of life.

Minimum conditions is what I want.

Well, then it is the principle you must raise. After all, there are farm labourers, domestic servants and so on. I can tell the hon. member that I know our farmers and particularly those in the winter rainfall area of the Western Cape who are in the agricultural union. I have served on organized agriculture for a number of years and I think that the farmers in the Western Cape are particularly keen to give their servants the best facilities such as housing, wages and other emoluments, they can. I think that it is important that farmers, as well as all employers. must treat their servants well.

Otherwise they can leave; they do not have to stay with their employer.

I think that the farmers are treating their servants well, but it is a matter of economics. Today I find that, if one does not treat one’s servants well, they leave.

They cannot because of the Master and Servants Act,

He can leave and go to other more remunerative employment. Therefore economic forces are actually forcing our farming people to pay more. Unfortunately the Coloured person merely wants to consider the cash wage he gets. In many cases he does not consider the house he gets, the free water, firewood, milk, meat, vegetables and everything else that goes with life on a farm. On the whole I think that this matter as well as any other matter must be considered. Our people must treat their servants well, which goes without saying.

Once again I want to thank all the members who took part in this debate.

May I just ask a question? In regard to the liaison between the Coloured Council and this Parliament, in terms of Government policy, has the possibility been ruled out altogether that in terms of Government policy it will be possible for Coloureds to obtain representation in this House in the future?

You should have opened your ears last night.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 45.—“Interior”, R5 600 000, 46.—“Public Service Commission”, R4 801 000, and 47.—“Government Printing Works”, R8 050 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 26.—“Interior”, R120 000, and 27.—“Public Service Commission”, R60 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? Before dealing with the Vote, I want to say that I have been informed that this is to be the last occasion during which we will debate this Interior Vote with Mr. Du Preez the Secretary for the Interior present in the House. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing to him firstly the gratitude of this side of the House for his ready co-operation in various problems which we have raised from time to time and secondly our appreciation for the manner in which he used that limited discretion which is entrusted to him, in matters concerning the Population Registration Act. He has served for a long period in the public service and has been undersecretary and Secretary to the Department of the Interior for approximately 14 years. Now that he is about to proceed on preretirement leave and then on retirement, we would like to wish him many years of health and contentment during his retirement.

This is the first opportunity we will have of discussing the affairs of the ministry of the Interior with the hon. the Minister. He has inherited the responsibility for the administration of many laws which directly affect the personal status and freedom of movement of South African citizens. I think I must say at this stage that he has also inherited a degree of odium, which has descended upon South Africa as a result of the faux pas and decisions of some of his predecessors. I will mention some of those later for the Minister’s attention and comments.

Sir, the hon. the Minister took his place in the Cabinet following a series of public utterances which he made in his capacity as Administrator of Natal. We hope that he will adopt a more realistic approach than his predecessors to many of those matters which fall within the field of his responsibility as Minister of the Interior, and that those laws necessary in any country and which fall within the responsibility of this Ministry, will be applied less for party political motives and more in the interests of the country as a whole.

Sir, in the first instance I want to deal with certain matters affecting the Public Service, matters which I believe have been long neglected and which require early attention. We are referring these and other matters, which will be raised by other members on this side of the House, to the hon. the Minister, because we believe that they need attention and that that attention is long overdue. The hon. the Minister and this country are fortunate in the standing and the sense of responsibility as also the objective approach of the Public Servants’ Association which, under wise leadership, and calmly over many years, has made recommendations and representations to the Public Service Commission, which are not only calculated to benefit the public servants, but are also directed towards greater efficiency in the Public Service, I do not believe that these resolutions have always enjoyed the attention which they deserve. Too many are merely noted and nothing more is done.

I wish to deal with one or two of these matters which I have dealt with before, and I make no apology for raising them again. The first is the question of the basis of remuneration of public servants. One appreciates that the remuneration of public servants must be attached to certain basic scales which provide for certain increments. One knows from experience that there are many disadvantages to working in the Public Service. When it comes to a revision of salary scales it takes an inordinate time to bring about that revision, and that revision only takes place at intervals of five years or longer. I believe that the difficulties which result from this for the public servant can be avoided if only this Government, particularly in the present circumstances of the high cost of living, would introduce a cost-of-living allowance related to the cost-of-living index for public servants. Whether that allowance should be consolidated into the basic salary for pension and other purposes, is a matter which can be reviewed from time to time, but I do believe that the public servants are at a distinct disadvantage in having to cope with the rising cost of living without having their salaries reviewed automatically or without having an allowance made available to them.

Then, Sir, there is another resolution which was placed by the Public Servants’ Association before the department and upon which I will not elaborate, but which I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention in the hope that it will be attended to. That is the question of the subsistence allowance which is paid to Government officials who are away from their homes on Government business. The present subsistence allowance is hopelessly inadequate. Officials are out-of-pocket when they have to be away from their home centres. I asked the hon. the Minister about this earlier this Session and he said that the matter would be investigated. I do hope that something will be announced and that something will be done to avoid this cause of friction.

A third matter in the Public Service which gives cause for a great deal of complaint is the question of accumulated leave which has not been taken at the time of retirement or death. One knows that there is a shortage of staff and one knows that there are many dedicated public servants who do not take leave merely because it is inconvenient or almost impossible for them to get away from their duties, with the result that leave accumulates considerably and it accumulates only to the detriment of the official concerned upon his retirement or upon his death. I would refer the hon. the Minister to the resolution which was adopted at the congress of the Public Service Association in 1970, in which they asked—

I hope that the Minister will see that that matter also receives attention.

Now I want to pass on to the question of passports and visas and I want immediately to congratulate the hon. the Minister on reversing the attitude of his predecessor with regard to the passport of Mr. Athol Fugard. One wonders now even more why there was the original refusal of a passport to this man, why the obstinate failure on the part of the Minister’s predecessor to review this refusal, and what explanation there is for a decision which has only resulted in ridicule being brought on South Africa for the way in which we treated this man. These questions remain unanswered. But that attitude has persisted over a long time in the Ministry of the Interior in regard to this particular passport, despite public and Press reaction and personal representations. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what has occurred in that regard. I want to remind him that the criticism which was levelled at this decision, and it is a basic decision, not only came from this side of the House but was supported throughout the country by all shades of thought. I want to refer, for instance, to a leading article in Die Beeld of 14th June, 1970. I do this because the implication of a refusal of a passport to a South African national is emphasized in this article. In this leading article Die Beeld stated—

I mention this because we must ensure that these things do not happen in the administration of the affairs of the Department of the Interior. That is why I mention it to the hon. Minister who has now assumed responsibility for this department in these matters, which I hope will be approached in a manner which differs greatly from what we have had to put up with in recent years in South Africa. One’s only conclusion as to why this attitude was adopted in the past, and it can only be justified if Mr. Fugard’s works, utterings and beliefs are looked at in the light of what is in the interest of the Nationalist Party, and that the machinery of the State, which was intended to be applied in the interests of the State and not of a political party, was in fact misused in the interest of a political party.

Sir, we have had these stupid and unwarranted refusals of visas in recent history.

Ashe.

I am coming to that. The intelligent and hon. Minister for Sport mentions Ashe. Let me refer to some of them. An American congressman wanted to visit South Africa. Let me refer to the No-Yes attitude of the Department in regard to the Japanese jockey. They first refused and then agreed. Then let me refer to Ashe. Ashe was refused as an individual, but it was said that if he came in a team he could have a visa. This is the stupidity which is not understood in the world outside and it is not understood by most South Africans. Each of these decisions prompted criticism from most of the South African newspapers. What is more, they have brought our country into ridicule in other parts of the world. There must be a radical change. At the moment the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are seeking dialogue with the outside world. We need people to come to South Africa to see what is going on here. It is not in our interests to tell them that they cannot come and see what is going on in South Africa for themselves, simply because they may be critical of what they find here. After all, if we are to apply our policies and if they are to be suitable for South Africa, they should be applied. We must be able to apply them and we should be able to stand up to the searchlight of world opinion upon those policies. We have had experiences of far greater understanding of South Africa as a result of persons who have come to South Africa and who in fact were hostile in their views towards South Africa before they came here. We have had the recent experience of the American churchmen who were able to go back to the United States with a far different view of the problems of South Africa, because they had been permitted to come and see for themselves what was going on in this country.

I believe that the laws which we have in this country against subversion and against the causing of disorder are the laws to be used in such cases not a refusal of a visa. Any alien visiting this country knows that he is subject to the laws of this country. If a person comes into this country on a visa and he contravenes the laws, let him be prosecuted and let the country know what he has done and why steps are being taken against the individual concerned. We believe there should be greater frankness in this regard. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the cases where, in particular, passports are refused to South African citizens.

Under the 1913 Admission of Aliens to the Union Regulation Act, provision is made for a court of appeal in respect of prohibited immigrants. Thereby people who are about to be deported have the right to go to a court of appeal. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived that such a court or such a tribunal should be established for cases of refusal of passports. If such a tribunal is established, people will be able to appeal to it when they are refused passports to leave the country. I do not suggest that it should be a public court of appeal where matters are to be dealt with in public. However, it should at least be a tribunal which is independent of the hon. the Minister. This tribunal, as I have said, can consider whether refusals are justified or otherwise.

I want to ask the hon. member a question. In which countries do they do this?

I am asking the hon. the Minister to apply in regard to passports, what is applied in South Africa already in terms of the 1913 Act, in so far as deportations are concerned. I am merely asking him to extend what is law in regard to one aspect at the present moment in South Africa, to the refusal of visas and passports.

Earlier this year visas were withdrawn from a number of ministers of religion and church workers, and deportation orders were served upon others. We are not able to debate in this House the merits of the individual cases concerned, because we are denied access to the reasons which motivated these withdrawals of passports. However, these decisions and similar decisions are the prerogative of the Minister of the Interior and no reasons are given when he acts as he has in the case of these ministers and church workers. The public merely becomes aware of the fact of these decisions, but they never hear the reasons for them. The public is also aware that there is a special length of residence provision which applies to ministers of religion who emigrate to South Africa before they can become naturalized. The public is also aware that those who are affected by decisions of such a nature are not afforded access to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister makes these decisions on written reports and without personal knowledge of the persons concerned. During March this year two of these people who were told to leave the country came to see me. I discussed their views with them and had a long talk with them, I heard their side of the story and the hon. the Minister informed me that he had a written report of the other side of the picture. I then suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should see this young couple and talk to them, but what was his reply to me? He said that it would serve no purpose and that he would see the head of the church.

I saw the head of the church.

Yes, but the head of the church got absolutely nothing from you according to the Press. This is a serious position which is arising in South Africa. We mortals live our allotted span here on this earth. We become subject to rules of conduct and personal restrictions which are imposed by law and according to the lights of the Government of the time, but these are temporal regulations of conduct. At the same time, in the acceptance of God, we seek guidance from our respective churches on the eternal aspects of life, namely guidance on morals and human relationships. We are thus subject to two authorities. Unless there is understanding between those two authorities, the Church and the State, there will be serious consequences for the people of South Africa. At present, in the light of the actions of the hon. the Minister, for reasons not published, the understanding between the Church and the State has become extremely limited. If this is allowed to continue we will have a verbal long-distance battle of accusations and counter-accusations and relations will deteriorate. The people of this country will be faced with the agonizing decision whether to obey the laws of this country or the instructions and the teachings of their church and their religious leaders. I believe that dialogue and consultation between the Church and the State are essential to avoid a State-Church confrontation. It is probably more essential in South Africa than elsewhere, because of the prominent role which human relationships play in the political, economic and social aspects of our daily lives, human relationships which arise from the mere composition of our population by different race groups of different standards of living. I believe that approaches have been made by church leaders to the hon. the Minister. We want to urge him to act, to have discussions and to explain his motives and the reasons why he found it necessary to take the actions which he took before there is a further deterioration in these relations between Church and State.

My own views of ministers of religion participating in party politics are quite clear. I have made them clear to the head of my own church, to Archbishop Selby Taylor of the Anglican Church. Unfortunately, these types of activities are not always regarded by all people as not being proper or objectionable. While I am on this serious topic I would like to refer, to the best description I have of the type of activity which some ministers indulge in. I want to quote from a recent article by Schalk Pienaar in Die Burger on the 29th May with the heading “So het ons gevier voor Republiekwording”. I quote:

I refer to this to indicate that there have been times and there are still times. I am afraid, when the activities of the Ministers of religion might be open to questioning.

Give us new relevant examples. Do not bring up old stories only.

I am coming to others. I also want to refer to the type of activities which led recently in Cape Town, to unfortunate and avoidable litigation when the dean of my church involved himself in political activities. I mention these, because these are matters in which, I believe, the hon. the Minister by consultation with the leaders of the churches, can achieve understanding which will obviate a lot of the misunderstanding which is growing between the church and the State. One so frequently criticizes the activities of the church worker, workers who find it very difficult to understand the reasons for that criticism. I have mentioned Archbishop Selby Taylor. I should like to read one of the recent publications of this man, namely his Archbishop’s letter to the members of his church. On the question of whether the Republic should be celebrated or not, he said the following:

That is the attitude of this man. This same man, when he, out of Christian charity, runs an organization to assist the dependants of detainees who are not convicted criminals, but who need some social assistance. has his organization listed by the authorities as an undesirable and probably subversive organization. These things have to stop. There are other quotations of his which I can give hon. members.

I believe it is in the hands of this hon. the Minister to see to it that that dialogue begins and becomes wider. The hon. the Minister must be prepared to inform the church leaders where they stand. Let him prosecute any man or woman who uses the cloak of the church to further subversive activities. There can be no question or argument about that. But there must be freedom to worship, freedom of speech and of expression of opinion subject only to the overriding consideration of the interests of one thing only, not of the ruling party, hut of the State. I believe that dialogue should not be further delayed and that this understanding is very much overdue. The Government must remedy this present position. It lies in the hands of this hon. Minister to effect the procedural reforms to initiate frank discussion with church leaders as to what the Government considers undesirable in the conduct of those organizations and of those persons who have been required to leave the country. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon to treat this as a priority task in his term of office as Minister of the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Green Point in recording the appreciation of this side of the House for the valuable service, over a period of many years, of the retiring Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Du Preez. Although he will still be in the department for some considerable time and his services will be available, he will probably no longer be here when this post is dealt with again. I just want to say that, as far as we are concerned, we have always found him to be a very pleasant and helpful person who, in this difficult department, has furnished us with the information so that we could at least join in discussions when these matters were being spoken about. We hope that he and his wife will still have many years of pleasant rest.

Then I think I must also take this opportunity to refer to the Republic festivities that have just ended, because this is actually the Vote under which we can raise this matter. The Republic festivities, as far as the Government is concerned, were arranged under the supervision of the Department of the Interior. Through the hon. the Minister and his department I also today want to congratulate the festival committee and everyone who helped to make the festival such a tremendous success. I want to express my appreciation to them on behalf of this House, I should like to make special mention of the role which the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Valsbaai, the festival director, Mr. Engelbrecht, and the local representative of the Department of the Interior, Mr. Vosloo, played in the management committee. Sir, I think we can say that it was a striking festival. It was a festival crowned with success and a festival that made a contribution to our big goal, i.e. that of bringing about a greater measure of national unity in South Africa. The festival committee was able to make so much progress towards this goal, firstly because as many different elements of our population as possible were included in the festival and, secondly, because the inclusion of our youth in the festival was such a brilliant success. The youth are the future of our people. They are our future nation, and if we bring them together the future can only augur well for us. I want to convey my appreciation, through the Minister, to those who organized the festival.

Several matters were raised by the hon. member for Green Point in his half-hour speech, and I obviously cannot deal with all those points. I shall, for example, not try to reply to the points concerning the Public Service. That will be done by other members. However, the hon. member went further and spoke of passports and visas. He said that the Minister’s approach to the issuing and cancellation of these privileges is based on what is in the interests of the National Party, and not on what is in the interests of South Africa. He then suggested that there should be a kind of appeal body, so that appeals could be lodged against the decisions of the department. He also asked that reasons should be furnished when these steps were taken, so that people would know why action was being taken against them. Sir, throughout the years it has been the policy and the custom that reasons are not furnished in connection with action of this kind. This is also the case in other countries of the world. I think it would be very foolish and irresponsible of the Government if it transferred, to some or other board, its responsibility to guard the portals of our fatherland. I want to say that a passport is regarded by us, not as a right to which South African citizens are entitled, but as a privilege. I want to say today that every year thousands of passports are issued for South African citizens to leave our fatherland. Thousands of visas are issued to enable people to visit our country. About 400 000 people enter our country every year. Thousands upon thousands of passports, visas and residence permits are therefore issued annually, about which no-one says anything. Nothing is ever heard about that: no-one takes any notice of it. However, a big fuss is made about the few visas and passports that are refused, and about the few residence permits that are withdrawn. One hears nothing about the thousands upon thousands of passports, etc., which are normally issued. Sir, if there is control, surely that control must be exercised; one cannot then proceed from the supposition that every person who requests a passport or a visa will get it. Hon. members on that side of the House will concede that there must be control over who crosses the borders into our country and who leaves the country. Sir, it is only a fool who would say that we must throw upon our country's borders and portals for every Tom, Dick and Harry to gain free entrance. I do not think hon. members opposite want that. Sir, these applications are not arbitrarily refused. There are certain basic considerations that apply when there is doubt about whether a person should get a passport or not. The department has information about these people, and when doubt exists about whether a person must get a passport, the decisive question that is put—and I say this specifically for the edification of the hon. member for Green Point—is whether it is in the interests of South Africa for us to allow this man to go beyond our country’s borders, and whether he will do South any damage if we allow him to leave the country. That is one of the considerations, but there are also many others. If we allow a man to leave the country, we must see whether he would not be a financial burden to the State if he is beyond our country’s borders. Once a person has been granted the privilege to leave the country and has not behaved himself, but taken the opportunity to besmirch our country and stab it in the back, we must think twice when he comes a second time to ask for a passport to leave our country.

