Mr. Chairman, yesterday I referred to the other registers being compiled in conjunction with the central population register. As far as the fire-arms licences and driver’s licences are concerned, the old registers were kept by the Department of Justice and the various provinces. The Department of the Interior now keeps two separate registers for these categories, registers that are kept on behalf of the aforementioned authorities. This saves the State millions of rand. The central fire-arms register has already been completed and details concerning fire-arms can now be obtained within seconds. Previously, it was almost an impossible task to obtain information relating to fire-arms.

The central register of driver’s licences is approximately 80% complete and also promises to be an extremely valuable source of information. In the past, Natal was the only province that kept a central register of driver’s licences. For the rest, driver’s licences were issued by offices of the Receiver of Revenue, by municipalities and magistrates. In many cases the registers concerned were handwritten and it was therefore very time-consuming to look up details in them. Technically, it was impossible to determine whether or not anyone possessed a driver’s licence. Sometimes, a person was refused a driver’s licence in one magisterial district but that same person was issued with one in a different magisterial district. Sometimes driver’s licences were suspended by the court only to be re-issued in another magisterial district due to false statements made by the applicant. Driver’s licences were often forged as well. In fact at one stage, there was a fairly lively black market trade in driver’s licences.

Hopefully, the new central register will put an end to all these malpractices. It will facilitate and simplify the administration. It will entail a saving on costs and will probably also contribute to greater road safety. The central computerized population register and all its ramifications is a sound and necessary development, and we are looking forward to its completion by the Department of the Interior and the officials involved within the expected period, i.e. by 1980.

Last night, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point referred to the Public Service. He mentioned some recommendations that had been made by the Public Service Commission in relation to reducing the number of Government departments and the amalgamation of certain activities. The hon. member went on to criticize the Government and said, inter alia: “This proliferation is stimulated by separate development.” There is one thing the hon. member for Green Point will have to realize. It makes no difference whether the UP, the NP or the PRP is in power. Government in South Africa has been based on the realities of a plural society. Therefore, every party, including the governing party, has modelled its legislation on that reality and based it on a policy which makes provision for the administration and control of its plural society. Consequently, the allegation that separate development is the reason why the Public Service is made up of so many departments, is a false one. The truth is that conditions in South Africa have made it essential for the Government to have more departments than other countries if it is to control and organize the various non-White peoples and to guide those peoples to maturity in every field.

The hon. member referred to Japan and various Western countries. As far as I am concerned, that is an argument that simply does not hold water when tested against the reality of South Africa’s position. There are other realities present here as well. I want to refer the hon. member, inter alia, to the Department of Labour. The hon. member and his party are advocating the establishment of Black trade unions. We must take cognizance of the fact that they are not advocating integrated trade unions. Nor do they see a unit as a whole. In the same way, the hon. member would do well to go and look at all the other individual departments. There he would see that the differentiation needed in legislation—differentiation which his party will also have to recognize—requires many more people for its administration.

Apart from the phenomenon of a plural society in South Africa, we also ought to bear in mind, when we consider the administration of our Government machine, the leeway to be made up by the vast majority of non-Whites as far as development is concerned. If we consider the fact that 45% of South Africa’s present Black population is under the age of 15 years, and if we imagine how this must affect administration, then we find that a very large number of officials is required to support those people in their programmes of upliftment. There is a need for, inter alia, 6 000 new teachers annually to educate the Black peoples.

The hon. member ought to realize that that statement of his is a false one but despite that fact, it is repeated year after year. Every year they allege that separate development is the root cause of our large Government machine. There is yet another reality which the hon. member for Green Point and his party fail to bear in mind. That is the fact that South Africa is a developing country. As far as Government control is concerned, this means that whenever there is a lack of capital for undertaking certain projects—I am now referring to a deficiency in the private sector—those projects must, of necessity, be undertaken by the State. Then we could refer to bodies such as Iscor, Sasol and Escom. Those bodies, too, necessarily have an influence on the administrative scope of our State machine. The Department of the Prime Minister has issued a directive and a permanent advisory committee on Government interference in the private sector has been established. Basically, that committee’s job is to ensure that nothing the Government departments do encroaches on the territory of the private sector. That is the first of their terms of reference. The second is to try—I believe we shall succeed in this—gradually to transfer to the private sector work which the State has already undertaken and which could possibly entail an encroachment upon the territory of the private sector. The Government and everyone on this side of the House believes—and this has been stated repeatedly by the Government—that we should try to make our Government machine as small as possible. The Cabinet is working on this at the moment and it is not for us to comment on the matter at this stage. It is stated Government policy. We should, however, try to bear in mind the few realities which I have tried to formulate for the hon. member.

I am convinced that in the spirit of the speech which the hon. member made in the spirit of many speeches which business leaders have made, we should also give very serious consideration to another matter, and that is the communications gap between the State and the private sector. The Opposition has also contributed to the communications gap which sometimes exists between the Government machine and the private sector. Various departments of the Public Service have to carry out certain duties with regard to the private sector and I think it is vital that communication with the private sector be of such a nature that the private sector will know at all times that in the Public Service and in every Government official it has someone who wants to help and support it, someone who wants to assist in the economic growth of South Africa. I am referring particularly to the officials at the lower levels. I know this is a general complaint in the private sector and it is also a common factor in the case of all Government machinery throughout the world, that there is a communications gap at the personal level when it comes to the implementation of laws and the interpretation of regulations.

I think the Opposition will grant us that the private sector in South Africa in general can by no means point a finger at the Government machinery, particularly not at our top people; brilliant people. They cannot deny that these people are doing everything in their power to get the economy moving rapidly in the field of industry and commerce. We as members of the Government, as Afrikaners, are not afraid to admit that it is an unfortunate fact that the staff of the Public Service is predominantly Afrikaans-speaking. I say this in the confidence that everyone of us will be stimulated to greater self-examination. If one looks at the historical development of the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner’s approach to the economic world, one sees that there is still today a polarization between the officials on the one hand—the so-called salaried people—and on the other, those people who make money—the so-called exploiters. The moment the individual, including the one in the Public Service, adopts that approach, he cannot make the State’s activities in regard to the private sector function harmoniously. I want to ask whether it would not be possible for the Public Service Commission to devote a great deal more attention in its training programmes to instilling into the Government official how vital it is that in these times in particular, the economic machine in South Africa should function as quickly, smoothly and as well as possible. Under no circumstances, not even in the thoughts of a single official at whatever level, can we afford to have a polarization between those who are at the helm on the one hand and those who are making money in the private sector on the other. Everyone of us must put this idea across at all times to everyone in South Africa, and all Government officials in the country must realize that what we need in South Africa for progress and development is not fewer businesses making less money, but more business concerns in the commercial and industrial world making more money in the interests of the survival and maintenance of what we in South Africa would like to preserve.

The Opposition, too, has an important task in this regard because in years past, they have also contributed toward the creating of an incorrect attitude. For example, on a number of occasions, the hon. member for Durban Point has attempted to delude the electorate into thinking that the Government was supposedly causing the prices of goods to move in a certain direction, to the detriment of the average salaried man. In the times we are living in, each and every one of us, and every Government official as well, must be an economic patriot. I believe this is the spirit in which our Government machine views the economy as the basis of our future. The Opposition must not hold lectures and try to lead people to believe that they are having a hard time. Rather, they should help to make every individual in society aware of the fact that we need a strong economy and that in order to keep that economy strong, we are asking for sacrifices in these times, including sacrifices from the official for whom no gratitude was forthcoming from the hon. member for Green Point. These are people who, in these days of economic crises, have refrained and are still refraining, from demanding salary increases. We owe these people a debt of thanks. With the Public Service as a basis, we should all make a contribution towards keeping the realities of South Africa in view and attempting to stimulate our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up the argument of the hon. member who has just spoken, except to say that I agree with him that South Africa is indeed a plural society. Plurality is a fact. It is not a philosophy; nor is it a policy. Where we part company, is on the question of what flows from that plurality. I do not for instance need a racial classification law to prove my identity to myself or to anybody else. I want to ask the hon. member: Does he need a race classification law to prove his identity to himself or to others?