Then there are the people who are engaged in subversive activities in South Africa, who are in league with underground elements and have also been so in the past. We cannot simply readily give them passports to leave our country. The same applies to visas. Consideration must be given to whether the people who want to enter our country do not want to do so with ill intent, such as Arthur Ashe, inter alia. Sir, why did Arthur Ashe, whom the United Party is now taking under its wing by championing him, want to come to South Africa?

That is untrue.

Sir, when Arthur Ashe was in Lusaka, he associated himself with the Organization for African Unity in sending terrorists to South Africa. Arthur Ashe said that no-one in international sport should compete against South Africa. He wants to come to South Africa to try to break down apartheid. That was his preconceived object. Hon. members on that side want us to grant visas freely to those who want to come to this country with ill intent.

Sir, there are also other considerations. I cannot go into all of them now; my time is limited. One of the considerations is whether people would not come and embarrass us here. Then one must consider whether those people would behave themselves as the guests of the country if we freely give them a visa.

You are afraid.

Sir, our refusal to grant entry to every Tom, Dick and Harry is no evidence of tear. That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. We are not afraid of those people; we allowed Kennedy and the Archbishop of England to come to this country, and they had a free say here. To the joy of those hon. members they went back and besmirched our country. We gave them visas, but there are certain limits, after all.

Sir, I now want to come to the question of deportation and to the behaviour of clergymen. Sir, I want hon. members opposite to accept from us the fact that when we take action against certain clergymen, we do not have any campaign against the churches to which they belong. It is not these people’s religious convictions, or even their political views, which are the considerations in the action we take. Neither are we taking action against that church. We ate taking action against the individual, and we are doing so because of what he did, and when we have taken that action against him, the hon. members opposite must accept the fact that his conduct had frequently been subversive and often in conflict with the interests of the State, otherwise we would not take action. [Time expired.]

I should like to support the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the question of passports. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that when you refuse a person a passport, it is in actual fact a punishment that you are imposing on him, and in that respect the hon. the Minister is in the position of a magistrate or a judge who has to impose a punishment on a person unilaterally, without having heard the other person's case. That is not fair. It is a terrible thing to tell a person that he is not allowed to travel and he has simply no way of knowing what the reasons are for his being refused a passport; how can he rectify the things which the hon. the Minister considers to be wrong? In any case, how can he rectify them if he does not know what the reasons are for the passport having been refused? The hon. the Minister will concede that the information he receives may be bona fide information, but is one-sided, and even in the best institutions in the world, even in the Police, not everyone is perfect and different people will give different descriptions of the same event or different interpretations of it. Our objection is that the Government relies on one-sided information, which may often be gossip. I remember how the present Government objected when people were interned in the war years. All we are asking of the hon. the Minister is that some tribunal or other should be established. It may be a judge sitting in camera who can hear the Minister’s case in private and who can also give that man a hearing, merely to test whether the information the Minister has is correct. We have no objection to it when a person is a listed communist. At least one has something to go on if he is a communist, but most people who are refused passports are not people falling in that category. Our standpoint is that a person must be provided with some means of stating his case so as to enable the Minister to test whether his information in regard to that person is correct. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he can arrange his system in that way, there will be general confidence in the country, because then we shall at least have the assurance that the information the Minister has is not one-sided, but has been tested from both sides.

A second point which I should like to touch upon and which also falls under the hon. the Minister is the question of the Publications Board. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any responsibility in respect of the Publications Board. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us here in the course of the session that all the responsibility attaches to him. Do we understand the position correctly, or does the final responsibility attach to the Minister? It is necessary for us to know this, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would tell us. At present an attempt is being made in the country to abolish appeals in respect of books which are banned—to abolish appeals to the court. I should very much like to hear the hon. the Minister’s standpoint in this regard. We are perturbed about this campaign, and for a very good reason. When a book comes before the Publications Board, it is again a one-sided matter. The system is that the Publications Board sits on its own and decides whether it is going to ban a book or not. It does not listen to argument. It is only when it goes to a court of appeal, if a person can afford it—and there are few cases which go to a court of appeal—that the other side is heard; if one abolishes this, the whole process is one-sided, and we should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his attitude is to the campaign of abolishing the existing right of appeal to the court.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister —he will be as aware of this as anyone else in this House—that there is no confidence today in the Publications Board in its present form. In all strata of the population—people supporting the United Party as well as those supporting the National Party—there is this lack of confidence. I think it is time the hon. the Minister took a look at the composition of the Board and saw whether he could not effect improvements in it. The relevant Act is almost ten years old now, and many acts are obsolete after ten years. I should like to see every Act passed by Parliament having to be reviewed every ten years. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would seriously consider appointing a Select Committee of Parliament next year so that we could remove the lack of confidence in respect of this legislation, and investigate the Publications Act thoroughly once again. Surely this could do no harm. It would only show confidence in Parliament, The hon. the Minister’s party has a majority in Parliament in any case and therefore the final decision would rest with them. We object particularly to the kind of political censorship which exists today. A huge number of books are banned today for no other reason than that they criticize the political policy of the Government. I would have been able to understand this if the Minister had the power to ban a book so that it could not be read abroad. After all, we in South Africa know what the position is and can therefore judge a book. We are, after all, living here. Why should we be afraid to read something which criticizes the Government?

Which books are you referring to?

I shall supply the hon. member with a list of books which have been banned for political reasons. I can, for example, mention the book Verwoerd, written by Alex Hepple, a person who was a member of Parliament. In that book there is nothing which he did not say in Parliament and which is not contained in Hansard. For what reason was the book written by an ex-Member of Parliament banned? I can furnish a long list of similar books. I do not think this is a satisfactory position, and we want the hon. the Minister to go into it. Too many books are banned purely because the Government is criticized in them.

I also want to raise the question of elections.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Can the hon. member tell us whether the United Party is in favour of the book by Alex Hepple being allowed into the country and the ban being lifted?

I shall give the hon. member a long list of similar books. There is no reason why that book should be banned. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member is wasting my time. Why then does he ask such a question? Alex Hepple, who sat in this Parliament for years, is not subject to any restriction as a person. What is wrong with his writing a book? Why cannot it be published here?

As regards the question of elections, I put a Question to the hon. the Minister earlier this session, i.e. whether there had been a committee which investigated the question of simultaneous elections for the provincial councils and the House of Assembly. He told me there had been no such committee, but that the matter would be considered. A year or so ago the previous Minister of the Interior, Mr. Marais Viljoen, made a statement to the Congress of the Nationalist Party to the effect that there was a committee of officials to investigate the matter. He made a very clear statement which was published in Die Transvaler. I do not want to make a point of this, because it is not of importance. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is giving attention to it and whether, if he is already doing so, the matter can be brought to a head before the next general election. In addition, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not of the opinion that it is really time that certain matters in connection with elections were investigated more fully. There is the question of postal votes, which is still an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Then there is the state of affairs at the polling booths. We have the situation at polling booths today that many people are nervous to go and vote. When a voter turns up at a polling booth, he is harrassed to such an extent by the two political parties that some people who would like to stand outside active politics are nervous to go and vote.

Oh no, man! He can enter the polling booth directly.

There are ministers of religion and many other people who have told me that they do not want to go and vote. In a country such as Britain no political activities are allowed within the vicinity of a polling booth. Every person in England gets a note from the State in which he is told on what day voting will take place. He gets his number and he is told where his polling booth will be. It is amazing what order prevails there. All the political propaganda is made outside of the polling booths, and nowhere have I seen such an orderly election as I did in Britain. I do not want to say that we must follow them slavishly, but there are many points that we would do well to investigate. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to appoint such a committee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout's argument in connection with passports is concerned, as well as his suggestion that passport matters should be dealt with before a judge, I just want to say the following: In all countries it is the custom that passports can be withheld without it being necessary to furnish any reasons. This is an inherent right that every country retains. Every country has the right to say whether a person is entitled to enter that country or not, without the need to furnish any reasons for it. I really do not think the hon. member is making a sound suggestion by going so far as to say that every time there is a dispute about a passport, the matter should be dealt with before a judge.

I then also want to deny most strongly the hon. member’s statement that the public does not have any confidence in the Publications Board. The Publications Board consists of people who are well or reasonably well qualified, and the different opinions there would be about the decisions of a Publications Board would be proportionate to the number of boards we could constitute. The Publications Board has an unenviable task of satisfying everyone at all times. One only needs to have followed the correspondence between Dr. Vorster and Prof. Eben Meiring, which appeared in Die Burger, to realize what an impossible task the Publications Board has. Much of the sharp criticism against the board comes from people who, in reality, want South Africa to become a totally permissive community, as in the case of some countries overseas. I think that the majority of the people in South Africa are opposed to the permissive spirit that is to be found in other countries, and are in actual fact glad that the board applies the norms that all South Africans apply, in other words. South African norms. They apply the norms that we in South Africa would like to have applied.

I want to say that I do not lay claim to all knowledge, nor do I believe that the Publications Board lays claim to all knowledge either, and I am sure that they realize this. I therefore want to tell them that there are quite a few points made by the public that could indeed be taken note of and given consideration. As far as films are concerned, I should like to mention a few of my own impressions. I am not doing this by way of criticism. I am just mentioning these points as constructive suggestions which the board can consider and which they can accept or reject.

In the first instance, as far as films are concerned, the Act provides that there can be no appeal to the courts after a film has been banned. I think that if the Publication Board has banned a film, or placed a restriction on it, the board should draw up a short memorandum which they then make available to the film magnates. I consider this necessary, because this in turn would give the film magnate an opportunity to draw up a critical memorandum, in respect of the Publications Board's grounds for the ban, when he lodges an appeal with the Minister. The Minister will then have the two sides of the matter before him. so that he can give proper consideration to the appeal. It may be said that if such a memorandum is made available to the film magnate, the Press would make use of it, and come to light with a great deal of criticism, but I do not think that public criticism will in any way damage the board. As an advocate I have dealt with many appeals before the courts, and I have lost many appeals. I have never agreed with a judge who gave a decision against me. But when he had given his reasons, I accepted the fact that there was in any case reasons for another point of view. In that respect I want to tell the board that we do not in the least have to be afraid of a critical review in newspapers, or wherever the case may be. This could only be to the board’s benefit. If criticism is well-founded, the board must accept it. The board must give it their consideration. If criticism is unfounded, the board will reject it and continue with its work as it has done. The board does not always have to land up in a controversy.

That is the first point I wanted to make. In putting the second point to the board for consideration, I want to do by way of a question. I want to ask the board whether, at present, it is not placing excessive age restrictions on films. I want to place the emphasis on the word “excessive”. Let us take, for example, this morning’s Burger, as far as drive-in theatres are concerned. At the present moment there are seven drive-in theatres, four of which children may not attend. The drive-in theatre is today the only place where the family, as a family, can get together to relax and share the entertainment and relaxation of viewing a film. There have been weeks where only one or two drive-in theatres could permit children. I think that this is the position that must be reconsidered. Excessive age restrictions show the Publications Board’s visibly heavy hand on a film. This, in actual fact, stimulates criticism. The film is not banned, but is still shown. The general public now has the opportunity of determining whether it should have been restricted to children of 12 years or 16 years of age. Those people then regard the film critically. They constantly feel the presence of the Publications Board. I want to be honest and say that, in my opinion, the board does not make many mistakes. Sometimes its judgment is perhaps wrong. In this specific respect I think that the board should allow more films to be shown without age restrictions. I would much rather see a film banned altogether. The biggest criticism against the age restriction lies in the practical application of these restrictions. The practical application of age restrictions involves the fact that the lady in the ticket office must guess the age of a person appearing before her. She must confront that person with her guesses. She, as an employee of a firm, must now confront that firm’s own clients with the provisions of an Act. This consequently very seldom happens. In actual fact, therefore, many more people see a film than ought to see it. They are simply not confronted with the fact of their age. I wonder whether the board does not want to give practical consideration to the fact that films be divided up into only two categories, i.e. one group classified for adults, while the rest are open to all age groups. Can the board perhaps not designate certain cinemas as ones where films for adults must be shown? Then the parents know, from the list of published cinemas, that certain of them are only for adults. They themselves will then keep the young people away from those cinemas.

I find that age restrictions are usually imposed for two reasons. The one is because there is a great deal of violence in the film, and the second is because there is an excessive amount of sex in the film. If there is violence involving modern weapons, this can have a very serious effect on the child’s mind. The child lives in a modern day and age. and is aware of modern weapons. In films he sees what their effects are, and this could consequently have an adverse psychological effect on him. One also has violence with respect to old-fashioned weapons, for example bows and arrows, sticks and swords. This cannot be a shock to a child's mind. Let me tell the hon. House that our children are actually much more grown-up than we often expect. Our children see right through these blows with sticks and with swords, and the protagonists falling from their horses. They regard this as great play-acting. They will simply tell you that it was all make-believe. In fact, afterwards they themselves will want to indulge in the “make-believe”. I have seen many children running after each other and shooting each other with cocked fingers. The one who is shot also plays his part, rolling over in the dust and lying there. One must be very practical in this respect. Sex in itself is not to be condemned. It is a primary human urge. Eighty per cent of the hooks and songs have love themes. What is, in fact, of importance is the presentation of sex in a film. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a pity that the hon. member for Prinshof did not take this line when we discussed another measure earlier this session, because there is much which he has said with which we can agree. I cannot agree with the proposal that certain cinemas should be restricted to adult films only, but there is a great deal in what he said with which I agree entirely.

The hon. member for Prinshof started by saying that in all countries in the world the ministerial discretion was the sole adjudicator in the granting of a passport. According to him, this was the position throughout the world. In the very next breath, he said that those who opposed and criticized the Publications Control Board ” want a permissive society such as overseas”. He further said “dat ons ’n Suid-Afrikaanse norm moet he”. Surely you cannot have your cake and eat it. In the one case we must follow the outside world, but in the next breath, he says that we must not follow the outside world. What my hon. colleague suggested was that because South Africa’s political situation is peculiar to South Africa, we needed something different, we needed a board to which appeals could be made. I suggest that here we require a South African norm. We should not follow blindly the practice of the rest of the world.

The hon. member said that there was criticism of the Publications Board and said: “Dit is baie selde, maar hulle is soms verkeerd.” Of course, this stands on record. The courts of South Africa have given their findings. However, I want to take this opportunity of expressing to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who deals with this matter, my appreciation for receiving from me a petition signed by over 40 000 South Africans who feel that the Publications Board does not only seldom make mistakes. I want to deal with this very clearly, because it is important to note two facts. One is that the petition to which I refer, was not a petition requesting the abolition of censorship. I think I should put on record what those 40 000 South Africans ask for. They said—

The heading is: “Petition for realistic censorship”. In other words, people are not asking for pornography. They are not asking for subversion; they are asking for realistic censorship.

They are also not asking for a United Party Government.

Sir, this petition was not politically organized or politically motivated. It was spontaneously started and run by private people. I want to refer to one or two of the people who signed it Apart from the artists, apart from the writers, apart from the playwrights including a large number of the leading writers and artists of South Africa, we have a person like the Most Rev. D. E. Hurley, Catholic Archbishop of Durban, a person like Mr. Boraine, President-elect of the Methodist Church of South Africa, Mr. John Rees, General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches, the Rev. Beyers Naudé, and so I could go on. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members may laugh, but I want to ask them whether they believe that the Archbishop of Durban, the Very Rev. D. E. Hurely, would support pornography or subversion; whether the President-elect of the Methodist Church would support pornography and subversion. Sir, the point is—and ] want to emphasize this —that nobody is asking for the abolition of censorship. Sir, we hear queer noises from hon. members on the other side, but when we confront them with the facts, then they have to keep quiet. All I am asking is that the pleas of serious-minded South Africans be heeded, not that we should have a licentious or permissive society, but that South Africa should keep up with the normal norms of the normal South African, not of the world, but of the normal South African. By all means, let us be conservative, as most South Africans are, but do not let us either be prudes or afraid of our own shadows. Do not let us have the prudishness of other people forced down our throats and, I repeat, let us not be afraid of our own shadows, because so often it appears that we have to be so protected, molly-coddled and wrapped in wool to protect ourselves that the Government and the people who deal with this matter, the Publications Board, seem to have no faith in the people of South Africa. Sir, the hon. the Minister of the Interior should support me in this, because he is himself an author; he himself is a writer of note, and he has not run away from difficult subjects. I have, for instance, one of his early books “Suid-Afrika se groot Liefdesverhale”.

Very good!

Very good, Sir—not a single thing that I could find in it that needs to be censored. It dealt with a delicate subject like “Suid-Afrika se groot liefdesverhale’’.

It is history.

Yes, I notice he dealt with things like corruption and all sorts of other things as well. This is all right, Mr. Chairman, but my point is that the hon. the Minister is an author. He wrote another book, “The Devil, the White Mare and Me”. I do not know who the Devil or the “White Mare” were but I am sure he would not have to fear the Publications Board. But in writing these books, he wrote as an artist, as a person expressing himself. When he wrote about “The Devil, the White Mare and Me”, he was expressing himself. When he wrote another book “The Man with the missing Head”, he was expressing himself in literature; he was expressing his own personality, and I ask him to support us in helping the people of South Africa to be able to express their own personality. We are not asking for the abolition of censorship; we are asking merely that it be more realistic and that things be judged by the norms of the average South African who is no longer living in the dark ages and who does not need to be pampered.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to start on any major subject now, but I want to refer in the last minute or two which I have left to the remarks of the hon. member for Parow in regard to the Republican Festival. I agree that some of the displays there were magnificent and outstanding, but I do welcome the decision that the festival will not be held at five-yearly intervals because I believe that this is too soon to have this sort of festival repeated. I want to point out that the decision now is to have it at 10-yearly intervals. But the next 10-yearly interval will make it 20 years, and one year later we have our “Mondigwording”, our 21st Anniversary. I wonder whether it should not be considered to have only one festival instead of a 20-year festival and a 21-year festival. I want to ask the hon. the Minister—and I think South Africa is entitled to know this—whether he will tell us the approximate cost to the State, to Provincial Administrations and to other organizations of the recent Festival. [Time expired ]

I have listened with interest to all the members who referred to the Publications Board, I do not know whether I should reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who asked the Minister a special question about where the responsibility lies in respect of the Publications Board. I stated earlier that I am constitutionally responsible for it. There are aspects with which the Minister deals, such as the appointment of staff, but I think the hon. the Minister will elaborate further on that at a later stage and give him a reply. So much for the first instance.

Secondly, I want to come to what hon. members raised here with respect to the workings of the Publications Board. I firstly want to say the following. The Publications Board is an autonomous body, instituted by law. A Minister cannot interfere with the workings of the board. He can, it is true, discuss matters with them and help them lay down a policy, etc., but in the final instance they have the responsibility as an autonomous board. They can act in this way according to legal norms laid down by Parliament, and those are usually the norms according to which they must decide. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I am glad to see that he has returned—is worried because there is an endeavour in this country to abolish appeals to the courts. Many people are probably worried about that. In this country many people are worried whenever the courts are by-passed in a decision about a legal case. But I can tell him this. We have problems in connection with the working of the Board, and if a single person's opinion can count so much that it totally undermines the policy and the norms prescribed by law, we shall seriously have to think about finding another method by which the Board can continue its work. But I can also tell him that there has been no decision as yet to abolish the appeal to the courts with respect to publications and entertainment. As he himself knows, appeal is solely to the Minister as far as films are concerned, in this case to the Deputy Minister. As he himself knows too, in the old Censorship Act final appeal was to the Minister and not to the courts, even as far as publications are concerned. This was first introduced in 1963. One must sometimes ask oneself this, when one is dealing with a matter such as this, concerning an appeal about a publication, something about which expert knowledge is required and not necessarily only legal knowledge. We must remember that six different categories of people, with six different forms of knowledge, or spheres of knowledge, are required by the Act to decide about this kind of thing. I now ask myself whether it is reasonable to expect a court, where there is one judge, to decide about a publication concerned with matters quite beyond the scope of his subject. I also want to mention our practical problems to the hon. member.

We have already learned, more than once—and I am now waiting for that proof, even though I do not have it here before me—about judges having expressed the opinion that it is not reasonable to expect them to give a decision about ethical norms, acceptability by the general public and other aspects they do not feel themselves competent to decide upon, and to expect them to hear the final appeal. Our problems in a case such as this are consequently to have justice done in decisions in which people’s rights are involved.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that in our country there was no confidence in the Publications Board. He said that this was the case throughout the country. I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member in this connection. There are a large number of people, amongst them the most eloquent and the most verbose types, particularly those who have the communications media in their hands, who are opposed to the Publications Board. They prove that they can discredit the Publications Board at every turn. These people have influence and this may result in those among us who are the most widely read, those who read the greatest number of magazines, gaining the impression that this Board has more opponents than supporters. I can give him the assurance that the petitions I receive and the ideas I have exchanged with well-intentioned and serious-minded people, indicate that this does not merely boil down to the generally blatant statement that “the entire country has no confidence in the Publications Board”. Such a statement is a blatant one, and it is not based on facts. In any case, not the facts at our disposal. I shall not go into that any further now, because at a later stage I could perhaps concentrate more on the facts of the matter and prove that what the hon. member said is not altogether correct.

The hon. member asked that a Select Committee be appointed and that the Act be given another close look. I think that he and I have already settled that point of difference between us earlier in the year. On the other hand, I have listened to what he said. I have also listened to what was discussed in this House while we were dealing with the legislation. I also listened and took note of widely divergent representations made to me from various quarters. I have received several good suggestions, and I am sure the hon. member will concede that if one has been through a period in which one has had the opportunity of well-orientating oneself with respect to problems of this nature, one is inclined to think that improvements could be made here and there. At this stage I cannot tell him, unfortunately, that a Select Committee has been decided upon, because this is a decision that must be taken through Parliament. I do not want to give the hon. member false hope, and I therefore want to say that I do not think that there is any thought at this particular stage of the Session of appointing a Select Committee to investigate the whole question of control. I do not think it will be done, because I think it is unnecessary. We can consider the question of control as we progress, and if we make mistakes we can gradually put them right. On the other hand, if the necessity arises for legislation which must stabilize control in our country, the necessary legislation will be drafted.

The hon. member also objected to our conduct when it becomes clear that something is being said against our political policy in a document. He is opposed to our banning such a document with such ease. I do not want to go into details here, because I think that again the hon. member has made a fairly sweeping statement. In terms of the Act it is the duty of the Board when it is investigating publications. to find out whether ideas subversive to the State are not being propagated. This applies to any literary work investigated by the Board. As the hon. member knows, in our country we must be very careful.

The hon. member for Prinshof made a few very interesting suggestions. He asked certain questions, and then raised the possibility that a memo he supplied to the Board by the person making the submission so that the latter can present the Board with his case when he submits a publication, a film or whatever to the hoard. The rule of audi alteram partem is a good one, but I just want to mention that the Supreme Court has already determined, by way of a decision, that the Board is not subject to this rule. One nevertheless asks oneself if it would not be better for improved mutual understanding if, in some way or other, we try to take steps for better co-operation between the person affected and the Board. I mention this to hon. members, not to stampede them, because we shall, in the first instance, look at the Act, at its implementation and at what is the best for this country. There has been a thorough consideration of this matter, and many discussions have been held on more than one occasion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not the present intention to consider withdrawing the right of appeal to the Courts from decisions made by the Censorship Board. I think I am right in saying that up to now there have only been 11 appeals since the inception of this law.

I do not know.

I believe this is so, but I may be wrong. The important thing is not the number of appeals, but that the right exists and that people can appeal. I would be extremely critical indeed if the Government considered withdrawing this right.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister or his deputy could give me some information about what the fate is of Miss Nadine Gordimer’s book “Guest of Honour” which has now been held by the Customs for at least a month. It has presumably been passed on to the Censorship Board and although this is a statutory body over which the Government seems to have little or no control, it would be nice if they could get a move on with this matter which is causing a good deal of comment overseas. Miss Gordimer is one of our most distinguished novelists and this particular book has been on the overseas market since January this year, I believe. I cannot imagine what could be considered as being offensive in this book which deals with the trials and tribulations of an emergent African state which has recently acquired its independence. After all, we are presumably all adult people, although the hon. member for Pretoria Central thinks that the South African public should he strictly limited in what it is allowed and not allowed to read. This sort of holdup of a book by a novelist of Miss Gordimer’s calibre really makes us ridiculous in the eyes of the outside world and I do hope that the Government will push the board to get a move on about this matter.

Before I forget I would like to add my words of thanks to the Secretary of the Interior for the help which I have received from him over the years. I cannot say that I always got what I asked for; in fact, I seldom got what I asked for, but I will say that I always had the most courteous reception from him. I wish him well in his retirement.

I want to say at once that I am glad, as was the hon. member for Green Point, about the change of decision as far as Athol Fugard's passport is concerned. None too soon, may I say. I personally have made several efforts in the past without success and I am delighted that the Government has now changed its mind and that Mr. Fugard is to be allowed to go overseas and participate in the production of his own play. Again, we did ourselves no good whatever in not allowing him to go overseas on previous occasions. He is a very well-known playwright and I cannot imagine why he was deprived of the right of going overseas earlier.

It is a privilege.

It is a privilege up to a point, but at the same time no country I know of—although the hon. member for Prinshof said that this is the case in every country—withholds passports at the drop of a hat the way this country does. Over the last seven years some 40 priests have suffered at the hands of this Government. Innumerable students have been deprived of their right to leave South Africa and I wonder if this record can be matched in any other so-called Western country.

Very quick indeed is the Government to snatch the passports of those people who displease them. I am thinking, for instance. of priests working for the Christian Institute, like Father Cosmos Desmond, who produced a book which offended the Government because it revealed the facts of what was going on in the resettlement camps. His passport was removed. No other reasons will ever be given us, but I am absolutely certain that that is the major reason why he lost his passport. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister and members on that side why it is that if the Government is so quick to act in the case of people like Father Desmond, certain students and other priests that have offended them, the passport of the official who was actually named in the recent report on the Agliotti deal was not removed from him. I hope somebody will explain that to me. I should like to know why this official. Mr. Venter—I hope I am not misnaming him—who was actually named in this report as being involved in the deal, did not have his passport removed. The police were busy investigating the case, and he is allowed to go overseas.

He is not involved in anything subversive.

Oh, I see. It is all right to be involved in something criminal, but it is not all right to be involved in something…

He has not been proved a criminal yet.

Of course not, but nor have any of the people whose passports have been removed been proved to be subversive, because they have never appeared in a court of law either. What an incredible admission from a member who is an advocate! He is prepared to defend the innocence of an official not yet proved to be guilty in a court of law, admittedly, but involved, without a doubt, since the commission which investigated the matter has named him. Yet the hon. member is prepared to name as guilty and as being subversive every person who has lost his passport, although those persons have not only never appeared in a court, but have never even been informed as to why they have lost their passport. In other words, that member is prepared to accept the Special Branch…

Yes.

… as being the judge of a man’s guilt or innocence.

No.

May I ask since when the Special Branch is a duly constituted court of law, where a man is tried in the proper manner as we understand it in Western democracies? These, Sir, are secret trials where a man is not only not told what is against him, but where he is not even given the opportunity of defending himself. I wonder what sort of training our young advocates in this country are receiving if that sort of opinion is expressed by a member who is a trained lawyer. It absolutely shocks me.

It is not the hon. the Minister who makes the decisions on passports. I am absolutely sure that that is the case. He takes the advice of the Special Branch. Does he ever give a person who has been deprived of his passport the opportunity of appearing before him? I have tried on many occasions with his predecessors to interview the people whose passports have been removed. I know of one case which I am certain was a case of mistaken identity. I am dead certain, because most mysteriously this person, who is a respectable lawyer in Johannesburg, who was not involved in politics, lost his passport. When I tried to get it back for him. I could get nowhere. Then, just as mysteriously, a little while later, his passport was returned to him. I am Convinced that, had the hon. the Minister's predecessor interviewed this man, he would soon have ascertained that this was a case of mistaken identity.

I hope that this Minister, who comes here with a reputation—I do not know whether it is well earned or not of being “verlig” is going to change the practices of his predecessors in many ways. He has made a start with Athol Fugard’s passport and I hope that he is going to continue on those lines as regard? other things I hope he will give Miss Paula Ensor the opportunity of appearing before him so that he can question this young woman as to her intentions. I hope he knows to whom I am referring, because this young lady, who is a student at Natal University, was denied a passport recently to visit the countries immediately surrounding South Africa. This is one of South Africa’s most brilliant young women students. I think she came third in the province in her matric examination. She obtained amazing symbols— I think they were six A’s and one B. She is one of the brightest students at Natal University. She is on the S.R.C. and she is, I think, a member of the NUSAS Executive, but are these reasons for depriving a brilliant young woman student of the opportunity of travelling abroad to do post-graduate work?

I know for a fact that we have lost to South Africa for ever several brilliant young students because the Government would not give them passports. As a result they have left on exit permits and they have gone for ever. We have lost some of our best and brightest young people. They certainly do not happen to agree with the views of the hon. member over there, but this does not make them subversive. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can just tell the hon. member for Houghton that these days there are all kinds of priests and all kinds of students. Some students no longer know what the purpose of the university is. They do not know that they ought to study there. Those students who are hauled away there, and those lovely girls of hers who get “exit permits”, so that they have to remain abroad, are the kind of people we do not need here.

I should like to come back to the introductory speech of the hon. member for Green Point in connection with Public Service matters. On this, the first occasion on which our new hon. Minister, who is in charge of Public Service matters, will take part in this debate. I should very much like to say a few words about his two predecessors the hon. Minister S. L. Muller, who is not present this evening, and the hon. Minister Marais Viljoen, who handled the portfolio for a short while. For the record I should like to state in the House that the two hon. Ministers gained a great deal of praise for the way they handled Public Service matters. Minister S. L. Muller was praised for the fact that he always kept an open door. For our new Minister in charge of the Public Service, I want to say that our officials assure him of their very loyal support. They know exactly where they stand with the new Minister, and I can assure the hon. the Minister that the officials have a very great respect for him. On this side of the House we shall continue, in a responsible manner, to come to him with matters concerning the officials and to strengthen his hand.

There are also a few matters of general interest to the officials, matters which I should like to follow up further in the House for the hon. the Minister’s attention. During the Session there are a very large number of officials here in Cape Town on parliamentary service from their head offices in Pretoria. There are young officials and also other officials who have been coming down to Cape Town for the session for 20 or 30 years. The Government has made very good concessions in this connection. At Acacia Park and Mouille Point a great many very fine facilities have been created, for which the officials have a high degree of appreciation.

However, there is one matter I should very much like to mention to the hon. the Minister, because the relevant officials cannot do so. They are not complaining, but I know of the problem and I should like to state it. The allowance for a married official on session duty is R6 per day. A young married couple, or a couple with one or two children can get very far on that. However, I can say that we know that the married officials with three or four children, two of which have remained behind in Pretoria, one in a hostel and the other at university, being spread far and wide throughout the country, finds it very difficult to manage on R6 per day, I should very much like to make an urgent representation to the hon. the Minister that he place before the Government the possibility that the number of children be taken into account in these cases in connection with the allowance of R6 per day while the session is in progress.

Secondly, I want to come to the Public Service Commission’s latest annual report, which is a neat and lovely report. I want to refer to “Disciplinary Measures’’, which appears on page 35 of the report. During the year the Commission dealt with 12 cases of misconduct. On the next page the information is given in connection with the disciplinary cases that were dealt with. One of the individuals was discharged and one called upon to resign. That makes two cases. The number of cases has decreased considerably since the work of the Department of Defence and that of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has been taken away. What is the position in respect of those people who are discharged? There is no legal provision in terms of which a recommendation for the discharge of an official can be nullified or augmented once it has been implemented. The decision rests with the Commission, which acts at the discretion of the head of the department. Representations can, as prescribed, be made to the Commission by the head of the department in terms of regulation A61. The Commission is not compelled to furnish any reasons when it recommends a discharge in terms of this section. In terms of the Public Service Act this official, who is discharged for some reason or another, has no right of appeal whatsoever once the Commission has made its recommendation. Neither can he appeal to the Minister concerned.

This evening I am not lodging a plea for the loafer, for the clock-watcher, for the drunkard, or the man who misbehaves himself. I am lodging a plea for the official who has been in the Public Service for 25 or 30 years and longer, perhaps committing one offence as a result of which he is discharged or asked to resign. There is then tragedy in that official’s home. I should very much like to suggest that that official be given a last chance and that the Public Service Act perhaps be amended in such a way that the officials involved in these one or two cases per year, where something has perhaps been overlooked, should have the right of appeal to the Minister concerned so that proper satisfaction can be obtained. I say this without casting any reflection on the Public Service Commission or the secretaries of departments.

I want to agree with a point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. the question of the payment of accumulated leave. Officials are only paid, when they leave the Service, for 184 days of accumulated leave, although an official may have 300 or more days to his credit. As an expublic servant I know why that leave accumulates. It is unavoidable. When I left the Service I had to relinquish a few months of accumulated leave. It is the man who works hard whose leave accumulates. I ask the hon. the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the representations in this connection.

In respect of housing I want to refer hon. members to page 41 of the Public Service Commission's report, where the Public Service Advisory Council recommends that the Department of Community Development should revise the 100 per cent loan whereby the State assists officials with housing. Here it is said that the matter is receiving attention together with many other aspects of the subsidy scheme in respect of housing loans, Since I have many officials in my constituency, I just want to say that this recommendation really does have merit. It will be of great help to many officials if the maximum for these loans can be pushed up to R18 000 or R20 000.

I want to refer hon. members to page 39 of the report, where it is stated that the Government’s subsidy to the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association was increased with effect from 1st April, from R1 to R1-50 for every R1 paid by members. I want to express the sincere thanks of the officials to the hon. the Minister and the Public Service Commission for this concession. The son, of an official belonging to the Medical Benefit Association, who has a Public Service bursary, is required by the Medical Benefit Association to also make a contribution to the Fund from his small salary. I think this is unfair, and I should very much like to ask that the hon. the Minister also go into the merits of this case and ensure that those young officials, particularly the holders of bursaries, are not penalized.

Sir, we should very much like to congratulate our new hon. Minister very warmly on this portfolio. I want to assure him from this side that we will strengthen his hand and assist him in doing this great and important work entrusted to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of saying thank you on behalf of my Secretary to the hon. members for Green Point and Parow, who pointed out that this session will probably be one of the last, if not the last one, he will attend here. I am very grateful for the fact that when I took over this portfolio and the responsibility of such a task was entrusted to me, I could draw on the experience and the guidance of a person who had been Secretary of this particular department for eleven years. Naturally this has meant a great deal to me. I must say that we have not only got along very well on a persona) basis, but that I have also learned a great deal about the department and about the circumstances through his good offices, his humane approach and his general knowledge in regard to these matters.

This is probably one of the most difficult departments to administer, as hon. members themselves know. I say this not because I was entrusted with it, but because I think one may safely say that this is a controlling department. As a controlling department which deals with the rights and privileges of people, it often, of course, has to do things which people do not like.

I should also like to say at the outset that the few matters which receive un favourable publicity in the course of a year, represent a very small percentage of the total number of cases dealt with by the department. I have here this evening a large number of figures with which I could bore hon. members, but I just want to point out that we deal with probably more than 2 million cases of different kinds in this department in the course of a year, and that the percentage in respect of which fault is found with the actions of the department, amounts to 0,003. It is that 0,003 per cent of cases in respect of which fault is found with the actions of the department to which publicity is given and where an unfavourable atmosphere is created as regards the activities of the Department of the Interior. However, I should not like to pursue this matter any further at this stage.