If I may, I want to discuss for a few moments some of the aspects relating to the Population Registration Act. This is one of the most hated pieces of humiliating and racially decisive legislation, with which this Government has ever shamed our Statute Book. I believe its provisions have probably caused more heartache, more family tragedy and humility than all the ambassadors. Gary Players and the Chris Barnards can hope to rectify. Yet, having listened to one or two comments from hon. members on the other side, it seems to me that it is the attitude of the Government that this law must remain on the Statute Book, regardless of the suffering it causes. It seems to me that hon. members believe—to quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pik Botha—that by repealing this law we as South Africans would be “negotiating our destruction”. The question is at what price, at what level of degradation does South Africa wish to retain its racial purity? I wish to refer to two examples which have come to my attention during the last few weeks.

Mrs. X was born of a White father and of a mother of White and mixed origin who is long deceased. This lady is in her mid-thirties. All her life she has lived as a White person, has been accepted as such and has lived only in White areas. She has, however, been classified as a Coloured person. She has four children who are attending White Government schools. She is and has been for many years living with a White man and is the mother of his children. However, in terns of our law she cannot marry him because of her classification. Through myself and others she has presented to the Government authorities affidavits and documents from doctors, magistrates and ministers of religion, documents relating to her character, her acceptability and her past associations. Her reclassification, however, has been consistently refused. Those who suffer to the greatest extent in a case like this are the children, whose births are yet, after many years, unregistered. Their lives are being condemned to a twilight zone of uncertainty.

I should like to quote from a letter received in our offices a few weeks ago from a highly qualified South African.

Whose offices?

The PRP offices. This person is a highly qualified person and has been driven to bitterness and, I believe even to alienation. This letter bears evidence to that. I quote from the letter—

His bitterness comes out very clearly from this—

This is a strange piece to read.—

This man mentions two further ironies—

That is the sort of situation which the Act creates in this country.

This open legislative sore very recently drew the attention of the Theron Commission. The commission noted in its second recommendation that making descent the decisive criterion in distinguishing between White and Coloured and between Coloured and Black and between the Coloured groups themselves, gave rise to problems and to hardships. I believe this to be an understatement. The commission went on to recommend that the Population Registration Act should be so amended as to make both acceptance and descent criteria for purposes of population registration. This is a reasonable, even timid recommendation and was agreed to even by the hon. member for Piketberg. The acceptance of that recommendation will bring relief and hope to thousands of South Africans in this twilight zone of non-identity. For once the action of the Government has been encouraging. I want to read that reaction as stated in its White Paper—

It goes on to say that section 5(4)(c) is going to be used to implement this provision, apparently in the interim. Therefore it seems that the Government has agreed to three things: In the first place, that acceptance be re-introduced as a criterion for classification. This principle is contained in the White Paper, in the acceptance of the recommendation. In the second place it seems that the law will be altered, and an undertaking has been given that it will be altered to make this possible. In the third place it seems that the Government has agreed that section 5(4)(c) of the Population Registration Act will be utilized as an interim measure to give effect to the recommendation. Section 5(4)(c)—if we are being honest—can only be used as an interim measure. Why do I say this? Section 5(4)(c) of the Population Registration Act reads as follows—

Therefore, while acceptance of the recommendation appears to be absolute, the implementation appears to be ad hoc. The question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in this regard is: Will the Government honour its undertaking given in the White Paper in response to the Theron Commission, its undertaking to the Coloured community and, if so, when will the amending legislation be introduced? Such amending legislation will bring a new hope and a happier life to thousands of people, people presently condemned to embarrassment and personal tragedy, or will nothing be done, thus leaving the matter in limbo and pretending that section 5(4)(c), used perhaps in isolated exceptions, complies with the Government’s promise? I believe that a statement of the Government’s honest intention in this regard is long overdue.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday and today we listened to speeches made by two hon. members of the Opposition in which they levelled criticism at the activities of the departments now under discussion. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned four points he was not happy about. First of all, he said he had too little time to express all his criticism. Secondly, he had problems with the Population Registration Act. Thirdly, he was not happy about certain appeals. Fourthly, he had certain problems with the Public Service Commission and with certain related matters. The hon. member of the PRP who has just spoken, devoted his whole speech to a particular case that concerned the Population Registration Act.

It is certainly one of the easiest things in the world to criticize. It is terribly easy to criticize, particularly if one is not in a position to exercise responsibility oneself. I saw a very fine rugby match last Saturday. My team lost although, in my opinion, it was the better team. It was very easy for me to shout to the Tukkie centres, from the pavilion in which I was sitting, that they should have done such and such a thing.

There is one thing the hon. members of the Opposition must understand very clearly. It is one thing to sit in Parliament and raise points of criticism against the Government, but it is a completely different kettle of fish actually to enter the political debate in South Africa. There is something which I find very interesting. There is a by-election in progress in South Africa today. Both Opposition parties which have participated in the debate so far have had every opportunity to go to the voters on the occasion of the by-election and to state their case in respect of their alternative to the way in which the Government is administering South Africa’s affairs. It is very easy to criticize but it is a great deal more difficult to govern and to govern responsibly, not only in a country like South Africa, but anywhere in the world. Since on the one hand, the Opposition does not have the experience to govern and on the other hand it is blind to the essential function of criticizing in such a way as to be able to govern one day, it makes the passing of criticism so easy. This makes it terribly difficult for this side of the House to conduct any kind of meaningful debate with the Opposition, because in their criticism they never give any alternative, either in respect of any single facet of Government, or in respect of the totality we are dealing with in South Africa.

The Department of the Interior is no easy department. When I say “easy”, I put it in quotation marks. Within the department, the work mainly—one could almost say exclusively—concerns people, people from all spheres of society and people of various countries and nations. In the department, one deals with people in a very personal capacity, because one deals with them whenever visas have to be issued, for example. I might point out to hon. members that in the year 1976, no fewer than 135 000 visitors’ visas were issued. As far as re-entry visas are concerned, more than 79 000 were dealt with. Moreover, the department deals with citizenship, travel documents and so on. As far as travel documents are concerned, more than 211 000 were dealt with. The department is also concerned with the population registration and in that regard there is a variety of aspects that have to be dealt with.

Reference was made to the subdivisions of population registration and mention was made of surnames and addresses and of the registration of deaths. In that regard, I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I do not know in what capacity he is speaking, but as far as the political parties in South Africa are concerned, I think that we, too, will shortly be having a change of surname. I wonder what the new name of the party will be. As far as change of address is concerned, I should like to know what address the UP will have in future. I should also like to remind them not to forget to register their death.

The affairs of hundreds of thousands of people are dealt with by the department every year. That the department has done its work well, is proved by the fact that the two chief Opposition spokesmen were unable to advance any points of cricitism about it. They could not point to any mismanagement in respect of the way in which the affairs of these hundreds of thousands of people were dealt with. There were no complaints on that score.

I want to quote one point which the hon. members of the Opposition did not notice but which is nevertheless very important. It appears on page 3 of the report and I should like to read it to you. The report refers here to “saving on the establishment”. A comparison of the Department’s establishment on 1 April 1969 with the position on 1 November 1976 shows an actual saving of about 43% in the growth of the establishment.

During this period of 9½ years—

Without the intensive computerization, work study, production control, incentive systems and training which were applied in the Department during this period, the growth of the establishment would have been about 70%, which would have brought the Department’s total establishment at 1 November 1976 to about 1 865 posts. The actual saving during this period was therefore about 558 posts or 43%.

I find it astonishing that not even a single minor aspect of the excellent progress that has been made in this department, was noticed by any of the members of the Opposition.

I did mention it.

I want to tell members of the Opposition that South Africa’s history is passing them by because they do not notice these basic things.