At the outset I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the members of the House who welcomed me here personally and in this capacity. The hon. members for Pretoria District and Parow and others wished me happy years in this department; I appreciate it. But I think it would be wrong of me not to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessors, who both were, and still are, senior men in the Cabinet, for what they achieved in the Department of the Interior over the years. In reading the debates which took place on internal affairs in this House in the past. I found that it has become customary for the few mistakes made in the time of my predecessor, and which will probably be made in my time as well, to be discussed. Those mistakes were concentrated on to such an extent that attention was not given to the positive work which those men did as heads of the department. In fact, they did more than I have done. Both of them had a second department to administer, and that must have made matters very difficult for them.

Sir. before coming to a few details, I should now like to go on to a few general matters which were raised here this evening. Personally I feel it is a pity that certain cases are seized upon and used in this House as a reflection of what the policy of the department allegedly is. In my humble opinion such cases ought not to dominate the debate on a Vote. I find it a great pity that we should move oil this level when dealing with a very important Vote such as Interior, where our whole image that is presented to the outside world is involved. Within the framework of the debate in Committee of Supply I therefore want to concentrate on what has been said about general matters of policy so far.

At the outset I just want to express a few thoughts about the question of passports, about which a good deal has been said here by the hon. member for Green Point and others.

Obtaining a passport is one of the things we should not regard as a right. It is not regarded as a right in any country in the world. I shall presently give hon. members an indication of what the position is in other countries. I have been in touch with seven countries through our missions in order to ascertain what their policy is in respect of passports and visas and in regard to the withdrawal of residence permits that have been issued. I wanted to get an indication whether a comparison with what we ourselves are doing in South Africa is possible or not, without the policy of those countries necessarily having to form part of our policy, I have ascertained that no person in those countries can claim to a passport as a right. This is a policy which is applied almost universally. The individual does not have the right to tell the State: “Look, I want a passport, and I insist on it, and it is not your prerogative as a State administration to refuse it”. The same applies to visas and residence permits. A citizen of a country does not have the right to tell the government that he will lay down the conditions in terms of which he wants a residence permit in that country, and I shall furnish hon. members with the data in a moment. However, I find it rather strange that hon. members on the opposite side of the House have never ascertained how the position in South Africa compares with the position in other countries as regards the furnishing of reasons for the refusal of visas or residence permits, for example. Because it affects the individual in South Africa so intimately, and because we have a population consisting of various race groups, these matters are naturally turned into political issues. It is very easy to accuse a government—because it pursues a certain policy and, for example, does not furnish reasons for refusing a passport or a visa—of using its political prerogative and trying to render that person harmless because he holds certain political views. Sir, I want to deny this. No one would be so foolish as to suggest that this could not be a factor; it is possible for this to happen in any government.

And hon. members will agree with me when I say that such things can in fact play a part at virtually any level of government.

In order to be able to analyse the position in other countries, I have, however, asked that the following questions be sent to our foreign missions—

Now, I do not intend to use the replies furnished as a final answer to what we should do in South Africa, but I should like to give hon. members on the opposite side this advice, i.e. that if they keep on criticizing what we are doing in South Africa in regard to these four aspects, the important things, attention should also be paid to what is being done in democratic countries such as England. Now, what is the position in England as far as passports are concerned?—

This is a very interesting fact. Then we come to a country such as France. There we find—

Have you any idea of how many they refuse?

I can give you the number in South Africa. I will give the figure a little later on. But your figures in regard to appeals are incorrect—the figures you gave a few minutes ago. You gave figures in connection with clerics who were refused during the past seven years—40 of them—in some way or another. I shall however, give you the official figures. In the case of the United States, it is standard procedure to give reasons, but in the case of visas in the United States the authorities reserve the discretionary power whether reasons should be given or not. In other words, they have the same power that we have in South Africa—to give reasons or not. Then we come to a country such as Western Germany. There the position is very interesting, too. As far as visas are concerned, the issue of visas is considered to be in the field of international law, where no State is obliged to give reasons for the refusal of visas. The general rule is that reasons are not given. Withdrawals or refusals of visas are not made public, and no right of recourse is available. In the case of the Netherlands, as far as visas are concerned, as a rule no reasons are given to the applicant or to third parties. Exceptions have, however, been made in the past on an ad hoc basis. That is the same as what we do in South Africa. We have done this in particular cases where we have decided that reasons should be given. This has been done. We still have that prerogative today, Now, as far as the whole question is concerned, I do not want to give the impression that this is a one-sided story. There are countries in which the position is different. But here are a few democracies which I am mentioning to you tonight and which have a view contrary to that of the Opposition on the other side. If I may say this with respect, the United Party so often points to the outside world as being the real determining factor in regard to matters such as colour. What the outside world thinks is very important. Now, I say with respect that if you wish to do that I have no grouse, but the same can then be done in a case of this nature where we have to control the rights of people who try to come into this country. Surely, if we were to lose that right and open the gates and let them come in as they wish, we would get ourselves into hot water in no time at all. As far as South Africa is concerned, just to finish off this point I am dealing with, as far as the refusal or the withdrawal of passports is concerned, reasons are not given, and the attitude of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court regarding a refusal to grant or renew a passport can be gleaned from the attached document. Now, what is the attached document? It is a case in the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein where it was decided that no reasons are to be given. If you want to look it up, the reference is Velder v. the Minister of the Interior, 1954. This is where it was laid down and it has ever since been accepted as law in South Africa.

We want to change it.

That is all right. But why argue that we are obstinate and difficult in not wanting to give reasons in regard to these things? There is no obligation.

Now, let us look at the position of visas in South Africa. Reasons are not normally given but exceptions may and have been made when considered to be in the public interest. This happened, for instance, in the case of Ashe. We did give reasons. It can be done by the Cabinet at any time. I am not the only one who has to decide on a matter of this nature. If the Cabinet should so decide, the reasons will be supplied.

Personally, I have seen quite a number of ministers of religion in the past few months. They came to me in connection with the case mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point. We had a discussion for over half an hour. I virtually gave the person concerned every reason within a broad framework. He was the “employer” of these people. I can tell hon. members that when some of these people leave my office they are quite satisfied that we were within our rights in acting as we did.

[Inaudible.]

With due deference, the hon. member has suggested through the years that we are not playing fair, that We are trying to withhold reasons from you people and from the other people.

Then I wish to refer to the question of the termination of temporary residence permits of aliens who enter the country legally and who are later faced with their removal from the Republic. The Minister’s decision regarding the withdrawal of a temporary residence permit has not as yet been challenged in a court of law. I am not trying to be difficult or funny. I think we must all try and work together in a matter such as this. In fact, I have always felt that we should have some common ground, some agreement, between both sides of the House in matters of this nature. These things should not be dragged out of their context and used as political weapons by one party or another. Why is it being used in this way? If I have the time tonight I will give you the figures in regard to all four of these particular categories of people who are dealt with and controlled by us.

Give us the figures. You have unlimited time.

I do not have the time but I will give you the figures if you want them. I shall do so later in the evening.

I want to come to another point which was raised by the hon. member for Green Point which seems to be very important and which happened at the beginning of this year. It was in fact used in many respects by the newspapers, and it concerns the handling of the church people whom we had in this country. It was absolutely imperative from the point of view of the Government that some action had to be taken. I say absolutely imperative. These things were not done by me off the cuff and in a short space of time. I did not decide whether this man or another man was to be brought in or informed that he had to leave the country on a temporary permit which he had used for some time or that he would not get a visa or that we refused him a passport. What bothered me about this was the fact that not only have these things developed for quite some time, but that despite information I gave to the Press, the hon. member for Green Point, as leader of the interior group of his party, decided to make public statements and attack the Government on this particular score. He did so despite the fact that I gave him the assurance that we were not at any stage fighting the church. At no time was there such a thing as a clash between State and Church. We were not interested in that at all. The hon. member should know that what we were interested in were the actions of individuals who had for some time fallen into the category of people whom we felt should be brought to book. The United Party gave the Press information which was used not only throughout South Africa but also in a number of overseas countries. I saw these newspaper clippings, and in fact I have a few of them, where the impression was given that the State was attacking the Church in South Africa. Our position was equated with that of Hitler before the Second World War. That was the sort of impression that was given! A pattern was developing!

Who made that statement?

I say that statements were made overseas as a result of actions taken by you here. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member firstly that in my statement I gave an assurance, which has been standing all along—that there was no quarrel between this Government and the Church in South Africa. There is no quarrel at all.

Who made that statement?

I made that statement personally and the Prime Minister made a statement in this regard.

When was that?

I shall give the hon. member the clipping if he likes to see it. Let me come now to the figures that were given in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton at one stage asked me a question about this. She wanted to know what in fact was happening in the case of clerics and mission workers. She did not put the question in that narrow context but wanted to know how many people had been sent out of the country and how many had had their movements curtailed. The position is a very interesting one. I did not have the figures available at the time, and I informed her accordingly. At a later stage I consulted two State departments, and tonight I can tell hon. members what the figures are. In the last ten years only six ministers of the church were deported from South Africa.

What about the refusal of visa extensions?

The MINISTER; Wait a minute; I shall come to that. During that period of ten years the temporary permits of only 17 ministers were taken away. The hon. member for Houghton indicated that the figure in regard to temporary permits was 40.

I have the list here.

Are the people on your list all ordained clerics?

They are priests and church workers.

That explains the difference. They are not all ordained. [Interjections.] The impression should not be given in statements that we are attacking the Church in South Africa. What do we mean by “the Church”? The ministers are the representatives of their churches, and we have deported only six of them during a ten year period. We have curtailed the temporary permits of 17 of them over the same period.

And how many church workers?

We shall come to the church workers. The total I received from the Bureau of Statistic indicated that there are 1 440 aliens in South Africa who work for the Church. Hon. members must not forget that these people are aliens and not South Africans by birth or by naturalization. Then there are 4 919 South Africans who work for the Church in our country. That means that about a quarter of the people who work for the Church in South Africa are foreign citizens. The point I want to make is that, when we deal with matters which are so grave relative to the image of South Africa, and which can be so important to us as Parliamentarians, as people who have to make laws and who have to see to it that the image is improved thereby, we should be careful in the publications and in the statements we make in the public Press about such matters. We should be very careful, because what we say will in turn be published overseas.

I want to tell this House that I have told the hon. member for Green Point, and other hon. members on the other side who have come to me from time to time, that I am quite prepared to see any minister of religion, any ordained person in South Africa, if he wishes to see me about a matter of this nature. In other words, if he is the head of a church and has lay social workers under him, as is often said in the newspapers, he can do so. Of the total number of these cases which were referred to in in the paper, only three came to see me. On another occasion, I also offered to see any person personally who felt that he did not have a fair deal. Any such person, I said, could contact me and let me know.

What about those you didn't want to see?

I indicated to the hon. member for Green Point that I would see their “employer.” I did this because I had an enquiry from those people’s “employer” in Durban. He employed them and I said that I would be prepared to see him, and then he could tell them about our views. He flew from Durban, as far as I know on two occasions, to come and see me. I am mentioning this because if an hon. member on the other side feels that he is not satisfied, I will, as far as it is possible, keep him informed if it can remain a matter of confidence between him and my department. I repeat, I shall keep him informed as far as I possibly can and I shall tell him what the difficulties are in respect of the particular case. If this is not going far enough, I think hon. members on the other side perhaps, feel strongly about making political capital about a matter which can be handled in personal negotiations, with the goodwill of the hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Houghton knows, because she has made representations to me as well. She also knows that not only as a result of her representations but also after I considered some of the matters which had been put before me— I personally read all the papers available and I made myself available at all times— I made it possible for some of these people to go where they wanted to go. That hon. member knows it and she can mention the names here if she wants to.

As far as this “State-Church” argument is concerned, I wish to say I hope it is the last we hear about it. I really hope that in the light of these figures I have made available to the hon. members on the other side, and in the light of the trouble I have taken to tell them precisely what the position is, this will be the last we hear of it. These lay preachers or social workers who feel that they should come to this country as missionaries will be given temporary permits to work in this country for some time. We are trying to extend these permits as far as it is humanly possible and as far as it is fair. But hon. members on the other side of the House will agree with me when I say that it is not a very sound policy to keep on extending temporary permits from year to year for periods of up to five or seven years if these persons cannot succeed in obtaining permanent residence in South Africa. That makes the difference. The second important point is…

How do they get permanent residence?

They go to the Department of Immigration. The hon. member should know that since he has been here for a long time. It is another department and I have nothing to do with it.

But it is still the same Government.

We often tell people who want to stay here permanently-and we receive hundreds of letters in this regard —that they must obtain permanent residence permits before they can come to ask for extensions to remain here. Surely this is fair enough. If they obtain that permanent permit to stay here it is possible for us to make arrangements for them to stay here. Finally, I want to say that I believe that we should try and use our own missionaries, our own ministers of religion and our own social workers. We have a large number of these persons in the country but 25 per cent of them come from other countries. They do not always understand our mode or living. It is not a matter of politics, but of bringing with them quite a different view of what we are doing in South Africa. They then want us to accept their mode of doing things and this becomes very difficult at times. This is all I have to say about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister covered a vast number of subjects in the time in which he has been speaking, but I want to come back immediately to this fallacious argument that when the Government does something which evokes criticism and we express a view on that and the matter is reported overseas then it is our fault and not the decision of the Government. I want to break down the fallacy of this statement by referring to the Japanese jockey incident. One of the hon. members in this House was in Japan at the time that happened and he states that not one word of what the Opposition said appeared in the newspapers in Japan. What appeared in the newspapers was the shockingly stupid decision by a Minister of the Government of South Africa. That is where the harm arose.

The hon. the Minister also raised certain matters in regard to his discussions with leaders of the churches. First of all I want to say to him that when he talks about wanting to see the employer, I would hardly regard the Archbishop of the Anglican Church or the Moderator of the Methodist Church as the employers of priests and ministers. They are the heads of the respective churches; the employers are the church councils. The hon. the Minister also said that he saw the head of the Methodist Church in connection with the persons who were asked to leave Durban at the beginning of this year. He said that they had a very long chat. That is quite correct, because in a press statement after that interview, Mr. Borraine, the Moderator, said that he talked to the Minister for one and three-quarter hours. But then he went on to say this:

That was the sum total of the assistance and information which he received from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister referred to the interview which the Prime Minister had and his statement that there was no dash with the Church. That statement was made by the Prime Minister much later in March, and what did he say? He was reported as follows:

The Prime Minister said—

[Interjections.] The question of the visa had not even arisen at that stage, when this conference took place. This was a conference to deal with the question of a contribution to the World Council of Churches to the O.A.U. No, I believe that the hon. the Minister could perhaps be a little more frank with us today. Can he explain to us in this Committee how the incident of the Fugard passport could ever have arisen? Who motivates in the first instance the refusal of a visa or a passport? Are all applications automatically sent to the Security Branch or to somebody else for investigation? Because the Minister cannot possibly keep in his department a personal file on the writings or sayings of every individual in South Africa; that would be quite impossible. After all, the number of passports refused was, I agree, not a big one. The number the hon. the Minister gave me was that in 1969, 165 passports were refused, and in 1970, 174. So it is not a considerable number. But how does it come about that these are refused, and what is the motivation or where is the failure in the administrative machinery which can permit of a decision being taken such as happened in the Fugard case, or such as happened in the case of the Japanese jockey? How does it occur?

That was two years ago.

It is all right to say it happened two years ago, but it is only now that some of them are being put right, as in the case of Fugard, I have referred to the damage which was done to our country overseas by the stupid decisions taken in matters of this nature.

Now, the Minister referred to the question of persons holding temporary residence permits and requiring permanent residence. The complication he mentioned, the administrative one, is that his department deals with a certain aspect of it and the other department deals with another aspect of it, and that indicates to me the urgency, which I want to stress again in my appeal to the Minister, in regard to coming to an understanding with the churches. There has unfortunately been established in this country a special provision as regards residence, in that the church workers must be in the country a prescribed time before they can obtain permanent residence through naturalization. If there are difficulties in regard to the permits, visas and authority for permanent residence, I do hope that the Minister will take steps to try to iron out that problem. There is nothing more frustrating and annoying to anybody who has to deal with a department than to find that he can get only half the job done with one department and then to be told that the rest of it is in the hands of some other department. That is one of the aspects which is causing trouble and irritation. I think this matter should be looked at. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us how it comes about, and what, in regard to one of these persons working as these were, caused them to be turned out and their visas withdrawn. With regard to the young workers in Durban, it is an extraordinary thing that the difficulty started when there was an application to another department, to the Department of Community Development, for a permit to hold a course in which there would be White and non-White youth workers of the Methodist Church. Somehow that permit was never issued, and in the interim the machinery was started to have the visas withdrawn from these workers who were connected with that particular mission. Without an explanation—and this gentleman says he did not get one—the only conclusion which can be arrived at was that these visas were withdrawn for the sole reason that this church ran a multiracial course of instruction.

That is quite wrong.

That is the point. The Minister says that is wrong.

I read everything about it myself.

Yes, you may have read it. It is in your head and in nobody else’s.

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

Evening Sitting

Sir, before replying further to the questions and remarks of hon. members, I should like to make the following statement.

The Government Printer for the past 23 years, Mr. S. J. Myburgh, will retire on 3rd April, when he will reach the age of retirement after a period of uninterrupted service of 47 years at the Government Printing Works. For the past 22 years he has been in charge of the Government Printing Works as Government Printer as well as Accounting Officer, and he is a well-known person amongst Opposition as well as Government members. I may just mention that Mr. Myburgh has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Federation of Master Printers of South Africa for the past 22 years, as well as a member of the Executive Committee of the Industrial Council for the Printing Trade. He is regarded as one of the experts in this field. This knowledge which he acquired in the course of his training, has helped him to bring about radical changes and improvements in the Estimates as a whole, the financial and votes system of the Government Printing Works, and in this regard the Treasury will be able to confirm that as a result of Mr. Myburgh’s proposals and his motivation of those proposals, the so-called system of free services was converted into one of cash payment. In this way more effective control was obtained over the expenditure on Government printing, and as from that time Government Departments have had to make provision for their printing requirements directly in their separate Votes, and they are accountable to Parliament in this regard. Mr. Myburgh made it his task to gain independent status for the Government Printing Works; the Government Printing Works always was a sub-office of the Department of the Interior, and since 1st January, 1965, the Government Printing Works has been independent. At that time he was Parliament’s Accounting Officer; he obtained direct access to the Minister’s concerned and to the Public Service Commission, also with regard to his staff matters which used to fall under the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Myburgh is a man who made it his task to bring about an improvement in the wages and conditions of service of the lower paid and less privileged employees at the Government Printing Works, and he is held in high regard and is well loved in all quarters. As this House knows, the Cabinet announced through the mouth of the Minister of the Interior in this House last year that new buildings for the Government Printing Works were going to be erected at Koedoespoort, Pretoria.

High time.

In this connection I should like to mention that Mr. Myburgh once again rendered a unique service to the State. All the basic planning, which covers 100 000 square feet, was done by him in minute detail, and he gave an architectural representation of the whole complex, as it is going to be erected on the site at Koedoespoort. I visited it myself. During these visits to the Government Printing Works I have always been impressed by the efficient utilization of public funds as regards the purchase of new equipment and by the high productivity and the mechanization of the production division. This has effected a saving of space and manpower. Sir, on behalf of the Committee and the Government, I should now like to wish Mr. Myburgh a very long and happy and fruitful life in the years which lie ahead.

Then, Sir. it gives me pleasure to introduce to you Mr. Myburgh’s successor, Mr. J. de Beer, who is also present in the House this evening. Mr. De Beer joined the Government Printing Works as an apprentice in 1939. He progressed and became Deputy Government Printer on 1st January, 1965. As far as his educational qualifications are concerned, he holds, infer alia, a B.Com degree. His training in and experience of the printing trade, in which he is respected and known already, qualify him in all respects for the demanding position of Government Printer. Consequently, he is a worthy representative of the State in this field. To him, too, we want to wish every success in his new position.

Earlier on I was replying to certain of the remarks and speeches made by hon. members. Mr. Chairman, when my speech was cut short by you, I was replying to some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Prinshof. He was concerned, inter alia, about the age restrictions, because he suggested that there were too many different age restrictions, which created a certain measure of confusion. He was also concerned about the fact that nowadays few films were shown at drive-ins which the family as a whole—including young children—could go and see. I must say that the hon. member made an impression on me in that regard. We in South Africa regard the binding force of the family as such as being extremely important. Strangely enough, in this regard the drive-in has contributed to strengthening the family bond in looking for entertainment. Children accompany parents to drive-ins, and at times it is frustrating and difficult when an age restriction prohibiting children between the ages of two and eighteen years from attending the show, has been imposed. Four-year olds and younger children usually fall asleep as soon as the film is screened. As I have mentioned before, and I want to repeat it in this House, if parents feel that we are able to effect an improvement in this dynamic life which is taking its course, we shall not be impervious to ideas, as long as those ideas are not destructive of principles and will not open doors to what otherwise may do a great deal of harm. For that reason we feel, also as far as age restrictions are concerned, that we should simplify matters more. Penetrating discussions were held with regard to this matter. I have repeatedly told this hon. House that in this regard we are concerned with an autonomous board which has its own problems as well as its own criteria and which knows why it is taking certain steps. For that reason the Board is competent to take its own decisions. We have decided that we may possibly move in the direction of a simplification of the age restrictions. I do not know whether we shall be able to move far in this direction. It is for the Board to decide, after consultations have been held and after thorough consideration has been given to this matter, whether one may not possibly allow a child of pre-school age to attend a cinema show in any event if he is accompanied by an adult. In other words, I think I am able to satisfy the hon. member that the matters raised by him is fact receiving attention, although I am not able to assure him at this stage that his wishes will be met in every single respect.

As regards the question of violence and sex and the influence thereof on children, I think we should leave this to the Board. I think the Board is competent to decide in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban Point handed me a petition which, as he stated —if I may mention it originated spontaneously amongst a section of our people. The petition was initiated by one Mr. Noble of Durban. I received the petition from the hon. member. It contains approximately 40 000 signatures. When I received the petition, I had to evaluate it. The petition contains the signatures of voters, if I may put it like that. As I have said, I learned from the hon. member that the petition originated spontaneously, and that signatures came from all cities. What I learned from the hon. member, however, is not everything I know. To tell the full truth, when we introduced legislation at the beginning of this year, the story of the petition was heard at the same time. When this legislation was under discussion, an endless and, in certain respects, very unreasonable and uncontrolled campaign in the Press accompanied this petition.

The petition was started long before this session started.

That may be so, but publicity for the petition accompanied the uncontrolled attacks on the Publications Board. I have proof of that. The dates coincide. [Interjections.] I have to evaluate the petition. I cannot simply accept it. The hon. member for Durban Point also told me that it had nothing to do with polities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his second contribution to this debate, started by referring to the new building which is being established in Pretoria for the Government Printer. I want to associate this side of the House with the words expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, firstly, to Mr. Myburgh who is now retiring. I want to say to him particularly, from those of us on this side of the House who know the shocking conditions under which he has been compelled to work over the past years: “Well done, good and faithful servant under the most difficult circumstances.” I cannot think of any civil servant who has ever had to work under such shocking, atrocious conditions as this poor unfortunate gentleman was asked to work under. I say more power to him for the good job that he has done. To Mr. de Beer, his successor, I say congratulations on his accession. We hope that he will have an easier task in these wonderful new buildings which are at long last being erected in Pretoria.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Prinshof and the hon. the Deputy Minister with his first contribution and the latter half of his second contribution. I want to say that it is quite apparent that a rethink is taking place in the Nationalist Party. I want to say how glad we are to see this. The hon. member for Prinshof was almost reasonable with regard to the application of this Act. He was almost prepared to come and join us on this side with his criticism and his ideas. I want to support him wholeheartedly. But this change was also apparent from the contribution of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am very glad to recognize this softening attitude. It appears that finally we are going to win through. We might even still have the Select Committee which the hon. the Deputy Minister hinted at.

I should very much like to deal further with other points that were raised by hon. members on that side of the House. However, I have a particular task tonight, namely to discuss with the hon. the Minister the question of naturalization. I want to start by saying how unfortunate it is that this department, in the words of the hon. the Minister himself, the most important department of State in this country, does not issue an annual report. The hon. the Minister himself says that over three million cases are brought to the department every year.

Two million.

I am sorry, I got the wrong figure, but even two million is an awful lot. But if you think of the spread that these two million cases cover, surely we should have some report. Let us know what is going on in the world of visas, of passports, of naturalization, of race classifications and the myriad other aspects which this hon. Minister handles.

When we come to naturalization, what is the position in this country today? We find that in the ten years from 1961 to 1970, 343 400 odd immigrants came to this country. During that same period 93 000 odd people left the country. This leaves us with a nett gain of 250 000, I do not believe that all those 93 000 that left were, in the first place, immigrants. Therefore, we have a minimum nett gain of potential citizens of at least 250 000 people. Up to this point they arrive as immigrants and obtain their certificates of permanent residence under the hon. the Minister of Immigration. However, from there on, the hon. the Minister of the Interior takes over. If there is to be an extension of a certificate of residence, it is up to the hon. Minister. If it is to be withdrawn, it is this hon. Minister who withdraws it. If the immigrant decides to take the next step, namely to take South African citizenship, it is this hon. Minister who grants him naturalization. Sir, what is the position? What has happened to these 250 000-odd people who could have taken citizenship in this country? I have been unable to trace figures other than those for the 1st three years. In 1968 there were 4 591, in 1969 4 371, and in 1970 3 394, making a total of 12 356 people who, in the last three years, have applied for and have received naturalization; 12 356 new South Africans have taken the oath of citizenship and have in fact become South Africans.

That has all been published.

Yes, it has all been published, but only during these three years. I have not been able to find the others.

It is in the Government Gazelle.

Yes, but think of the research involved in finding these figures in the Government Gazette. Does the hon. the Minister think that we have nothing else to do than to go through the Government Gazettes? This is why I say that the department should produce a report. Why does the hon. the Minister want to hide these facts? What does he have to hide? Is he ashamed of these figures? This is the very point I want to make. This appears to be a very small number, out of a ¼ million potential citizens who could have applied for and received naturalization. In all seriousness, will the hon. the Minister tell us tonight how many of these 250 000 people have been naturalized since 1960? Can the hon. the Minister tell us that?

Yes, 45 000.

Only 45 000, out of a potential 250 000…

For obvious reasons.

… have been naturalized. For obvious reasons? That hon. member is very sensitive, and he is jumping ahead of me, because that is another aspect which we feel should be included in the report to the hon. the Minister. As there is no such report, he must tell us tonight how many people have applied for naturalization and have been refused, for one reason or another.

Why do you want to know that?

Because it has always been the attitude of the United Party to encourage immigration and to encourage the taking of citizenship of this, our country. We need these people in this country. We need them all. If the hon. the Minister can give us some figures tonight, I shall certainly be very grateful, and so will the rest of the country.

I want to refer to a ceremony that I watched with pride on Republic Day. the 31st May. On that day two new South Africans took the oath of citizenship and became full South Africans. I was proud then that these people had chosen my country to be theirs. What are this Minister and his department doing to encourage these immigrants to become South Africans? Is anything being done to encourage them? Are they being helped to overcome the problems they face in trying to become citizens? As far as I personally am concerned, I have had one or two minor complaints. They have been concerned only with the application of the language test, because the people concerned felt that the test had not been fairly applied in certain cases. I do not know what is happening in this regard, because we have no report to consult, but as far as I can see. no encouragement is being given to these people to become citizens. No direct frontal attack is being made in this connection.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister what is happening right now. Industrialists and engineering firms in this country have received a booklet from overseas, from a firm called Patria. This booklet contains the names of 98 fully qualified engineers, artisans and technicians in the United Kingdom, and they are called “the cream of British engineers”. These are engineers in England who have indicated that they would like to come to South Africa. They would like to find jobs in South Africa. This is fine, because the Department of Immigration will look after them and bring them here. But are we going to allow those people to come here, to work here for a period, and then to go back whence they came, or are we going to try to keep them and their skills here for the posterity of South Africa? This is the question I am asking the hon. the Minister: Will he tell us what his department is doing? Are they prepared to go as far as the United Party has? Will they say: “We will accept all the immigrants who qualify and we will encourage them in every possible way to become full citizens so that South Africa can derive the benefit of these trained people, who are required in this country”?

Mr. Chairman, when I last spoke I was replying to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member informed me that the petition was completely non-political and quite spontaneous. However, in the Sunday Times of 24th January, 1971, I read the following—

This was followed by remarks made by the United Party people, inter alia, Mr. Lionel Murray, and the article proceeded—

The final paragraph reads—

This is a Sunday paper with a circulation of—I may not make this known, but it is probably not under 500 000 He said the petition was a non-political and spontaneous one. Was it spontaneous at a time when Press reports were published under headings such as “To fight censors”; and “Target is 100 000 signatures”? The petition contains only 40000 signatures. In the Argus of 19th April, 1971, an article appeared under the heading, “Censorship petition has 300 000 signatures”. In the Sunday Times of 7th March one reads, “Censor fighter Noble says ‘I go’”.At the moment Noble is away overseas. The reason for this is that an argument apparently arose as to whether those allowed to sign the petition should be Whites or non-Whites. In the Sunday Times of a week later the following heading appeared, “United Party men advised Whites only censorship drive”. I quote the following—

Mr. Chairman, I leave it to this hon. House to decide whether the origin of this petition has a political basis or a spontaneous one. There are numerous newspaper cuttings dating from this time from which I can read to hon. members. However, I am not going to fatigue you by doing so.

Now I should like to ask the hon. member what he would have done had he been in my place. Over a period of six months I repeatedly received letters and telegrams by the hundreds for more control to be exercised over the type of film, etc., entering our country. In the past two days I received two petitions of which hardly any mention was made in the newspapers. The signatures are beautifully bound. There is no similarity between these petitions and the strange picture published in the Press of the hon. member struggling to carry a lot of badly bound papers. I received two petitions of this nature from people in a spontaneous way. These petitions had not been instigated by the newspapers. They had not been instigated by the media. They were not initiated by them. They originated spontaneously. The National Party had nothing to do with them.

How many signatures do they contain?

Nearly 20 000.

Who collected them?

It does not matter. In the case of the hon. member’s petition the signatures were collected by a sailor. In this case I do not know who collected the signatures. In any event, it does not matter who collected them. The fact remains that the hon. member spoke of signatures. Because the hon. member spoke of signatures I have to do so too. Now we can go back to the little joke a man told the Prime Minister of a certain country. He said he would exchange ten of his signatures for one of Frik du Preez. I shall exchange a thousands of those signatures the hon. member has, for one of Gary Player. I shall also exchange a thousand for one of Tevor Goddard. These are the kind of people who head the petition. This movement is the Youth for Christ movement and they are the people who are on the side of the “serious-minded” people mentioned by the hon. member at the beginning.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

I do not have the time to answer questions. I have very little time at my disposal. Now I want to tell the hon. member that one should be very careful when one concerns oneself politically with a matter such as this petition. The only thing that is evident from it in the end, is that one’s party is associating itself with a permissive trend threatening to overrun the whole world. It is our duty to oppose this permissive trend to the best of our ability. Sometimes it is very difficult to draw lines, but I have every confidence that the Publications Board, with all its faults, will do everything humanly possible every day in order to prevent what is happening in Europe, which is being overrun by filth, from happening here.

Mr. Chairman, before I return to the speech which has just been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to deal with his second attempt to reply on the question of age restrictions in cinemas. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should be careful that he does not make it a mental age restriction; otherwise he will exclude most of the members of his own party who are making so much noise in the back benches. Let me now come to the question of the petition. The hon. the Deputy Minister has shown us a beautifully bound book which has one signature on each page,… [Interjections] on at least a few pages… [Interjections.] I estimate that there are about 15 signatures on average on each page. I suggest that the hon. the Minister of Health should turn back to the first page. However many there may be, what the hon. the Deputy Minister did not do was that he did not read out what the petition is asking for. That petition says that it is in favour of censorship and is against pornography. In other words, every one of those signatories could have signed the petition which I have handed in. I say this because that was also against pornography.

The petition I handed in was not against censorship, but it was against unreasonable censorship. The very title of the petition was “Petition for Realistic Censorship”. I want to say something else, and that is that the hon. the Deputy Minister had suddenly turned out to be a great supporter of the Sunday Times. I shall hold him to this in the years that lie ahead. Actually I must not say that, because he will not be there very long. In any case, in the little time he will be here I shall hold him to this. I can also tell him, for his benefit, that I have a letter of apology from Mr. Noble in regard to the report which he quoted in reference to the hon. member for South Coast and myself. He says it was totally incorrect and he was prepared to issue a statement if we requested him to do so. I was not prepared to start a controversy.

Why not?

I can say this: I am not interested in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attempt to belittle the petition. He is belittling 40 000 South Africans, and I leave it to those 40 000 South Africans to deal with him.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister came into this House with a great reputation, and I want to say immediately that he has brought to his post one thing which we admire, and that is courtesy. But, Sir, you cannot govern a country on courtesy alone. He had a reputation as a great verligte, as a man who was going to bring light into the Nationalist darkness, as the man who was going to change their policies. He was held up in Scope by one of his admirers as a future Prime Minister, and it was said of him in that article—

Sir, I want to ask him if this is efficiency. I wrote to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor on 17th November, 1970, about a case in which a person had a birth certificate showing certain details and a certain race; she had three identity cards with different details, and she had two passports. It appeared to me that there was inefficiency somewhere; someone must have “boobed” for a person to have one birth certificate, three identity cards and two passports, showing different origins, different dates of birth. with the same name appearing on different documents. Sir, all I asked was what had gone wrong. There must have been something wrong. That was on 17th November.

I think she was triplets.

The letter was acknowledged on 25th November, 1970, by his predecessor’s secretary. Then, Sir. we had the new “verligte” able Administrator who was going to make heads roll if there was any inefficiency; he wrote to me on 15th January, 1971. acknowledging the letter again and said that it was receiving attention. I wrote to him on 24th March and submitted further information, and then again on 29th March. My first letter was acknowledged on 24th March, and on 18th May of this year I received another letter saying that the matter was still being investigated. In fact. Sir, this is the most courteous author I have ever come across. I now have a book of acknowledgments saying that the matter is receiving attention, a book which is like a gramophone record stuck in the groove—“is receiving attention”; “will be advised as soon as a decision has been made”.

What is the name of the person?

No, I do not want to give the person’s name. I will send the correspondence over to the Minister. Here I have all the correspondence. He may have it. I do not want to mention the person’s name across the floor of the House. What I am questioning is not the facts of the case. I am questioning the fact that this efficient Minister has taken six months to give a simple answer to a simple query and I submit that either the hon. the Minister was not interested in following this up, or he is trying to shield some inefficiency somewhere. Mr. Chairman, it is no use being courteous if you are not delivering the goods. It should not take nearly six months…

Is that the ease of…

I am not giving any names.

Just say “yes” or “no”.

Sir, I am sending the name over to the hon. the Minister. He can look at it and send the note back to me.

I Will deal with it.