They are full of ciriticism as far as population registration is concerned. The hon. member for Green Point went as far as to say that we totally ignored our Christian conscience when we worked with these matters. In view of our history and our national situation, we in the Department of the Interior, as well as the Public Service Commission, have done a tremendous amount of work. Transkei has become independent and one of the major prerequisites for the normal and healthy progressive functioning of any State is that it should have a good, stable Public Service. I should like to pay tribute today to the thousands of Government officials who fall under the Public Service Commission and who have rendered the finest and most dedicated service in the course of many years to the emergent Black nations in Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about elections, a matter very dear to South Africans. To the South African who takes his politics seriously, an election every five years, or whenever it takes place, is a matter which shapes his destiny. Therefore it is essential that it should be our constant endeavour to make our election procedures and everything connected therewith, as efficiently as possible and to perfect them as far as possible. Consequently I should like to deal with a few of the main components of an election, viz. the voter, the candidate and the voters’ roll. Let me refer to the candidate first of all. It is interesting to know that since 1910, when the first election was held in South Africa, until today in Westdene, 5 290 candidates have considered themselves suitable material for Parliament. Four hundred and fifty-five of them were fortunate enough to be elected unopposed and 4 735 had to contest elections. Of these, 135 polled only between 5% and 10% of the votes cast; 96 of the candidates polled between 2% and 5% of the votes; 61 polled between 1% and 2%; 29 polled only between 0,5% and 1% of the votes; and 22 polled only between 0,1% and 0,5% of the votes. Let me give a few examples in this regard. In 1920 there were three constituencies in Pretoria alone in which candidates polled virtually no votes. In Pretoria East a candidate received five votes, in Pretoria West another received four votes, and in Pretoria Central yet another received two votes. In 1915 there was a candidate, once more in Pretoria East, who received only six votes. In Umlazi there was a candidate once who only received three votes. If we add up these figures we find that as many as 343 candidates could not succeed in polling 10% of the votes.

This phenomenon has always been present in South African politics. In every election there have been candidates who have been prepared, because of poor judgment or because of an imbalance or a search for publicity, to seek election. This causes the State, the political parties and the voters much expenditure and trouble. Therefore I think it is necessary that we consider the situation very seriously. As I have said, one constantly comes across this problem in every election. In 1952 a candidate in Wakkerstroom polled only 0,3% of the votes, that is 22 out of 8 450. In 1972 a candidate in Vereeniging polled 0,2% of the votes, or 31 out of a total of 12 640. Something drastic should be done about this matter. The deposit has already been raised to R600 per candidate. I want to suggest to the Minister today that he considers raising the deposit to R1 000. It is so that no candidate can successfully contest an election today if he does not have an organization or one of the political parties to back him and to support his candidature. If a candidate cannot afford to pay the R1 000 out of his own pocket, his organization or his party can advance him that R1 000 if they have the necessary confidence in him and in their cause. After all, they do get it back if he does not lose his deposit. What is even more important to me is, as has been recommended by a Select Committee, that every candidate should produce a requisition list at the time of nomination with at least 100 names of registered voters in his constituency to support and confirm his candidature. I think it is necessary for us to give this our consideration so as to keep unnecessary fortune-hunters or publicity-seekers out of our elections and South African politics.

I now turn to the voter and the voters’ roll. The ideal is to have the voters’ roll as complete as possible, and at the minimum cost. A start has already been made on this in that it is the intention to compile the voters’ roll from the population register. It was mentioned last night, but I want to mention it again and I want to confirm, that we shall all have to co-operate to see to it that the 384 000 voters who had not yet applied for their identity documents two weeks ago, do so as soon as possible so that their names may appear on the population register from which the voters’ rolls will be compiled. Mr. Chairman, if these people do this, it will save the State and the political parties much expenditure, work and unnecessary trouble.

I want to put my final request to the hon. the Minister, and that is that he and his department put everything into operation to make the happy day dawn when a voter will be able to go to the polling booth with only his identity document and will be able to receive his ballot paper on the strength of that identity document. I mention a few advantages which this will have. It will, in the first place, eliminate the dreaded phantom vote, because the voter will identify himself with that document. At the back of that document there is space for a “record of votes”. When the voter receives his ballot paper, that page will be endorsed as proof that he has received his ballot paper and that he has voted. In other words, he will not be able to go and vote a second time, because the endorsement on that page of the document will serve as proof. It will also ensure that voters whose names have been incorrectly omitted from the voters’ roll will still be able to vote on the strength of their identity documents. It will mean that people whose names have been removed unnecessarily from voters’ rolls will also be able to vote.

I recall an occasion in the ’sixties in Heidelberg when a certain lady came to vote. When she presented herself to the returning officer, he said to her, “Madam, but your name has been removed from the voters’ roll.” She replied, “That can’t be.” He showed her and said, “Madam, but there is a (d) next to your name. That means ‘deceased’. It was assumed that you were deceased and that is why your name was removed from the roll.” But the lady insisted and said, “Sir, I am here and I want to vote.” To get rid of her the returning officer gave her a ballot paper. That night when we were counting the votes and opening the tendered ballot papers, we saw the reason given by the returning officer for having given her a ballot paper. The reason was: “The deceased denies that she is dead.”

I am also thinking of something else which can happen, and again I want to illustrate it by means of an example. It was during the 1966 election. A man and his wife lived near Meyerton. The man was a UP supporter and his wife was a Nationalist. She was an ardent Nationalist. The morning before he left for work, he said to her, “See here, my wife, you and I are not going to vote, but if we are going to vote, we shall go tonight and vote together.” The wife decided in his absence that she wanted to vote, and she did go and vote. The evening when her husband came home, he said to her, “Let us go and vote.” They drove to Meyerton, but she had already voted under declaration at Sterkfontein that morning. Three weeks later it was discovered that the wife had voted twice and she was summoned. The case was heard and I had to appear as witness in my capacity as electoral officer. I told the lady beforehand: “Madam, I shall give evidence for you, but you must promise me not to take exception to anything I may say, because we want to win the case.” When I was called, I said to the magistrate, “Sir, you have to pardon the lady; she is not acquainted with these matters, nor is she very intelligent.” What I did not know, however, was that her son who is very intelligent, was present at the hearing. The ensuing conversation was not very pleasant. This type of malpractice will be eliminated by the use of identity documents at elections.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Meyerton addressed us very genially, but I must tell him at once that we on this side of the House are not in favour of a deposit of R1 000. It would affect the roots of democracy and the right of a person to make himself available. Perhaps it is the NP which is possibly the rich man’s party. When members of the NP go round registering people, they ask people at the same time for a contribution to be registered as a voter. That I believe is a malpractice. [Interjections.]

I have here a receipt issued by the NP. A fancy powder-horn is printed on the receipt. It was issued by the Eversdal branch and was made out to two people. The membership fee is R3. The people concerned did not subscribe to Pro-Nat, and the membership fee went to the NP. These people arrived at the polling booth in Durbanville to cast their votes and claimed that they had even received a receipt as proof of their registration, that someone had taken money from them and had issued a receipt to them. Why did their names not appear on the voters’ roll? [Interjections.] This is the type of thing we have to deal with. [Interjections.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the hon. member for Innesdal. The hon. member claimed that no other Government would reduce the number of Government Departments.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that the acceptance of the reality of a plural society would force any Government to maintain as many Government Departments as we have at the moment.

Oh, no!

No, do not say “Oh, no” now!

Once again you did not listen!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal said that if we accepted the realities, we would have to concede that provision had to be made for such a large Government machine. If the hon. member takes note of the official policy of the UP, however, he will see that the UP will not need a Department of Bantu Administration, a Department of Coloured Relations or a Department of Indian Affairs. [Interjections.] Such departments will be totally unnecessary. [Interjections.]

Now I shall like to address myself to the friendly hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister recently made the statement in this House that the Government was fast moving away from discrimination. He followed up that statement with an interview which was published in Die Transvaler on 5 May. I have a cutting of it here. It is entitled: “So beweeg die Regering weg van diskriminasie. ” In the interview the hon. the Deputy Minister identifies 38 fronts on which the Government was allegedly moving away from discrimination. Apart from the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister clearly indicated how the Government had discriminated in the past, the report is also meaningful in the sense that it brings us a step nearer to the termination of the dispute on the difference between discrimination and differentiation. Thanks to the diligence of the hon. the Deputy Minister, we have here 38 specific examples of discrimination from which they are now moving away. Of course I am not going to deal with all 38 of them. I only want to refer to one of them. That is the narrowing of the wage gap.

The hon. the Deputy Minister stated in this report that this was one of the discriminatory practices which was being removed. He went on to state that there were many instances of concrete evidence of the narrowing of the wage gap. I have to admit, in the first place, that we have indeed made progress in this field. When I spoke about the wage gap in the debate on this same Vote two years ago, the then hon. member for Bloemfontein East said, and I quote (Hansard, Vol. 56, col. 5120)—

That was what the hon. member said in reply to my statement. Therefore it does seem as if we have made some progress.