Sir, I am not interested in the details of the case. I do not want to disclose people’s personal details. What I am interested in is the efficiency of the hon. the Minister who sits on a case for this period of time. I ask him why it took so long. I said in an earlier speech that the hon. the Minister, as an author, wrote a book about ” The Man with the Missing Head”. But this seems to be the story of the Minister with the missing answer. And it is not a question of what is right; it is a question of how the department over which that Minister presides as a responsible officer (a) cannot deal with a simple query and (b) how this sort of thing could happen, irrespective of whom it happened to. How can a person be in that position which I have outlined?

Now, I think I have half a minute left and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I raised the question of bilingualism in the circulars of the Public Service Commission earlier this Session. I ask the Minister to check the letter which he so courteously wrote to me, and then to examine the flies, because I took the trouble to do so and I did not find that the facts conformed to what the hon. the Minister was advised. I ask him to investigate it further. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban Point…

Durban Bluff.

Yes, I think Durban Bluff is the correct term to use in regard to the hon. member. Referring to the petition of the Christian Youth Movement, this hon. member tried to make this House believe that all the petition was concerned with was pornography and that the request made here was that censorship be applied only in regard to pornography, I suggest that the hon. member, in making that statement, did not, as usual, know what he was talking about and that it deliberately created a wrong impression in this House. Now, Sir, with your permission, I am going to quote the preamble to this petition, and I am going to quote it to the hon. member in English because he will probably be better able to understand it then-

Sir, what has become of this statement now that it pertains only to pornography in the light of this clear statement—

This is what is being advocated by that hon. member. I only wish I had the right to quote the hon. member the signatures appearing on this petition. He would not have made these statements in this House then, but would have hung his head in shame as any decent hon. member would, considering the work that is being done by this Control Board and considering the fact that the right-minded and conservative people of the Republic of South Africa, thank God, fortunately agree with what this Board is doing. They agree with what this party is doing and for that reason they have submitted their signatures to this House against that which has a bearing on the wagon-load of permissiveness and signatures of the hon. member. Everyone with rather conservative views in this country, can only describe the views entertained by the hon. member as a rejection of everything that is conservative and as a rejection of all control. I wonder what the position in South Africa would have been if we had had to leave the matter to that party. We are grateful for men and women in our country, people who are doing their duty in public life, who were not afraid to add their signatures to this petition and to tell the National Party that they should continue with the good work they are doing in the interests of the Republic and our youth. Let us make this quite clear that the National Party is willing now and will be willing in future to guard against the weaker morals of the United Party.

In the few moments which are left to me I want to raise a matter of local interest. This concerns passport control as far as the former Protectorates are concerned. I am speaking particularly in regard to the State of Swaziland bordering the Transvaal. There was no passport control in the past. Swaziland belonged to Britain and, as I have said, there was no control. People could come and go as they wanted to. These days we read in the newspapers of the gambling tables of Maseru and of the casino at Mbabane. These days a tremendous number of people leave the Republic of South Africa to visit Swaziland. In order to show this House how enormous this traffic is. I want to point out that, during the Easter weekend in April, 40 000 people passed through the gates of one border post, Oshoek, which is situated on the Johannesburg-Ermelo-Mbabane route.

All South Africans?

Yes, South Africans. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to hang his head in shame for Afrikaners because he regards himself as one of them. There are altogether 11 border posts. An estimate of the total number of people who passed through those gates during the Easter weekend will probably be in the vicinity of 100 000. There is no control between the border posts, because there are only stiles. These gates have been erected by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for the combating of foot and mouth disease. When speaking of “foot and mouth” I am speaking of the stock disease and not of the disease one finds among people which may be called foot and mouth. The Swaziland administration has no passport control system. Consequently there is not only a valid influx into those areas, but also an enormous illegal influx of people through the stiles where there is no natural border. Some of these people are tourists and others from the Witwatersrand have business interests while others Still have farming interests and so forth. For this reason and because of the poor control, theft and, inter alia, illegal trafficking occur on a large scale. Particularly Bantu and Indians, who travel to and fro, by taxi, are guilty of this. Unfortunately also South African citizens and immigrants from certain countries in particular go there not for foot and mouth or to gamble at the casino in Mbabane or because of farming interests, but to find other entertainment there. For that reason we now have this undesirable situation that Bantu women are streaming to that area from the Republic with a view to committing prostitution. To our shame some of our own South African citizens in this way circumvent the provisions of the Immorality Act and commit large-scale immorality there. I appreciate that it is difficult to control the actions and movements of people when they are in a foreign state but since it has always been our policy to issue passports on a positive basis I want to suggest, in the first place, that this illegal influx to that area should be restricted to the absolute minimum In this regard I have in mind the withdrawal of bus and taxi licences from people who are guilty of misconduct and I want to ask for more Police and other officials to be made available in order to combat this evil in this way. In the second place, I want to ask that the issuing of passports should not merely be a formality, but that they should be issued in a more positive manner and after thorough investigations have been conducted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a much to comment on what the hon. member for Ermelo has said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must give the hon. member for Sea Point a chance to make his speech.

One can always expect hon. members to drag in colour. What does it matter whether it is yellow margarine or red wine. Of course, what the hon. member for Ermelo did, was to criticise the Minister for his poor control of visitors to Swaziland, and I gained the impression that what we had here, was a subtle attempt to sabotage this verligte Minister and that Ermelo possibly has the voice of Jacob but the hand of Esau, and that Hertzog is still in Ermelo. I do not want to say that this hon. the Minister was so verlig at one stage to have had a leading hand in the Torch Commando, but he definitely came to this House with the reputation of being a reasonably verligte person. However, I have no intention of discussing matters of this nature tonight. At this stage I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Green Point this evening about the Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Du Preez, who is going to retire shortly. I have heard what was said by the hon. member for Houghton, who, as usual, is not in the House tonight. I get the impression that she is always absent when I speak, but it may be coincidence. I just want to say that my experience of Mr. Du Preez is somewhat different to hers. I have found that whenever I approached Mr. Du Preez with a reasonable request—and I say this in all sincerity—I have never left his office without his appreciating my side of the matter and without my being satisfied. Since we are being reviled to such an extent in the outside world about so many things, there is one particular matter I want to raise. But I want to say right at the outset that I do not agree with all the laws. When I last referred a case to Mr. Du Preez, it was one where the father of the person concerned was an Indian and his mother was a Malay woman and where many problems would have arisen had the children been classified as Indians. I discussed this matter with Mr. Du Preez and in terms of the powers he had I was able to find a fairly easy solution for the problems of the person concerned who otherwise would have been in great trouble. I want to thank him this evening across the floor of this House, in public, so that everybody will know it, for having used the powers he requested in the latest legislation in a reasonable manner to alleviate and not to aggravate hardship. When I say I am grateful for that, it naturally does not mean that I support that legislation which makes it necessary for him to use his discretion where it would have been the normal right of those people to demand such classification. When the daughter of a Malay father who is a Moslem marries an Indian, who is also a Moslem, their children are classified as Indians under the laws of our country. It means that the grandchidren of such a Malay father will never benefit from what he has left them in his will because they will no longer be Malays but have become Indians. Since the hon. the Minister comes from Natal I wonder whether he would not give attention to what I am saying. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is not aware of all these cases, but I take it that the hon. the Minister will give attention to what I am saying. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given attention to all these unnecessary subdivisions? If these people are coloureds and have to be pushed aside, let it be so, I do not agree with the hon. the Minister, but that does not matter. He is entitled to his opinion. But is it really necessary to carry the classification of these coloured races even further to the stage where Indians and Malays, who have the same religion and who do not become Hindu by marriage, are classified in different categories? Is it necessary to continue with this absurd question of “other colours?” I do not know what “other colours” means, and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us tonight.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member may not ask a question. He knows it. because he has been in this House long enough. I wonder whether it is necessary to have those unnecessary restrictions, the only effect of which is to hurt people. Those restrictions do not solve anything. I hope the hon. the Minister will rise to his feet tonight and tell us what his aims are by separating Malays and Indians who, after all, have the same religion. The hon. the Minister should tell me what they are trying to achieve except to hurt people. Perhaps he will have the answer. I will listen to him and I will be reasonable. All I can see, is that it is a deliberate attempt to hurt people whom there is no need to be hurt. I say this in all honesty and integrity. Surely, it does not help making laws and saying things which do not solve anything, but merely hurt people.

I now want to deal with the question of classification. I can speak for hours on this subject, because I have had so much experience of people being hurt as a result of race classifications. I need only tell the hon. the Minister that I have been placed in the position where a person who committed suicide as a result of race classification, left a letter which was given to me by the Police in which I was asked to try to have her re-classified after her death so that she could be buried with her fiancé. Surely, this is a terrible thing. I want the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter. We know him to be a reasonable person. Let us refrain from doing things which hurt people without solving anything.

†Mr. Chairman, I now want to refer, if I may, to the electoral laws of our country. It will be recollected that towards the end of last year, I made a speech in which I pleaded that we should change the electoral laws. At the moment… I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to get tips from the hon. the Minister for a future speech, but I wish to goodness that he would allow the hon. the Minister to earn his salary and listen to what one is pleading for. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is keeping quiet, but the hon. the Deputy Minister is telling van der Merwe jokes. Whatever is the hon. the Deputy Minister trying to do? [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, we have come to know the hon. the Deputy Minister. He cannot even tell van der Merwe jokes; he cannot do anything original. But if this is the way he wants to carry on, let him carry on. He has had a salary increase and he now thinks he can do as he likes. He thinks his pension is safe.

Order! The hon. member should not be so personal.

Yes. Mr. Chairman, but then the hon. the Deputy Minister should give the Minister a chance to listen to me.

I want to refer to the Electoral Act. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of amending the Electoral Act. At the moment the position is that one has to identify oneself when applying for a special vote. One has to produce either a passport, one’s identity card or a driver’s licence or be identified in another way. However, an ordinary voter comes in, says he is Jan van der Merwe and immediately receives a ballot paper. I then said that if one had an organization such as the Progressive Party had in Sea Point, it would be the easiest thing in the world to bring in a great number or people. Somebody could simply say he was Piet Groenewald and a ballot paper would be given to him. But he is not Piet Groenewald at all and arrived by air from Johannesburg the previous night to come and vote in the name of another voter. I then said by way of a joke: “It will be too easy to have as your slogan ‘Vote early, vote Prog, vote often’.” As I understood the hon. member for Houghton, she said from her bench that night: “That is scandalous”. However, in the Sunday Times I read that she had said “You are scandalous”. I do not know what the hon. member meant. Since then some of my people have come across the case of a person from outside the Cape Peninsula who voted in someone else’s name. This person was subsequently found guilty by the court. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I go into any detail concerning matters raised in the course of the evening by various members, I should just like to give a general picture in regard to a question put to me by the hon. member for Green Point and other members on that side of this House as to the procedure followed by us. I feel that this is a general matter, and that it may be helpful to hon. members opposite if they know how we deal with these cases. I am going to give hon. members certain reasons this evening why we act as we in fact do in regard to the question of visas, passports, deportations, etc. I think it should clear the air to a large extent in regard to individual cases which are brought to the attention of this House every year on the occasion of these debates. Personally I feel that it is not worthwhile to deal with individual cases. I notice the hon. member for Durban Point is on the point of leaving the Chamber. I hope the hon. member will come back.

I shall be back in a moment.

There are a few matters to which the hon. member should listen. I shall try to give you an indication, even though it may be a very vague one. I think it is worthwhile in a debate like this to give an indication of the sources we use. Various members asked what sources we in fact used in order to obtain information before taking action against a person.

There are two different approaches. The one is that in respect of passports and the other is that in respect of the withdrawal of a visa…

I shall not go into detail. I do not want to draw all kinds of distinctions, but want to give the member an indication of our procedure and our sources. I may inform hon. members that we have sources here and abroad. We do not have sources in South Africa only. We do not have only the sources which are normally classified as the Police or the Bureau for State Security. We have other sources as well. When we have obtained information from those sources and things have been brought to our attention, we have to obtain a consensus of opinion as to how those sources may be used, in other words, how reliable those sources are. In the short time I myself have been concerned with these cases, I have come to the conclusion that we have a very wide, cross-covering. In other words, information is obtained not only from one side, source or group of people. Usually such information can be checked by tapping other sources as well.

Will you mention the sources?

Yes, I have already mentioned two important ones, i.e. the Police and the Bureau, which operate on completely different levels. They are two very important sources. It has been said in this House before that these are two of the sources, but we also have contacts overseas and in other countries of Southern Africa which assist us in regard to this type of information. When information reaches us, it is sifted, and when that has been done we decide whether it is worthwhile taking the matter any further. If, in our opinion, there are reasonable reasons for a certain matter to be investigated, we examine the matter more closely. I want to give hon. members the assurance at once that as long as I am Minister of the Interior, I shall try to exercise my personal prerogative by reading each case of this nature myself. Of course, I shall not read each of the 250 000 cases we have per annum, but I shall pay personal attention to every case which may possibly give rise to a dispute or uncertainty, or which may create a bad image of South Africa or to cases where an injustice may be done to a person who is not necessarily under suspicion but whose case is brought to my attention. I examine such cases personally. Furthermore, I have instructed my department that all cases of that nature should be sent to me personally. A report of that nature contains details seen from different angles, and in the course of such an investigation, opinions are expressed which give one a reasonable overall impression of what has taken place on various levels. In addition there are the opinions of the officialdom which have to be considered in cases of this nature. It I have the feeling or conviction that a case is not bona fide or strong enough, in other words that it does not justify action on our behalf, I refer it back. Since I have referred to Mr. Du Preez several times this evening, I want to say it is a pity he cannot speak now. However, he would have said the same things as I am going to say now. From the beginning I have referred cases back and have said: I am not completely satisfied, in the light of the information submitted to me, that one can proceed with the case. This is the method I am going to follow in future, one I have been following up to now as well. If possible, we try to obtain substantiating information, in other words supplementary information which one should have in order to form a complete picture.

Therefore, what I actually want to say is that the methods of inquiry we use, cover the various circumstances in full and in detail. Therefore, when such a case reaches me, I am able to pronounce a fair judgment. If an outsider wants to come and discuss such a case, it is readily allowed. However, I want to add, as I said in the beginning as well, that it is unfortunate that the Press often obtains such information and then expresses a suspicion which creates a completely misleading impression of what we are concerned with and of the reasons behind such a case. This evening I had a case where the hon. member for Houghton, who is not present at the moment, expressed an opinion as to why a certain person, the Rev. Desmond, had not been granted a passport. She expressed the opinion that the reason was that he had written a book which was unfavourable towards South Africa. I want to say at once that I do not know where the hon. member obtained this information, but it is a complete misrepresentation of the information which was available to us. This is the kind of difficulty one has to contend with; these things are published in the newspapers, in which case one cannot repudiate what is said in the newspapers by issuing a statement to the effect that it is wrong. My personal approach is this, and I have sent a circular to all sections of my department in which I stated that if politics were involved, and if political reasons were mentioned, it would be no concern of mine personally. The fact of the matter is that we have had people in this House who have had much more leftist opinions than the members of the United Party. Take, for example, a person like the hon. member for Houghton. Why would one not be able to take action against her if one were motivated by political reasons, as we are often accused of? She is a member of the Progressive Party. After all, the fact that we have not taken action against her, is proof of the fact that we do not take a person’s political views into account as being a primary or an important reason.

And socialistic politics—leftist socialism?

I do not know what the hon. member means by “socialistic politics”.

What about Daan van der Merwe; he is a leftist.

I am just trying to make the point that we do not take a man’s political convictions into account. I have issued a statement to this effect. At the time when these attacks were being made on the Government in regard to the Church, I said that it could be accepted on our part that party political considerations did not play a role in this matter and that it would not happen in the future either, in any case, not as far as I was concerned. I just want to add that we do not in any way regard criticism as such against the Government as a factor in considering whether or not we should take action against a person. How can criticism against the Government or ordinary opposition be taken into account? In other words, our standpoint as the Government is that we in fact welcome positive criticism of the Government and its policy, but if that criticism goes beyond the normal way of acting, it becomes necessary for us, of course, to take action. Why does one not lay a criminal charge? I have been asked why these people are not taken to court.

Then you will have to disclose the source of your information.

That is the point. It is a very important one. We cannot and will not reveal our sources of information. How can one keep one’s system in the country safe and watertight if one has to reveal one’s sources every time? In that case those people who provide us with information would be marked people. We often receive information from private persons, and when we have received such information we request the matter to be investigated. If one takes such an informant to court, one has to enable the accused to give evidence against him. This is not done overseas. I said here this evening that this was not done in half the democratic countries. Why should we do so? I think it is very unwise, and besides, it is often not to the advantage of that person himself who has requested a visa or passport or whose residence permit is at stake, to take him to court. It is simply not done.

To what extent can false information coming from people who wilfully want to slander one, influence the Minister?

If a man wants to make a statement, he is free to do so. We have in our files affidavits from people who accept responsibility for their statements. This is the only way of doing this. Surely one cannot listen to what someone tells one over a cup of tea when he informs one that he does not like the hon. member for Sea Point and is of the opinion that it is time we watched him. All information is checked. If an ordinary person comes to us and gives information, it is checked.

Do you check it any further than merely the statement which has been given?

Yes, much further. We refer it either to the Police or to the Bureau for State Security and as I said at the beginning, one insures that one has cross coverage so as to enable one to come to a reasonable conclusion as a reasonable person. To this I just want to add that this is detrimental to us in the political field. I do not know whether hon. members of the Opposition have ever thought of this, but it is very detrimental to take this kind of action. Why would a state or a Government act against people and either deport them or refuse them passports or visas? This does us nothing but harm. This does not make heroes of us in the eyes of the South African electorate. On the contrary, it has precisely the opposite effect to what hon. members think it has. It is one of the problems with which we, as a Government, have to contend, i.e. that a large amount of criticism is expressed as a result of such action being taken. It would be much easier to do nothing. For example, we had the case of the Japanese jockey. Do you not think it would have been much easier for us not to have involved ourselves in that matter and not to have taken action if we had seen the matter in the light that it would not have been beneficial to the Government to take that kind of action?

In that case, why did you act as you did?

May I ask the Minister whether he considers the advocating or practising of a common society between Black and White, in other words non segregation, as being politics or as being subversive? In other words, a person who advocates the abolition of social segregation, would he be regarded as subversive?

No, on the contrary, why should he be regarded as subversive? After all. you are against apartheid, but you are not subversive because of that.

But I am not against social segregation.

The hon. member is trying to split hairs now. Is he in favour of what happened with Percy Sledge, when we had to act against him? Was he in favour of the fact that he had parties with White people in all sorts of hotels, with White girls?

Say, for instance, he is a member of the Liberal Party who believes in total equality?

The Liberal Party was not acted against because they are liberal people. Certainly not. The only case I know of was the case of Alan Paton. A passport was refused to him once in all the time he was in the Liberal Party.

Why?

How many liberals in the country were not refused permits or visas? What about our friend, the hon. member for Houghton? Why should we act against her? What is the difference? Really, with respect, I think that is an irrelevant question. I can give the assurance that we do not act against the man because of his political views.

Then why did you take away Paton’s passport? We are dealing with the principe now. Tell us.

Order!

That is the very point I am making. Why do we not take action? [Interjections.] May I continue, please?

Why was Fugard’s passport taken away and then granted again?

I shall deal with it now. In the first place you cannot expect me to know what the reasons were when Fugard’s case was first under consideration in 1967.

Did you not read his file?

In 1967 his passport was taken away. That is four years ago. Since then his actions may have been different. Is that not so? How do you know, and how do I know?

But you had the record.

I cannot tell hon. members but I was satisfied that the position is such that we can grant him a passport at the moment. That is all.

Tell us about the background of it.

I want to mention a few reasons—these are very broad and do not pertain to any specific person whose case is under consideration—why the people are not granted a renewal of their passport. The first is if a person is a financial burden on the country. Hon. members will be surprised to know how many people do fall into this category. This is particularly so with people who come from overseas. It often happens. The State cannot accept financial responsibility for a man's inability to go to another country.

That is fair.

All right, that is fair. Secondly we take into account the fact whether his travelling or the granting of a visa to him may cause embarrassment to himself or to the society to which he is moving. Hon. members must not ask me details of what this means, but we have to judge for ourselves whether this will be the case or not. If it will cause embarrassment to a person and to the safety of the country we will have to take precautions to prevent this happening.

Safety?

Yes, safety is an important factor. We do not take the safety of the National Party into account, but we take the safety of the country into account. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please give the hon. Minister an opportunity to make his speech? hon. members must stop these interruptions. Hon. members know the rules of the House. When they want to know something they can get up and ask a question.

I would like the hon. members to talk about this later on.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Does he mean by what he has said just now that he is a security risk?

Yes, or when he is a security risk.

Is that the only consideration?

It is one of the broad reasons why we act in such a case. Then other persons to whom passports will not be granted are “gewese kommunisle, of bevorderaars van verbode organisasies”. It is very difficult to take a man to court for a thing like that. If such a person is assisting or aiding an organization which has been banned, naturally we shall have to take action against him. This stands to reason and hon. members, I am sure, will do the same. The same happens in a case of known terrorists and helpers of terrorists. In other words people who are known to be aiding or assisting terrorists when they came into our country or who have been helping terrorists on our borders will be refused passports. Then people who plead for revolution, sabotage, riots and acts of violence against people or against the State will not be allowed to come into the country. You sometimes get people who plead this sort of thing publicly. Certainly one has to take action against this, because you cannot take them to court for that.

*Then this applies to persons who undermine peace and quiet in the country. This has nothing to do with the mere fact that one’s feelings may be anti-Government. This applies to people who, for example, enter a location to address the non-Whites in the sense that they are encouraged to undermine peace and quiet in the country. Survey one should act in such a case. It is absolutely essential. I want to put it very clearly that foreigners and South Africans need not agree with the policy of the National Party. We do not expect this from anybody and we cannot expect it from hon. members opposite or from members of the Progressive Party. They have every right to their own political opinions. For that reason we do not act against persons for that specific reason.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Could the hon. the Minister state that religion or belief is not a criterion when he considers such matters?

In the six months I have been here the words “religion” or “belief” have never been used on any occasion. We were never asked, and it is not relevant as far as we are concerned. We take cognizance of the fact that people go overseas and that they attack… [Interjection.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member for East London City threaten another hon. member by saying that he will punch him in the mouth?

Did the hon. member for East London City say that?

Yes, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members show the hon. the Minister the courtesy of allowing him to make his speech? If not, I shall allow no further interjections.

Now I want to come to another category of people, i.e. those who besmirch and slander their own country overseas. If a man goes any further than expressing the normal criticism overseas, we take notice of that. If a person says in England that he does not like apartheid, it is nothing. We cannot stop that. From our point of view, he is perhaps not a very good Afrikaner, but he has the fullest right to do that if he wants to. However, if he says it is high time that South Africa be brought to submission by military force, we regard that as slandering and subversion. This is something against which we must take action and the only way in which we are able to do so is to curtail his travelling facilities. I have given hon. members eight reasons why the Department of the Interior acts in such cases, without mentioning details or a single case. Now, if the United Party wants to use its imagination and think how many times it happens that a man does not necessarily contravene the law so that he has to be taken to court, but acts in a subversive and dangerous way towards South Africa, surely it is obvious that the department must take action. I hope hon. members opposite will, as a good United Party Government, which will fortunately never come into power, but if they ever were to come into power, apply these same criteria as is also being done in all the other countries I know. There is not one country where it is not being done.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He has now given eight reasons and we accept them, but can he indicate which of those eight reasons was applied to Alan Paton when his passport was withdrawn?

I am not prepared to do it. When I started my speech I said that I would go much further tonight than we had ever gone in this House in regard to these matters. I have given hon. members opposite all the information in broad outline of things which determine our final decisions in cases of this nature. The reasons I have stated are not the only ones. These reasons form only the framework of what the department has to look out for. There are many other complications which I do not have to deal with in detail. By way of conclusion I want to say in regard to this matter, that as far as we are concerned, we do not expect anybody to accept the beliefs or the norms or the standards of South Africa when he comes here. This is basic to my outlook and it will remain basic. If such a person, however, goes further than mere opposition to these standards and if he tries to undermine what we have built up in South Africa as a status quo including the standards and morals of our country, we will deal with him.

In conclusion I want to say that if he does not want our standards—and this applies particularly to aliens who come here front other countries—and the way we treat him here, he is free to go.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Committee is indebted to the hon. the Minister for lifting the veil a little from the considerations which underly the decisions of his department. However, I regret very much his concluding remarks and his attitude of “take it or leave it”, when he said that if people did not like our way of living, they could leave the country. Earlier on the hon. the Minister made it very clear—and I accepted his statement—that differing attitudes towards the political policies of the Government of the day was not a consideration taken into account when determining the right of a person to stay here. Then, however, the hon. the Minister immediately negatived that approach by referring to a way of life which must be accepted.

No, I used three different determinations.

I hope the hon. the Minister will agree that his concluding remarks that “if you do not like the way we do things, you can leave the country” gives an entirely wrong impression.

It is the manner in which you interpret it.

I am using the hon. the Minister’s own words. What is very interesting from all the hon. the Minister has told us of the investigations which take place, is that there is one step which is lacking, namely the opportunity for representations from the persons concerned. I and every reasonable person will immediately concede that not every case can be taken into an open court and, as the hon. the Minister said, “openbaar die bronne van die inligting wat verkry is”. We accept that. Never have we on this side of the House asked that the tribunal should be a public court. What we do believe is that opportunity should be given to the person who is charged with any of these serious aspects of misconduct, to be able to answer the charges that are brought against him. Those charges can quite simply be brought to an in camera tribunal sitting without both parties being present at the same time. The opportunity of the man to be heard is an elementary aspect of justice. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am encouraged by what he has said tonight. If he proceeds as he has started now, we will perhaps reach the stage in South Africa that there will be an opportunity given to persons by the Department of the Interior to be heard.

With regard to the Fugard case, the hon. the Minister has told us that, whatever the reasons were for refusing his passport, he has now looked at the case ab initio and found no reasons for refusing the passport now, in 1971. There again I appreciate that the hon. the Minister has objectively looked at the case in 1971 and said that this man should have his passport.

I am sorry, but may I interrupt? You have just said that I indicated that I saw no reason why Fugard’s passport should have been removed from him in 1967. I think you are wrong there, because I did not say that.

No, I said that, as far as you were concerned, whatever the reasons were, you saw no reason for withholding his passport in 1971.

I said I saw no reason now.

Yes, I think I am quite clear on that. You said your predecessor’s reasons for refusing the passport were of no concern to you now. In 1971 you saw no reason for withholding his passport.

He did not say that.

I think you are misinterpreting me.

They used the word “now” and not “1971”. They did not realize that that is “now''.

Yes, “now”, at this present moment. That again gives an indication of the danger when the decision of only one person is required in determining the issue of passports. It just shows that there can be a difference of opinion regarding one person. Although I do not know Mr. Fugard personally, to the knowledge of those concerned he has conducted his life in the same normal way from 1967 to 1971 and the present time.

How do you know?

Well, I find for instance that—the hon. member for Rustenburg may be interested to hear this— he is the one official employed as a playwright for Capab, which he has continued to be for the last four years. If the hon. member would like to look at the programme for Capab for the Republican Festival he will find that the one playwright employed by Capab amongst the permanent employees is Athol Fugard. He has continued in his normal way and there is now in 1971 found to be no reason why he should be refused a passport.

He did not write so much either.

He has written no plays in the meantime. He has not eulogized the Nationalist Party in the meantime and I believe that he still believes in what he portrayed in the plays that he has written.

The hon. the Minister has listed eight reasons why passports can be refused. I believe these reasons also apply why visas should be refused to persons who may be suspected. I can understand that some of these reasons can only be applied by a refusal of a visa for a person who is intending to come to South Africa. But if it is a South African citizen who is applying for a passport I think—and I say this subject to correction—every one of the eight grounds which he has given me justifies a prosecution of that person under the laws of South Africa. Every one justifies a prosecution. If a person is guilty of any of these eight points that the hon. the Minister has mentioned to me and he is a South African citizen, he should be brought before the courts of law and prosecuted and not punished administratively. Punishments cannot according to our basic system of justice be applied arbitrarily. When I say arbitrarily, I mean administratively by a Minister of State. Punishments whether they be a deprivation of any rights of citizenship should be imposed by the courts of law and not by a Minister. That is the difficulty that we have in trying to follow the hon. the Minister’s arguments in connection with this question. I can understand quite clearly that in the case of a person applying for a visa from outside to come to South Africa the hon. the Minister may well through contacts which he has through the Department of Foreign Affairs be 'in possession of justifiable reasons to believe that if he comes into South Africa he may fake himself guilty of one of these offences. But the reverse in regard to passports cannot possibly be applied logically. I do not suppose we can expect that the hon. the Minister will say categorically that he accedes to our request at this stage. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find, having given the Committee these reasons, that the request that we make for the establishment of a tribunal of the type provided in the 1913 Act in regard to deportations is something that can be brought about to relieve South Africa of the criticism which is thrown at us because of that which at any rate appears to be arbitrary ministerial action restricting the movements of South African citizens.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Green Point was actually conducting a personal conversation with the hon. the Minister about replies furnished by the hon. the Minister, I do not want to respond to what he said. I want to confine myself to quite a different subject, i.e. the officials in our Public Service. If there is one matter on which there is apparently agreement, between this side of the House and the Opposition, it is the high appreciation we have for the loyal and able service rendered by our officials in the Public Service. I do not think there is any disagreement on this score. Neither can I see any hon. member who disputes the fact that there is agreement on this score. I base this statement on the debates conducted last year and in previous years in which tribute was paid by both sides of this House to the officials of the Public Service. Surely, when tribute is paid to officials and when appreciation is expressed for services rendered by them, there should be a norm against which those services are measured. I believe that the best norm for measuring this is the manner in which the Public Service fulfils its duty as servant of society and the contribution it makes towards a successful public administration. Only on this basis can unprejudiced and impartial judgment be passed. I want to concede immediately that, when paying tribute to our Public Servants, there may, in fact, be cases where officials have let the Service down. This is only human. Mention to me any service in the world, whether it is a public service or a service in the outside sector, where this does not happen. However, I want to state that one so seldom finds this phenomenon in the Public Service that it does not detract from the high praise both sides of this House have for the Public Service.

Since we have praised our officials, there should be sound reasons why officials render service of a high standard. I believe our officials render loyal and able service, because they are contended. Our public servants are contented and happy. It does not seem to me that there is any disagreement between the two sides of the House on that score. If anybody wants to dispute this, then I should like to see the reaction to this. I therefore accept that both sides of this House are convinced that our public servants are contented and happy.

We now have to ask ourselves the following question: Why are we in agreement on the fact that our public servants are contented and happy people? There are two reasons why one is contented and happy in service, viz. the conditions of service and the circumstances under which one works. Because we agree that our officials are content, we have to accept that our officials are happy with their conditions of service. It seems to me as though there is no disagreement, on that score either. Something which one does, in fact, find in the Public Service, is that there will always be individuals who are not satisfied; one will find dissatisfied individuals in the Public Service the same as one will find them in any other service. Unfortunately for the Public Service these individual cases are sometimes blown up out of all proportion. They are blown up in order to create the impression that this is the general attitude among officials. I think we can settle this question tonight by saying that all of us agree that this is, in fact, the case. But I want to say immediately that when isolated grievances of individual officials are blown up, this is not to the benefit of the Public Service, but to the detriment of the Public Service, and it is being done to the detriment of those officials who render loyal service to the State.

During the past few years a great deal has been done to improve the position of the Public Servant. Much has been done in respect of the conditions of service of our public servants. In pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the higher cost of living our officials have to face, I want to say that I think that the department and the Public Service Commission are constantly taking this into account because we have had several salary increases and adjustments since 1953. We had salary adjustments in 1953, in 1958, in 1963 and in 1969 and further adjustments were made with effect from 1st January 1971. What is of importance is that apart from the adjustments which resulted in considerable salary gains at the time of the latest salary adjustment structural changes and other measures have been put into effect which have proved extremely satisfactory to our public servants. Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate on all these changes but I should like to mention inter alia the following. There is now full recognition for higher qualifications. There are greater opportunities for merit promotion, an improved key scale which has been introduced, and an improved basis for giving recognition when appointments are made. I can continue in this way to mention numerous improvements. But what do these improvements entail? I want to mention a few examples in this connection.

These structural changes which have been brought about give our younger officials better prospects in the Service. Officials who obtain better qualifications are now suitably rewarded. More rapid promotion exists for those who obtain better qualifications as well as those whose achievements are above average. It is because of these changes which have been introduced in our Public Service that our officials are content, and that is why the average official renders loyal service. [Time expired.]

It has been said repeatedly this evening that the Department of the Interior and the Interior Vote are extremely important. It has been said by members on both sides of the House, and I think this is indeed the case, because there is hardly any facet of State administration with which the Department of the Interior is not concerned in some way or another. For the very reason that the Vote now being discussed is such an important one, it is on an occasion such as this that the bankruptcy of the United Party is so clearly demonstrated as it has been during the discussion of this Vote today. It is, as I say, precisely because this is such an important Vote that the bankruptcy of the United Party is so clearly manifested as is the case today. I do not think there is a better example of this than when their main speaker, the hon. member for Green Point, spoke for 10 minutes on the Japanese jockey who was initially refused a visa. Bringing that up again now, two years after that visa was refused, is beyond one’s comprehension. The horse may perhaps be dead long ago, and one does not even know whether the jockey is still sitting on a horse. But what does the United Party do? They keep on harping on the same string, i.e. this matter of the Japanese jockey. I am sorry the hon. member for Green Point mentioned it.

But there is another way in which their bankruptcy manifested itself, and that was when the hon. member for Green Point tried putting forward a plea here that a tribunal should be appointed in order to decide about the cases where passports are refused. He is a lawyer. He has been in the legal profession for years. There are other hon. members on that side of the House who are also members of the legal profession and they ought to have the basic knowledge of constitutional law to know that there are rights and privileges for citizens in a state, but they ought to know as well that there are prerogatives of the State. I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Green Point now. I want to tell him that I regard his plea for the establishment of a tribunal in respect of passports as somewhat ludicrous, to put it that way. As a lawyer he ought to know that there are rights and privileges for citizens of a country, rights and privileges which may be enforced by a court or be upheld by a court, but that, over against that, there are also prerogatives of the State. If he does not know what that means, he will probably know of the prerogatives of the Crown before we became a Republic.

I have never believed in the infallibility of the Crown.

The prerogative of the State is, inter alia, to grant or refuse passports, and one cannot subject the prerogative of the State to the Supreme Court or to some other tribunal such as the hon. member has in mind. It is a prerogative and it remains at that. And I think they should now stop talking about that, also the hon. member for Houghton, who had too much to say. The State exercises its prerogatives—and that is that.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who is an ex-official and is apparently also striving after some crown or other, this evening accusingly put it to the hon. the Minister that only 45 000 out of 250000 immigrants applied for naturalization over the past few years. I interjected that for understandable reasons they did not always apply for naturalization. I want to say this in respect of an immigrant who perhaps emigrates to a country at a more advanced age than a young beginner. I have great respect and great admiration for them. They are indeed people who see their way clear to doing something which I myself do not see my way clear to doing, i.e. to leave house and home, to pull up their roots and to make a new start somewhere else. I can understand why those immigrants do not apply for naturalization. There are two well-known reasons. The first is that immigrants from overseas countries retain their pension benefits as long as they retain their citizenship of those states. That pension means social security to them. All immigrants from Holland and all immigrants from Germany—I do not know what the position is in respect of immigrants from England—retain their pension benefits.