†However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more about the so-called concrete evidence of closing the wage gap. What South Africa is waiting for, is real and dramatic progress on this front. I want to be quite frank. The Government has dilly-dallied for so long that mere evidence of closing the wage gap is of little value. The time has come that, with regard to certain categories at least, the wag gap should be wiped out altogether and not just being narrowed. What makes the situation so critical, is the fact that the Government is happy and content with microscopic evidence of narrowing the wage gap. What is even worse, is that the Government so often tries to argue its case on percentages. In the process they present rather dubious examples of progress. I refer for instance to the increase in pensionable allowance—we had that last year—of 10% for Whites and 15% for Coloureds. In many respects this did not close the wage gap. It did not even narrow the wage gap. In the case of a White man earning R400, 10% amounts to R40. In the case of a Coloured man earning R300, 15% amounts to only R37,50. This proves that it is not really a closing of the wage gap. My point is that South Africa cannot tolerate a situation where the gap is being widened. I want to make the very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should initiate an in-depth study or investigation in order to determine accurately and scientifically exactly what amount will be required to wipe out the wage gap amongst professional people in the Civil Service. The Public Service Commission can be used for this purpose. I have gone into the matter. In fact, the commission does a lot of research and investigation. They are the people who determine salary structures. But I cannot find any evidence that they have done any research in this respect. I doubt whether they have ever done research to determine exactly what is involved to bring about one key scale which will wipe out the wage gap.

During the recess I saw a statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Sunday Times in which he was alleged to have said that it would cost R95 million to wipe out the wage gap. I think the hon. the Minister corrected this in the Rand Daily Mail. There was some talk of R93 million. We do not want guesses. We would like the Parliament to know the exact target figure. In the case of professional people such as doctors, nurses, teachers, magistrates, lecturers and public prosecutors the argument is no longer that the gap should be narrowed. It is imperative that it should be closed.

There can no longer be any justification for its existence. Whatever historical reasons there may have been in the past, it is a very poor performance that after 28 years of rule by a NP Government it can only show one definite and concrete example of the closure of the wage gap, and that is in respect of the rector of the University of Western Cape. He is on parity with White rectors. I sincerely hope that there are other examples. As a South African I will only be too pleased if we can quote other examples. I would like to know for instance if the Black rector appointed at Turfloop has also reached parity. I do not know if this is so. However, if he is not already on that basis, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should apologize for incorporating that as one of the 38 examples of how we are moving away from discrimination. I want to state categorically that if the Government and the Public Service Commission get down and make an in-depth investigation, they will find that it will cost the country far less to wipe out the wage gap than the estimated figure of R93 million mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his statement.

It will be much more than R95 million.

I think it will be less. I base my claim on the work and research that has been done already. The initiative has come from hon. members on this side of the House. I want to quote examples. On the information available to him the hon. member for Edenvale calculated that to wipe out the wage gap for lecturers at non-White universities will cost more or less R220 000. Say he has made a mistake and that it is R250 000. Sir, can you think of a better way to invest a quarter of a million than to wipe out the wage gap in so far as the non-White lecturers are concerned? There are other figures that have come to light. These show that it will cost R1,4 million to wipe out the wage gap for doctors and R14 million in the case of nurses. As far as teachers are concerned, I worked out figures myself two years ago. They may not be totally accurate, but … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central became entangled in an argument. Since he is such a clever arithmetician about things which happened in the past, I want to point out—he was apparently a teacher and studied at the University of Potchefstroom—that he ought to know that a receipt issued to a person by the NP does not put him on a voters’ roll. If he is so stupid as to believe this, and make that statement here in the House, I am very sorry for him.

The hon. member raised the old argument of the wage gap again. He did not analyse how this so-called wage gap arose. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member please to listen to me. The hon. member argued that the time has now come for this wage gap to be narrowed or eliminated completely. Does he want to allege that a person who is appointed in a junior position in the Public Service should receive the same as a senior officer who has had a great deal of experience? This is the same as alleging that there should be equal wages in certain working groups. He did not talk about certain working groups. If he had qualified the idea, he could have said in which categories the same wages should be payable. However, it is our party’s policy to pay the same money for the same work. However, the hon. member should take the analysis of his argument further and he will soon see where this so-called or supposed unemployment which exists today originated. It arose because people demanded more money for their work than they were worth and then preferred to walk the streets rather than to do the work for which they were qualified. The position is that people can price themselves out of a market. The hon. member is actually arguing that these people should agitate for higher wages—so that they can lose their job. The hon. member should not consider this matter in a narrow perspective. The hon. member has accepted that we live in a plural community. Has he ever thought that, if the Bantu nurses and doctors were to receive the same salaries as their White counterparts in South Africa—and this is probably the case—what would happen when their homelands become independent and they have to go and work there? Will their homelands have enough money to pay them the same salaries? Will the ordinary homeland citizen have enough money to pay the doctor the same tariff as is paid in the White area? No, he will not!

This brings me to the subject which I should like to discuss. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here, but last night he made a request here for things in South Africa to change to such an extent that they would be acceptable to the outside world. Unless I accept that this party is on the downgrade and that they are possibly going to form another party with different principles at the end of July, I have to accept that he was not being very serious. I came to this House in 1966 and I do not recall ever having heard a single member on that side of the House—this includes the hon. members who still belonged to that party at the time and have since been expelled—say that the communists in Russia, Czechoslovakia and all Russia’s other satellite states should first change their policies before they would meet with approval in the West. Not one of those hon. members have ever said this. However, the hon. member cannot leave South Africa alone and says that we must make policy changes and readjustments. He does not give a clear indication of what those changes encompass. He does not discuss the consequences. He is now trying to denounce this “contentious” country to the outside world. It was nothing but a denunciation.

Last night I listened to the speeches made by the hon. members of the PRP. They denounce us to the outside world in this House because, according to them, we have not rectified our domestic affairs to suit the outside world. They allege that that is why the West cannot negotiate freely with us.

However, there are those of us who feel that if the West wants to turn its back on us, we shall work out our affairs as it suits us. We shall not ask the UP in what direction we should go. I do not think that the population of South Africa would even ask it. Despite this unfavourable picture of South Africa which they are holding up to the outside world here—I am excluding the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because he has other ties—this “bad” country of ours is faced with an immigration problem because non-Whites are coming to this country of oppression. There are nearly a million of them. Over and above this, hon. members have probably seen in the department’s report what a tremendous number of people have to be dealt with at the borders. On page 4 of the report we find that 4,57 million people entered the country at the border posts between South Africa and Botswana. They are cleared into our “bad” country. 29 000 residence permits have been requested over the past year. 7 000 of them were refused and 22 000 granted. I have not yet noticed any attempt being made in a single newspaper—I may perhaps have overlooked it—to assist the Government and the Department of the Interior by stating categorically how people should act if they are staying in our country as guests or if they have come to live here as immigrants, prospective immigrants or prospective workers. Many of these foreigners cannot speak English or Afrikaans and after having spent a while here as holiday-makers, they come to the conclusion that they should like to live and work here and then they want to know what procedure they should follow in order to equip themselves further to enable them to work here. These people usually come from the ranks of the holiday-makers who received travel documents or visas enabling them to travel around the country for three months. Sometimes they are people who also receive travel documents for business purposes and who may therefore spend three months in the country. The cardinal point which I should like to make, is that the 29 000 people who have requested residence, are people who travelled here, who were on business trips here, or were students here and who decided to remain in the country of “oppression”. Further on in the report one notes that last year approximately 50 000 requests for permanent residence were considered.

In view of this, we are very much indebted to the department with its few officials and to the hon. the Minister who carries a tremendous burden and responsibility upon his shoulders. The officials must not concern themselves with the criticism made by the Opposition, because it was very clear last night and tonight, too, that the Opposition referred to isolated cases and that they were trying to score points off someone in the process. An hon. member just mentioned a single case today and last night another hon. member spoke about two specific cases. If there are so few complaints, is it not a sign that it is worth taking the trouble to thank the Department of the Interior for managing matters so well? [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh if they like. The hon. member for Green Point said that there were no appeals and that the provision could therefore be deleted so that no appeal could be lodged at all. Surely that is not correct. Surely this is in fact providing the general public with information which we know to be incorrect.

It is the negative tradition.

Provision has in fact been made for that, but hon. members do not make use of it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is what the hon. member has just said, parliamentary?

Order! The hon. member should rather withdraw it.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

That the hon. member knows that what he said was not correct.

I withdraw the word “know”. The information which the hon. member provided is not correct. It is obvious that selecting the people who have temporary work permits is of necessity a more difficult task, because when they receive their travel documents or temporary permits, no one went into the circumstances under which they came to South Africa in very great detail. That is why they cannot simply receive residence permits. Due to the nature of the department’s activities it has to lay down certain norms. The first norm which they lay down is whether South Africa will gain by granting such a work permit and secondly that South African citizens may not be forced out of their jobs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address the hon. the Minister as South Africa’s chief censor, and, of course incidentally, as the guardian of all our morals. In particular I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister as well as this Committee to the far-reaching legal, political and literary implications of the decision of the Publications Appeal Board under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Snyman in rebanning the book of Jack Cope The Dawn Comes Twice. I believe the banning of that book could usher in an era of a kind of literary McCarthyism in which criticism of South Africa and of the Government’s policies may well be equated with disloyalty if not with something worse. I believe in the light of that judgment the country can now see that the State possesses almost unlimited powers of censorship.

You must remember that you have said that the State possesses those powers.

Unless this development is reversed, I can see a period of great difficulty ahead for South African writers whose freedom is going to be severely curtailed. In the light of the judgment even the truth is no longer a protection for a writer because it is argued that the truth can be used malevolently and then apparently it becomes undesirable. When does truth become malevolent? Is criticism, open or implied, of the existing state of affairs malevolent? After all, literature is a criticism of life and if criticism can be held to be undesirable, then truth itself can be banned. When a State cannot stand facing the truth, however distasteful it may be, there must be something seriously wrong somewhere.

Is it any wonder that in the light of this decision of the Publications Appeal Board a lawyer has said in private that the judgment on that case—

I bring this case to the attention of the Committee so that we can realize what an instrument has in fact been created for the censoring of political opinion. I hope that we will also see into what a perilous minefield we have moved as a result of the application of the Publications Act. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that under the Act, as it is now interpreted, it will not be possible for a South African to write the equivalent of a book like David Copperfield or Uncle Tom’s Cabin without falling foul of the law.

I also want to say a few words about the legal implications of this case. The learned judge has found that the book denigrates the law and that persons will be weakened in their support for law and order as a result. This is very important: Are we to understand from this that criticism of the law itself can, in fact, become illegal? Could it be an offence to criticize, for example, the Group Areas Act or the Immorality Act? I can hardly believe that the Publications Act intended anything of this nature, especially in a country which prides itself on its image of freedom. I suggest that there is very grave uncertainty. Is it possible that in this case the learned judge might have misdirected himself on the law? Seeing that the right of appeal to the courts has been abolished under the Act, will it not be in the interests of the public in general and in the interest of writers in particular if the hon. the Minister or someone else were to ask the Supreme Court to take the finding of the Publications Appeal Board on review? I believe only when this is done can misunderstanding be cleared up. This misunderstanding is very serious indeed.

The decision in the Cope case shows once again how impossible it is to administer censorship. I do not have time to go into it, but when we get into the realm of trying to define what the South African social system is or what social standards or what social norms are, we get into a grey area where one man’s opinion is as good or as bad as that of any other man. All that I can say is that if it has really become necessary to ban a piece of fiction like The Dawn Comes Twice because it can be thought to encourage violence and subversion and/or that its trend is to arouse sympathy for revolutionary movements, if that is so, and I obviously do not accept it, we are nearer to see free expression snuffed out in South Africa than most of us believe or fear. I realize that I appeal in vain to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, to our chief censor. He is totally deaf to entreaties to abandon the system, because he believes in censorship. He believes in the principle of censorship, and he appears, to me at any rate, to be totally blind to the dangers to writers, film makers and theatre producers of the implications of this system.

*Mr. Chairman, naturally the hon. the Minister will not accept this, but I maintain that as far as literature is concerned, the threat to the Afrikaans author is far greater than the threat to his English compatriot. The latter can still, if he must, have his work published overseas. Jack Cope and Nadine Gordimer can always have their books published overseas, but what will become of the Etienne le Rouxs, the Jan Rabies, the Barto Smits and the André Brinks? What is going to happen to them? If the trend in the Snyman judgment continues and one is no longer allowed to write critically about conditions in one’s own country, what is the position of the Afrikaans author?

That is not true.

It is quite true. The hon. member need only take the trouble to read the judgment. It is no wonder that Dr. Ampie Coetzee of the University of the Witwatersrand had the following to say in the light of the judgment on Cope’s book—

That is what Ampie Coetzee says. I really cannot imagine that the hon. the Minister wants to start this war. But he is going to do both, in other words, he is going to start such a war and he is going to win it, if he does not reconsider this Act. We have been warned by the Snyman judgment. This Act may be the end of the freedom of critical literature for our authors and for all of us in this country. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister and the Government really want it. Or could I possibly be wrong?

Mr. Chairman, amongst other things the hon. member for Parktown referred to a matter which the hon. the Minister is aware of, and he based his speech on that. I should like to deal with other previous speakers. I want to begin immediately with the hon. member for Durban Central. That hon. member thought fit to hold up a receipt here issued by the Eversdal branch of the NP during the by-election in Durbanville, as if it were payment by a voter for the privilege and right of being able to vote on grounds of the fact that he would then be registered. The hon. member uttered an irresponsible and total untruth here. It is clear that those office-bearers of the party recruited and enrolled members and then issued a receipt for the membership fees which were paid.

I cannot believe that an hon. member of this House can be so deplorably naïve and so completely irresponsible as to hold up a trifling receipt here as if it were payment for the right to vote in an election. I can only conclude that this is just another case of sour grapes about the result of the election in Durbanville. I shall never forget how that party suddenly realized in the last few days before that election that not only were they going to lose their deposit, but that the PRP was going to beat them too. Then they put all their available manpower in the field. I shall never forget how the biggest hon. member, the massive hon. member for Durban Point, was given the steepest street, Vanderbyl Avenue, which is still full of his sweat as a result of irresponsible expressions like these.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Sandton who began by saying that population registration must be done away with. I do not believe that the question of doing away with it is at issue. The voters of South Africa have decided on this time and again. I also believe that the multinational populations of the world have spelled out the necessity for this. The policy of all the parties, including the PRP, is such that provision must necessarily be made for a system of classification or registration. Does the hon. member for Sandton want to deny that even the policy of the PRP also provides for the express protection of interests and rights of minority groups in their integrated Senate? How, then, does one identify those minority groups? After all, they must be capable of being registered and classified, and how can this be done other than by means of a system like this?

The hon. member for Sandton went on to say that the Population Registration Act has caused more grief and bitterness than any other Act in South Africa.

No, I did not say that.

But, after all, the test of the Population Registration Act is not whether there are a few heartbreak cases. On the contrary, we admit that there are such cases. However, since this is the case, one tries to limit such cases to the minimum. The test of the Population Registration Act is whether the provisions of the Act are fair and reasonable and whether its implementation in practice takes place in a fair and reasonable way.

Let me say immediately that an alternative system of classification which would result in fewer heartbreak cases than the existing system which we have on our Statute Book, has never yet been proposed in the House. I should like to put various aspects of it to the test. Firstly, our present population registration system is linked to the concept of descent as the primary prerequisite, descent which is determined according to certain guidelines which have been laid down, as contained in sections 5(1) and 5(5) of the Population Registration Act. I want to admit that this system has also resulted in heartbreak cases, but they are dealt with in terms of section 5(4)(c). This provision was added to the Act in 1969. It is in terms of this provision that 136 cases out of about 400 applications have be re-classified this year. I want to admit that 200 to 300 or even more real heartbreak cases remained, but we know that those cases have been tested against all possibilities of fairness and righteousness for the purpose of classification especially against the requirement whether the persons concerned were acceptable in the communities to which they wanted to gain access.