And they are large pensions.

Yes, they are large pensions. These pensions mean social security to them, and therefore they do not apply for naturalization, because as soon as they give up their citizenship they also forfeit that social security. But there is another reason.

Why do you not offer them the same social security here?

They retain those benefits additional to those they obtain here. But, Sir, I must hurry, I still want to raise two other important points. The other important reason is that they have emotional ties with their fatherland, as I have emotional ties with South Africa. In accepting the citizenship of the country to which I emigrate, I finally severe those emotional ties. Sir, I have great regard for immigrants and I thank them for coming here; I thank them for the knowledge they bring to South Africa; I thank them for the initiative they bring to South Africa and I thank them for their contribution to the country. But I particularly thank them for one thing, i.e. for the children they give South Africa and for the new citizens South Africa gains in their children, who are then indeed citizens of South Africa. And there are more than 250 000.

Sir, there is something specific I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy, and I hasten to talk about it. In regard to the admission to cinemas and the age restrictions imposed on certain films, I feel that special attention should perhaps be given to films shown at drive-in cinemas or the age restriction imposed on films shown at drive-in cinemas. The other day I saw it mentioned in a list that there is an age restriction of 2-12 years for certain films. Sir, my view is that a drive-in cinema is the place to which a family goes for their Saturday evening entertainment. One thinks particularly of young married couples who cannot go anywhere else because they do not have baby-sitters. My plea is that we should not make drive-in cinemas inaccessible to families who want to go there Saturday evenings to enjoy their entertainment together there. Sir, I must hurry; I leave it at that. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will understand what I am referring to.

Another point I should just like to raise is that for the first time in my life I want to agree with something which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised here…

Do not apologize; you are making progress.

… and that is that provincial and parliamentary elections should take place on the same date. Sir, I should like to endorse this wholeheartedly. I think the whole electorate and the party organizations in South Africa will welcome such a step. I think that attention should be given to this matter at this stage already, although the next election is only due to take place four years hence, because a delimitation committee will sit next year and attention will have to be given to the way in which polling districts are to be divided so that no problems are created when the two elections have to take place on the same day. I think there are proper precedents for it in, for example, South West Africa where there has in fact been a by-election which coincided with a provincial election. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof took it amiss of the hon. member for Green Point for having referred to the case of the Japanese jockey. Sir, can the hon. member for Waterkloof not understand that this kind of thing is detrimental to the good name of South Africa? We are discussing the Vote of the hon. the Minister of the Interior here, and we are just trying to make him understand how much harm something like this does South Africa. There is no point in trying to rectify matters later, because by that time the original harm has been done.

Sir, in the first place I want to address myself to the hon. the Deputy Minister and put two questions to him in regard to his petition. The first is whether hon. members on this side may also have access to that petition. I have noticed that it is circulating among hon. members opposite. In the second place, I wonder how many of the people who signed this counter petition, in fact realized that they were signing such a petition and what the preamble of that petition was.

What do you mean?

Sir, I may inform you that I am able to testify to the fact that at least 25-30 people whose names appear on that list had not gone into the matter. Recently my wife attended an innocent women’s meeting, and while they were drinking tea, the petition was circulated. I asked my wife whether they had all signed, and she replied: “Yes.” My next question was whether they had read what it contained, and she replied: “I was the only one who took the trouble to read it, and I did not sign it.” This is all I want to say in that regard.

Now I should like to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister. In this regard I want to make a plea to him and I hope he will give me his support in this regard. I want to ask him to give serious consideration to the question of examining the possibility of removing the teaching profession from under the wing of the Public Service Commission. Seeing that the hon. the Minister comes from Natal, I believe he will be aware of the merits of this case because, as he knows, the provincial council in Natal passed a motion to this effect several years ago already. Moreover, I hope he will realize that the two teachers’ associations in Natal are unanimous in respect of this matter. I may inform him that it has the support of other teachers’ associations throughout South Africa.

Sir. there are two reasons in particular why the teachers’ associations feel so strongly about this matter. In the first place, they have a desire to establish their own registration or professional board. This is something teachers have been advocating for many years. Unfortunately the hon. member for Worcester is not present here this evening. He takes it amiss of me when I speak about these matters and usually asks: “What do you know about these things?” Sir, I may tell him that I know a great deal more about it than he does, because, after all. I was a member of the Federal Board of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and I never saw him there. As regards the registration board, I may tell him that I am one of three members who spent days and nights on preparing draft legislation. Sir, I may tell you this evening that I believe all responsible teachers and teachers’ associations feel very strongly about this matter, because they realize that the mere creation of a professional board will not be a panacea. If teachers want to lay claim to official professional status, they should act at all times as it becomes professional people to act.

The one thing they cannot afford to do —in this respect I want to support what the hon. member for Bloemfontein East said-—is to become involved in salary campaigns. But in view of the fact that the teachers have to fit in with the Public Service as such, we find that any adjustments to their posts and salary structures can take place only when general adjustments have been made in the Public Service. Experience has taught us that the outcome of this is that one always has a bitter salary campaign before the time. As I have said, the reason for this is obvious, because the Public Service Commission tries to draw comparisons with the various Government departments.

As long as they are dealing with other Government departments which are similar, they do not experience many problems, because professional persons such as engineers and land surveyors or architects are employed in other Government departments as well. Basically an engineer as such or a land surveyor as such has the same qualifications, and for that reason it does not matter whether that person is employed in this department or in another department. In that case one can always compare the one to the other. As far as the teaching profession is concerned, one finds, for example, that there are six different categories of professionally qualified teachers. There are sound reasons for the existence of six different categories. Furthermore, there are sound reasons for the different gradings of schools. This in turn leads to different posts for principals. I am opposed to the promotion system in education.

Now I am referring to the people in the education profession itself, the professional people, and not to the departments. There are no fewer than 40 posts on the promotion scale; this is the position if one proceeds from the lowest post, i.e. a teacher in category A, to the highest post, i.e. that of chief inspector of education. Now one has a very difficult task. They are grouped into 11 promotion steps, and this necessarily leads to an illogical grouping. This illogical grouping of a large group of posts, creates inconsistencies and it is these inconsistencies which are contributing towards dissatisfaction. Another problem one finds in this regard is that the gap between the posts, even now after the improvement in the salary scales, is so small that sometimes there is no incentive for people to accept the greater responsibility of a next step, because it is not worth their while to do so.

Something else which is very important, is the necessity of creating new posts while there is no place to fit them in. In the light of this I want to address a serious request to the hon. the Minister to remove the teaching profession from under the wing of the Public Service Commission. If they are established as an independent department, we shall be able to create a logical post structure for them. If this were done, teachers would never have to do the unprofessional thing of becoming involved in campaigns so as to improve their own positions.

I want to continue by referring briefly to another matter. I want to refer to the general registration of voters. When we discussed the amending legislation here, the hon. the Minister said he would be able to give us more information in this regard at a later stage. He did inform us that it would possibly come into operation on 7th September, 1972. As we all know, the closing date will be 42 days after that, i.e. 19th October, 1972. In view of the fact that the delimitation is going to be based on the two supplementary voters’ rolls, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to choose his date of commencement in such a way that the closing date will coincide with one of the normal closing dates of supplementary voters’ rolls, in other words, 31st October, 28th February or 30th June. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central adopted a very strange attitude in regard to the so-called petition which the hon. member for Durban Point collected with great difficulty in the course of the past few months and by means of which he tried to show with a great fanfare and flourish how the public outside is allegedly opposed to the Government’s standpoint in respect of the handling of undesirable publications and so forth. In a very strange way, if I may call it that, he disparagingly tried to discredit the hon. the Deputy Minister's proof to the contrary. It is a very unfair assertion for him to make this evening, i.e, that there are persons who signed the documents of the hon. the Deputy Minister without knowing what they were about. He wants to pretend that there are people who signed those documents without knowing what their contents were, and I think it is a very unfair representation the hon. member gave. I want to tell him that the hon. the Deputy Minister can vouch for it this evening that he obtained a spontaneous reaction from the public of South Africa, the vast majority of whom support the standpoint of the National Party. I think the hon. member should try to find an opportunity at a later stage to speak to the hon. the Deputy Minister about this.

As has happened before, it has become fashionable during the past number of years for certain armchair academics to make great pronouncements on Government policy among Government subordinates every so often. They try to make assumptions as experts. They very often try to compare incomparables, while conveniently leaving relevant matters out of consideration in order to give more impact to their own statements. I am thinking in particular of a person from whom we have heard a great deal in recent times, and he is most probably on the side of the United Party or the Progressive Party, i.e. Prof. Ben Roux, the head of the department of political science at the University of South Africa. He expresses a good deal of criticism on the Public Service. He was reported as follows—

Those hon. gentlemen make these ex cathedra pronouncements which are not without a touch of venom towards the Public Service and the Government. I now want to ask these persons a question. Since 1912 the following State departments have been created: the South African Police, Defence, Water Affairs, Health, Foreign Affairs, Social Welfare and Pensions, Transport, the Public Service Commission and many more. These persons should have a far greater appreciation of the real reasons why we want to keep this State machinery going today. A second point I want to make is that we have often in the past had loose shots fired by the United Party at the Minister of the Interior and his department. The performance of the hon. the Minister has indeed been a ray of light in contrast to the darkness created by the Opposition in this House when they discuss Internal affairs.

There is one important matter which still has to be debated in this House next year or in the years to come. The United Party will have to explain the place which the Public Service and the Public Service Commission are to occupy within their federal system in South Africa, and particularly what place the Bantu and their various ethnic groups as well as the Indians and the Coloured people are to occupy in the State administration. The United Party has already tried to give a reply as to what, in its view, the executive in South Africa should look like. But the United Party still has to put before the public its standpoint as to what form the administration of justice is going to take, what the provinces will look like, what the local administrations will look like, in respect of the incorporation of the non-Whites in South Africa as well. The United Party must, in particular, tell us how the Bantu are going to be incorporated in the central administration in respect of the State departments, the Public Service, the Public Service Commission, State finance, the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways, State-owned corporations, control boards, such as the agricultural control boards and other control boards, advisory boards, professional boards, judicial and arbitration boards, commissions and research institutions. The United Party may in all fairness be asked how, if it regards South Africa as a race federation, it is going to incorporate the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians in that federation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now the great moralist who wants to test the National Party morning, noon and night according to a specific social conscience and who tells us morning, noon and night that we are the great committers of injustice in South Africa. How is that great moralist going to give effect to this in order to test his conscience in respect of the place which the non-Whites are to occupy in the machinery of State? This evening I want to ask the United Party in all fairness what the position of the Bantu, the Coloured people and the Indians is going to be in the Public Service. Is the United Party going to bring them in as clerks? At the moment there are 29 480 Coloured persons, 7 194 Indians and 131 102 Bantu in the Public Service, a total of 167 776, as against 104 783 Whites. The National Party with its policy of separate development affords each of those non-White groups the possibility of reaching the highest rung in their particular State department which has been created for them. Therefore I now want to ask from this side of the House whether they are going to incorporate the non-Whites as clerks.

In the communal councils, yes.

The hon. member for Orange Grove says ” Yes”. Well the United Party subsequently incorporate the Bantu as administrative assistants in the machinery of State. In order to comply with the moral norms of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the United Party also going to incorporate the Bantu as senior administrative assistants? Is it going to incorporate the Bantu as administrative officers? If the United Party has got that far, are they going to incorporate the Bantu as administrative control officers? If the United Party has incorporated the Bantu to that extent in its race federation plan, will a Bantu be able to become under-secretary of a department? Will the United Party then, in order to comply with the requirements laid down by the great moralist, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, also allow a Bantu to become deputy secretary of a department? Will a Bantu be able to become a head of a department in the opinion of hon. members of the Opposition? These are very Fair questions. If I may now bring the hon. member for Turffontein into this, these are the matters about which the youth of South Africa are asking questions. We should also like to test our conscience in respect of these people. The hon. member should again hold a symposium on the Rand. He should again Collect those handfuls of people and then he can ask those leaders whether these are the questions to which they want replies.

Mr. Chairman. may I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, the hon. member may do so. I shall ask him to go to his son. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik never fails to make me wonder. Every time I hear him speak in this House I wonder on whose behalf he is speaking. He has just put a series of questions, and he is trying to justify these questions by saying to the hon. member for Turffontein: “Dit is die vrae wat die jeug van Suid-Afrika vra”.

*Sir, I now want to tell him that it is not the youth of South Africa who ask those questions; it is the youth of the H.N.P. who ask those questions. I also want to tell that hon. member that his leader is coming to this House one of these days. One of these days he will be sitting beside us here in the House. I wonder what he is going to do once his leader is here. However, we do not yet know which leader it is going to be. We do not yet know whether it will be Jaap Marais or Treurnicht. but it does not matter which of the two it will be; he will still be the leader of the H.N.P.

†Mr. Chairman, to come back to this question of the Civil Service, the hon. member for Rissik knows that there is a little yellow pamphlet entitled “The Answer: You want it, we have it”. I see that he has a copy of the leaflet. He can find all the answers in there. Why then is he asking all these stupid questions, when the answers are contained in that book? There is another point I want to make in this connection. Where was the hon. member a little while ago when a Bill dealing with a Public Service commission for the Bantu in the Bantu areas was before this House? Where was he at that stage? Does he not know that there were provisions in that Bill which dealt with the very questions he has just raised? Does he not know what the attitude of this side of the House was towards those provisions?

What was it?

Our attitude was aimed at the protection of the civil servants. We opposed the Bill at its Second Reading, but when our amendment which protected civil servants was accepted in the Committee Stage, we then accepted it. What is that hon. member talking about now? Who are the ones who were looking after the civil servants at that stage? It is no good the hon. member talking such nonsense now.

Sir, I want to go further in connection with the Public Service Commission and the civil servants, but before I do so I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Waterkloof, who spoke a little earlier. He gave two reasons why a number of the quarter million immigrants had not been naturalized. I can accept those two reasons, but the crux of what I was saying to the Minister is: What is he doing to break the ties these people have with their home countries and to make these people true citizens of the country of their adoption, the Republic of South Africa? Are you doing anything? I hope that we shall at some time have an answer from the hon. the Minister.

I want to come back to the question of the Public Service Commission. Unfortunately the hon. member for Pretoria District has left, but I must say that the three pleas he made receive the full support of this side of the House. His first plea was in connection with the conditions which pertain to the public servants who come down to Cape Town year after year to look after us here in Parliament. I must say that we pay tribute to the sacrifices which those people make. We appreciate their contribution to the smooth running of this House. He also raised the question of leave and here, too, we support him wholeheartedly. Then, particularly, he pleaded that the Public Service Commission should look again at the conditions under which housing loans are granted. He made particular mention of the ceiling of R15 000 on these loans. A teacher or any civil servant in Cape Town can. I know, find a house costing less than R15 000 in certain areas of Cape Town, but if you go into some of the outlying areas, you cannot find houses conveniently situated, costing less than R15 000. In fact, if a civil servant is posted in Pinetown or in Westville in the Durban Complex, the hon. the Minister will know that he will not even be able to buy a plot of land for RI5 000, let alone a completed home. I do commend the plea of the hon. member for Pretoria District in that regard.

There is discontent in the Civil Service today, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister knows this. I am sure he knows, and that the senior officials of his department and the commission particularly are aware of this discontent within the Civil Service. Various measures have been taken over the years to try to sort out the problems of the Public Service. In 1920 we had the Graham Commission. Twenty-four years later, in 1944, we had the Centlivres Commission. A little bit more than twenty-four years have passed and I think it is time that we again had something similar to that. Because of this discontent within the Public Service, we have had certain developments within the last few years. As far as I am concerned, these developments are a little bit confusing and perhaps the hon. the Minister can throw some light on the matter. In 1969, in Hansard, column 7203, the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. S. L. Muller, said—

At this stage Mr. L. G. Murray asked: “When was this?”. To this the Minister replied: “This Committee was appointed at the end of last year”. This means at the end of 1968. This Cabinet Committee was appointed “to see to what extent we can improve efficiency in the Public Service”. My first question is: What happened to that committee? Has it done anything? Has it reported?

There is no sign of a report.

There is no sign of it anywhere. But it goes further. I have here a report of the Star of 16th June. 1970. The date is important. I read the following—

Now, here we have another committee. Is this the same committee? I do not know. I see the hon. the Minister shakes his head. Is it the same committee? One was appointed in 1968 which does not seem to have functioned at all. Now we have one which was appointed in June, 1970, which also does not seem to have done anything as far as we are aware.

There has been a change in Ministers.

I grant that there has been a change of Ministers. But what has happened to these committees? Are they going anything? If they are doing anything, are they doing anything for the benefit of the public servant? Are they looking to his interests?

The terms of reference of the committee appointed in June, 1970, reads—

The members of this committee are all senior civil servants themselves. They are secretaries and under-secretaries of departments. Have these senior officials the time to go into this matter? Can they really deal with the problems of the civil servants today, such as the question of the merit rating system, promotions, the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point, leave pay, holiday bonuses, overtime, etc.? Is the time not ripe to appoint another commission on the lines of the Centlivres Commission of 1944, a commission that could go fully into the complaints of the civil servant? This will give to the civil servant somebody to whom he can refer his complaints. The need is being felt within the Civil Service today for somebody to take the place of the old Civil Service inspector. He was the man who came around to the offices to receive complaints. It is no good saying to a civil servant today that he should refer to his senior officer. That senior officer has full say over that man and the latter does not want to refer to his senior officer. The most important point of all with regard to the establishment of a commission on the lines of the Centlivres Commission is the fact that the Public Servants’ Association itself has asked for it. I believe that the Public Servants’ Association received a rather short reply from the Commission. I am, however, not going to state this as a fact.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.