If one criticizes the system, one must suggest alternative systems. What other possible concepts are there? There are several, and I shall refer to them briefly. Firstly there is the concept of appearance. If one were to adopt this as the only requirement, as was the case before 1967, one finds that there are no fixed guidelines in this regard, and that the test is often subjective. Who is to determine on grounds of appearance who should be allowed to enter a new population group and who not? Obviously, the implementation of such a criterion will result in many more people than at present trying to gain access to other population groups in terms of section 5(4)(c). Obviously many will succeed too, but many more people will be turned down. Naturally this once again will cause an increase in the number of heartbreak cases. Another possibility is to make acceptance the only criterion. This, too, is a subjective test, and it will have precisely the same results as when appearance is made the only criterion. The more one insists on single criteria of this nature, the more people will try to gain access to another population group. The more people succeed, the more there will be who try over and over again and the more there will be who do not succeed. The more subjective the test is made, the less clear will be the method of identification and the less acceptable one becomes to that other group which one wants to join.

Another method is to take appearance as well as acceptance. If one links these two together, it will have precisely the same effect as when appearance or acceptance is taken as the sole criterion.

Then I come to the hon. member for Sandton who referred to the Erika Theron Commission. The Erika Theron Commission put the concept “acceptance” next to “origin” in their recommendation No. 2. It has already been mentioned that in fact, this is already a concept which has been applied by this Government in terms of the Population Registration Act since 1969, long before the Erika Theron Commission was even appointed, because the Secretary has discretionary powers in terms of section 5(4)(c) and he deals with these applications for reclassification in terms of those powers.

In applying this section, descent is obviously set as the primary requirement and acceptance as a supplementary requirement. What would happen if one had to equate origin and acceptance on an unconditional equal 50:50 basis? The Government would also be prepared to investigate such a basis, because the Government has just as positive an approach to this as is to be found in recommendations No. 1 and 3 of the Theron Commission. It tries to furnish assistance and relief whenever it can, and that is why the Government will approach this recommendation, too, in that way.

However, let us just look at the implications of equating acceptance and appearance on an unconditional 50:50 basis. I want to ask a few questions for which we shall have to find a few solutions. Firstly, how does one judge? According to descent, or does one judge according to acceptance? If the descent is Coloured and the acceptance White, which one must be applied? If someone is allowed into a Coloured group, as a White, and his brothers and sisters remain behind in the other group, where is this eventually going to end? Another question: Will it not result in many Coloureds trying to penetrate the White group in order to obtain another classification eventually, perhaps not for themselves but for their children? What chaos would prevail if Bantu persons who were pure Bantu on grounds of descent wanted to penetrate the Coloured community simply because they had grown up amongst Coloureds? Where would it end? Should there then be a provision in the statute to encourage those people to try and move across with a view to reclassification in another population group? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durbanville had a bit of a squabble with the hon. member for Durban Central about party-political matters and I shall not involve myself in that. I shall leave it at that.

†I firstly want to mention that I personally have found a different approach by this department towards race classification cases and I am referring in particular to border-line cases. I find that this change has come about during the last 12 months. I have found that the department has adopted a far more sympathetic attitude than they had in the past. I am one of those people who have had some difficulties with the department over the past years, but I must say that during the last 12 months the department has adopted, if I may say, a far softer attitude towards border-line cases and I find that there is a far greater understanding of these border-line cases. If I may say so, I have managed to come right in these particular cases.

The other matter which I should like to raise is the question of the Chinese community in South Africa and the belief that this side of the House holds that the Chinese community in South Africa should in all respects be afforded full legal status as White South Africans. Mr. Chairman, you may remember that the hon. member for Newton Park has given notice of a motion “that this House is of the opinion that Chinese South Africans should in all respects have the same legal status as White South Africans and it accordingly calls upon the Government to introduce the necessary legislation”. It will also be remembered that this motion, for one or other reason, has not come before the House. Now we have the opportunity of canvassing this matter further. I am pleading here for a group which has no political status whatsoever in our South African society. The Chinese people in South Africa are in a situation which is absolutely unique in relation to any of the other races. They have no political rights whatsoever and they have no political prospects of rights at present. This Government has a golden opportunity of rectifying this totally unfortunate situation. The South African Government has shown that in matters relating to the Chinese it is prepared to adopt a far more positive attitude than in relation to other race groups. I know, for example, that the Department of Community Development, when it comes to the question of residential areas, has adopted a very positive attitude towards the Chinese people of South Africa and I believe some of the Chinese people of South Africa have been satisfied in respect of that residential attitude adopted by the Department of Community Development.

I believe that in each case they actually have to make a separate application, an application which is then considered on merit. I also know that in relation to other matters concerning the Chinese community, the Government has adopted a sympathetic attitude and has tended to deal with the Chinese community on an administrative basis. However, I feel it is time the Government dealt with them on a firmer basis and gave them a political foothold in South Africa.

It will be remembered that, during a debate last year, the hon. member for Pretoria East and I made a plea in this regard for the Chinese community. South Africa has outstanding relations with Taiwan, and I believe that if the Government would accept our plea it will go a lot further towards strengthening our relationships with Taiwan. I am not merely making this plea because we have a credit trade balance with Taiwan. I am making this plea because we have a Chinese community which stands in isolation in South Africa, a community standing on its own without any political rights in South Africa. The hon. the Minister himself is obviously very partial to Chinese literature. I see in the newspapers, while I have been away, that he quotes Chinese literature. I think he would adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the Chinese community.

My plea is not based on any trade considerations, but on the fact that the Chinese are entitled to shape their own destiny in this country. The Chinese community of South Africa should become citizens of this country. They should have full citizenship, because citizenship entails responsibilities and obligations, and I am certain that they would be only too happy to accept such obligations, and, if they could, do what they can to further the interests of South Africa at all times.

I believe a very special situation would then develop between the Government and the Chinese people, even though I know that there is a close relationship. However, I believe an even closer relationship would develop if the Chinese people of South Africa were properly recognized. In comparison with the other communities the Chinese community is the Cinderella community of South Africa in terms of Government policy. They do not have a homeland. They do not have a representative council where they can make their representations. I am aware though that whenever Chinese people encounter any problems in South Africa, all their matters are dealt with administratively. I know they make representations, sometimes through the Opposition parties, sometimes by approaching the hon. the Minister directly. I know that in most cases they are granted satisfaction. That is what they tell us. However, I feel they are entitled to formal recognition in South Africa.

Many of us, especially those of us who come from the eastern Cape, have a very close association with the Chinese community. There are hon. members on the Government side who, I know, feel exactly as I do about this matter. I know they feel this matter should be rectified as soon as possible. We have an exceptionally large Chinese community in Port Elizabeth. That Chinese community pays substantial rates. They own substantial properties. They also pay substantial income tax. However, we have the ironic situation in which those people, although they are paying all those taxes, yet have no representation at any level whatsoever. The Chinese are a very proud, hard-working and industrious community. They have their own way of life. They have their own culture. Should they be allowed to become full citizens, the hon. the Minister can rest assured—if he has any worries about this, which, I am sure, he has not—that they would want to retain their own identity at any cost. They are more identity conscious, I believe, than virtually any other race group in South Africa.

The Chinese group are very proud of their identity. As a community they stand head and shoulders above most of the other communities in South Africa. The time has come for the Chinese people of South Africa to be classified as Whites and to be given full citizenship in South Africa. The Chinese are already entitled—sometimes with permission, sometimes without—to live in White areas, to attend cinemas, to take part in various sports and to use sport facilities. They are entitled to numerous other concessions to which other race groups are not entitled. White communities who have Chinese in their midst and who have dealings with Chinese, accept these Chinese people as part and parcel of the White group in South Africa. There is no problem in the White communities who have Chinese living in their midst. I would like to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to give the Chinese people the recognition that all of us would like to see them get. I can assure the hon. the Minister that there are as many members on his side of the House as there are on this side of the House who feel that the Chinese people of South Africa should get full citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his reference to the way in which race classification is implemented by the department in terms of the population register. I am also grateful for the change in attitude which the hon. member has undergone during the past two years. It just shows what an improvement one can undergo when one crosses from one party to another. I can still remember the time when the hon. member was in the UP and his attitude then, and therefore I am grateful for his present changed attitude towards these matters. I can give him my assurance that if he continues to change like this, we could also continue changing to everybody’s benefit.

I also want to refer to the very positive contribution made by the hon. member for Durbanville. It is clear that he studied the subject very thoroughly. He made a fine contribution. I shall return to that later.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Sandton could not refrain from being rather bitter about the population register. I must hold it against the hon. member in that he could well consider showing the basic decency in future, when he wants to raise specific cases in the House, of consulting us in the matter by warning us that he is going to raise the case of Mr. X in the House. If that is done, one can at least have a file available in order to have a meaningful debate. That is why I am not going to argue with the hon. member about the case he raised. The hon. member will, however, realize that that is the wrong way to hold a debate. I want to take the hon. member for Green Point to task for doing the same thing. We cannot debate in the House in this way. The hon. members cannot raise cases relating to individuals in the House and in this way put the Government side at a disadvantage because we are unable to reply to them properly. I shall reply to the hon. member in the course of my speech with regard to the White Paper on the Erika Theron report.

I want to turn to the hon. member from Green Point, who tried last night, as in the debates of past years, to pose as the great champion on that side of the House with regard to race classification in South Africa. As I listened to the hon. member, I asked myself: Where was the hon. member when the Erika Theron Commission was sitting? Why did he not try and make a contribution in the commission? Where was the UP when the commission sat? Why did they not try to make a contribution? [Interjections.] They were conspicuous by their absence! [Interjections.] Afterall they are such great champions; why were they not present? Because this matter is raised every year in the debate, one asks oneself how busy the hon. member for Green Point is during the year. The hon. member says that he can bring up dozens of cases. I do not want to be unfair, but I cannot remember the hon. member writing more than one or two letters to me. Neither can I remember the hon. member ever coming to see me in my office during the year with regard to population register cases. I do not hold it against him that he was not there, but I only want to try and indicate that the number of these cases is not as great as the hon. member tries to make out. If my memory does not fail me, the hon. member did not visit my department more than four or five times during the year.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense, the hon. member knows that it is true. I also want to ask the hon. member if he could not, in future, show the basic decency at least to let the ministry know if he wants to refer to a specific case in the House. I have in mind, for instance, the hon. member’s behaviour last night. I know the hon. member is responsible under delegation, for the handling of these matters, but he did not have the decency to address me here in the House. Neither did he show the decency to send me a copy of the letter to which he referred, for my perusal. He tried to put me in an embarrassing position with the hon. the Minister. The only comment which I can make to that is that it is the action of a petty old man. [Interjections.]

The hon. member went on to try and create the impression that the annual report refers to appeals which in terms of the Act can no longer even be taken to the Supreme Court. As a practising lawyer the hon. member should know that those provisions in the Act are still applicable. He ought to know that people can still appeal to the Supreme Court. Then why is he peeved? He is peeved because there are no appeals and therefore he cannot point a finger at us. In the previous year there were appeals. In 1972 there were six appeals and in 1973 there were two. In 1974 and 1975 there were no appeals and in 1976 there was one. Because there have been no appeals this year, the hon. member is peeved about it. That is the fact of the matter. It is a stipulation of the Act which the Secretary has to take into account and he has to present a full report to the House. The hon. member quoted from a letter here. The letter is about a family of which four daughters were able to be classified as White before 1969. In 1969, however, the Act was amended and after that the rest of the family could not be classified as such, because, as the hon. member puts it: “The guillotine has fallen and the rest of the family must now be Coloured.”

That is right.

That hon. member shall have to swallow that. I shall prove it to him. What are the facts of the matter? On 8 March of this year the hon. member wrote to me as follows—

Referring to the family the hon. member says: “Are all classified.” What are the facts of the matter? The fact is that some of this Miss X’s brothers and sisters are indeed Coloureds. Two of them are married to Coloureds, and these people do not want to be anything but Coloureds. The hon. member for Green Point however, wants to grab them all by the scruff of the neck and make Whites of them, whereas they do not want to be Whites. Now the hon. member casts blame on the Government across the floor of the House. These cases are now being dragged in here. The hon. member for Green Point knows very well that if Miss X and her children are accepted as Whites, she can take it that she has a good chance of having her classification reconsidered. But the hon. member knows, after all, that Miss X and her children will not be accepted as Whites and he knows for what reasons they will not be accepted as Whites. I do not want to go into details, because by doing so I should be doing these people a disservice. Acceptance does not rest with the Secretary or with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member is well aware of the fact—the Act is applied flexibly and sympathetically—that if people can pass as Whites and are accepted by the White community as such, their classification can be, and is, reconsidered. Why does the hon. member bring this specific case to the attention of the House in this manner? Last year I took the trouble to set out the legal position in detail here in the House. If the hon. member would only take the trouble to take another look at that explanation—which is a completely correct rendition—he cannot entertain any misunderstanding. I should like to quote part of it…

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to ask me a question, he only has to stand up and I shall allow him to put the question with pleasure. It is no use sitting and making interjections which I cannot hear. The fact is that if a person’s classification cannot be amended on the basis of descent, there should be no doubt that in terms of appearance and acceptance he is already accepted, without reservation, as a member of the population group of which he wants to be classified a member.

However, in the case of a change of classification to one of the ethnic or other groups into which Coloureds can be classified, appearance is not a deciding factor and particular attention should therefore be paid to acceptance. That applies especially in the case of the Coloured communities, where people complain bitterly about the penetration of Bantu and Indians into their community. If the Secretary wants to consider changing someone’s classification with the permission of this person, in terms of the provisions of section 5(4)(c), to the classification of a population group in which he may not be classified …

Order! The Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister be given the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for the concession. In such a case the Secretary has to be satisfied that he always has the consent of the population group concerned, in other words that such a person would pass without any doubt and is indeed accepted by his local community as one of them and is not merely tolerated by them. Furthermore, one should not lose sight of the effects which a change in the classification of such a person could have for his family. In this respect we are not dealing with the arbitrary action of an official. That does not mean that because the Act provides, the Secretary can act arbitrarily as he pleases. Not in the least. He acts on the grounds of a well-considered opinion which has been formed over the years, by the Supreme Court as well. It is implemented strictly under the supervision of the Secretary of the department and of the hon. the Minister when it is brought to their attention. I refer hon. members to just one judgment of the Cape division of the Supreme Court in 1976 in the case of Jacobs v. Secretary for the Interior. The acting judge, Mr. Justice Grosskopf—now a judge—said, inter alia, the following—

The approach in this connection was put as follows in Francesco v. Secretary of the Interior (S.A.L.R. 1967 Vol. 2, page 287), as follows—

The judge continues to say—

Then reference is made to a whole series of decisions by the Supreme Court. The judge continues his judgment and says—

This is not, therefore, arbitrary action but is well-considered. I have said before in this House that such cases are considered with the greatest sympathy. For example: During the last week or so, two hon. members of the House came to see me and put the following facts to me: A father and mother who are classified as White, have a son who is also classified as White. The son had a child by their Coloured housemaid. Afterwards he had another child by the same housemaid. The first was a girl and the second a boy. The circumstances are now such that an hon. member of the House came to ask me to consider the classification of the father as Coloured. Another hon. member approached me to consider the classification of the Coloured girl as White. I do not have a hot line to the angel Gabriel. Similarly, I can mention another case in connection with which an hon. member of the House approached me, a case similar to that to which the hon. member for Green Point referred. I mention these cases to illustrate the gravity of the matter and the problems with which we have to deal. There is another case of a father, a mother and nine children. The mother is Coloured, the father was classified as Coloured at one stage in the past, but at one stage he succeeded in persuading the Secretary for the Interior to accept that he was White in terms of the provisions of the old legislation, because the facts pointed to it. The Secretary was then compelled to classify him as White in terms of the provisions of the Act. The family then consisted of a White father, a Coloured mother and nine children who were legally and correctly classified as Coloured. Seven of those children gravitated to the White community. The other two gravitated to the Coloured community. That is the kind of problem which arises. One of the two children who moved into the Coloured community, was a boy who today holds a responsible position in the city. He is married to a Coloured woman and is very happy as a Coloured, because he wants to be a Coloured. I do not want to say what our decision is going to be in this case, but I only mention it to indicate that the Government is not responsible for these conditions. These are factual, domestic circumstances arising from the communities which exist in South Africa, and they are fine communities and fine people. It is no use the hon. member sitting there grinning. Has he no feeling for this type of thing? Has he no feeling for these communities? Has he no understanding of the problems of decent people? These are problems which we have to deal with. We do not treat this type of case callously.

Who caused the problems?

People before us caused them. The hon. member for Griqualand East should not point a finger at me, otherwise I could easily point a finger at him, too. Sir, it is not a question of callousness. In these matters we act with the greatest possible sympathy to try and find solutions for these people.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to the report of the Theron Commission, and especially to its second recommendation. The hon. member adopted the very point of view which I hoped would not be adopted in this House. That is, he tried to create expectations among the public that the Act would be changed which would mean a changed situation with regard to classification. That is not in the least true. If one reads the full report and takes into consideration the facts on which the recommendation is based, and also considers the legal position to which I have already briefly referred today, then one realizes that there is going to be no change in the situation, for the simple reason that for many years acceptance has been employed as a criterion for classification in terms of section 5(4)(c) of the Population Registration Act. As I explained, acceptance is taken into account by the Secretary, and also by the Supreme Courts, in their well-considered decisions. It is therefore nothing new, and what is taking place today will also take place in the future. The second recommendation of the Theron Commission reads as follows—

As a result of the words “be so amended”, the hon. member now wants the Government to give its undertaking that such an amendment will be made. I do not want to comment on the technical question as to whether the Government would be prepared to incorporate the word “acceptance” in the Act. I only want to say to the hon. member, to the public at large and to our Coloured people: Do not have any illusions that the Act is going to be changed in such a way that it will be implemented differently. We will continue to use acceptance as a criterion, because we already take acceptance into account.

In other words, the new recommendation is rejected?

No, it is not rejected at all. It is accepted by the Government. I only want to say to the hon. member that he should not read into it what it does not state, because what else does the report say? I quote on page 6 of the White Paper on the Theron Commission’s report—

It is therefore stated in the White Paper that this is being done. All I ask now is that the hon. member should also say to the outside world that it is already being done. He must not try and create the impression that it is suddenly something new and different which is being introduced. He must not try and create the impression that the Government does not want to implement it. We have here a decision by the Government and of course I stand by it. I want to say to the hon. member and to the others: Do not read things into this which do not exist. Surely the hon. member realizes that we have been doing for years what is stated here. We can mention hundreds of examples of this, which occur every year. This year, for example, there were 122 examples of this, examples where section 5(4)(c) was in fact implemented. What more does the hon. member want, except to create confusion and to say to the outside world that the Government does not want to implement the recommendation—which is not true? I again want to give the assurance: The Government stands by every word in the White Paper. I am only trying to say to the hon. member that he should not read into it what is not there. What is stated in the White Paper, is implemented in practice to the great benefit of large numbers of people, people who are very satisfied with its implementation. The statistics in the annual report also indicate that there are very few hitches in the methods of race classification and the implementation of the Population Registration Act at the moment. I can give the hon. member my assurance that this is true. He can also talk to the Secretary of the department about it. All this points to the fact that the existing order is being applied fairly and that people are satisfied with it. Therefore the hon. member should not read something into it which is not there.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister started by attacking the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members on this side of the House for mentioning the facts relating to individual cases across the floor of this House. He said that we must advise him so that he can bring the files and we can debate those cases across the floor of the House.

I did not say that.

I want to say to him that that is not what we intend at all.

I am not prepared to debate it across the floor of the House.

The hon. the Deputy Minister took members on this side to task for not telling him that they intended raising these cases.

Quite right.

What for? Does he want to debate them across the floor of the House?

It is good manners.

It is not a question of good manners. The hon. the Deputy Minister is the last person to talk to me about good manners. That I want to say after the display we have had from him now. I want to say that I deplore the personal attack he made on members on this side of the House. However, it is something that we are beginning to expect from that hon. Deputy Minister because this is the arrogance that he always manifests every time he gets up to talk. Whether he is seeking promotion or not I do not know. I want to say that the cases which were quoted by this side of the House—and I intend quoting three or four cases a little later myself—were quoted simply as examples of hardship that are created by the implementation of the Government’s policy. I want to say that I believe the sensitivity displayed by that hon. Deputy Minister is because he is aware of the hardship that is created and because it lies on his conscience. It is no good his reading to us a homily about the legal provisions. We are fully aware of the legal provisions. I must concede that in terms of the law he is quite correct. But he will know that this side of the House has continually opposed those legal provisions. We opposed the legislation and most particularly the last two amendments to the Population Registration Act. He knows, because he took part in those debates. He knows how we fought them and how we warned the Government of precisely what is happening today, viz. the hardship that is created. Is he happy about the families that are divided by his law?

Now he stands here pleading and complaining about it. That is the trouble with the NP. They set up a problem, they create a problem with their ideological legislation and then they complain when we bring them cases and ask them to do something to assuage the hardship that is created by their laws. Then he stands here and says to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that this is something which happens and that people then come to them to solve the problem. Of course it is something that happens. The sooner the NP accepts that it is something that happens and changes their legislation, the better it will be for personal relations here in South Africa.

What a stupid argument!

Because they are stupid laws they create stupid situations, stupid situations which affect people. The hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Rissik and other members on that side of the House spoke about this department and its concern for people and the fact that it deals with people. Sometimes one wonders whether they have any feeling at all for people when we see some of the decisions which come from this department, particularly decisions such as those mentioned by the hon. members for Sandton and Green Point. Furthermore, I must say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he takes us to task and asks us why we did not participate in the Theron Commission, surely he knows that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was a member of that commission and that we participated fully in that commission. What was his intention? Was his intention to mislead the House or was he trying to score petty political points?

Oh, shut up!

Oh, shut up! That is fine; that is exactly what I say about the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is what we have grown to expect from him.

Having dealt with him, I want to come back to what the hon. member for Durban Central was dealing with when his time unfortunately ran out. He was dealing with the question of closing the wage gap. He had discussed with the hon. the Minister the question of what it would cost to close that wage gap. He pointed out that it would cost a quarter of a million rand in the case of lecturers and for doctors and nurses R15 million. He got to the point where, according to a reply received from the hon. the Minister of Statistics and the hon. the Minister of National Education, it would cost R6,5 million to close the gap in the case of African teachers with qualifications beyond that of a matriculation certificate, and to close the gap for Indian and Coloured teachers with the same qualifications, it would cost another R6,5 million. The total of these amounts comes to R30 million which represents only 0,2% of the budget of this country for the current year. The hon. the Minister of the Interior does not agree with that. He gave a figure of R95 million. Even if we accept his figure, this represents a little over 1% of the budget for 1977-’78 totalling approximately R9 300 million. I believe there can be a saving on wasteful expenditure. Apart from the savings I believe are possible if we were to do away with the ideological legislation and concepts of the Government, if we were to do away with the wasteful expenditure arising out of inefficient administration, from which we get no benefit at all, I am sure we could save the required 1% on this budget in order to close the wage gap in respect of these professional people. Just imagine the benefits of this. Imagine the dividend we in South Africa would get from that in terms of the improvement in personal relations, not to mention the benefit that would result in respect of our relations with the outside world. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior to heed the plea of the hon. member for Durban Central. Let him accept what that hon. member has put to him. Let him use that 1 % of the budget—that is all we ask—in order to get this tremendous dividend in human relations in the Republic.

Talking about inefficiency, I want to point to an inefficient system which has evolved over the years in the administration of the hon. the Minister’s department in relation to the administration of the Department of Immigration. Last year and in previous years I raised this issue with the hon. the Minister. I have asked that he should look into the question of doing away with the Department of Immigration. That department exists only through the delegation of power by this hon. Minister. We have the situation today where the Minister of the Interior administers the Public Service Commission by delegation from the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Minister of the Interior in turn has delegated his authority to the Minister of Immigration to administer the Act regarding permanent residence in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister retains in his department the question of visas for entering South Africa, temporary residence permits, work permits and, ultimately, after the persons concerned have received permanent residence, the question of citizenship.

There is therefore this division. Imagine the cost to these two departments resulting from the necessary correspondence and contact backwards and forwards between them so that the left hand can know what the right hand is doing. Just think of that cost alone in relation to the R95 million which is required to engender a tremendous amount of goodwill in the Republic. That is only one example of where savings can be effected. I am sure that the hon. the Minister with his intimate knowledge of what goes on in the Public Service will know of other examples which can also add to the saving so that the R95 million can be accumulated.

What is happening in personal relations? Here we come back again to this department which is dealing with people. Think of the frustration that is being created amongst people when they try to comprehend the complex system that has evolved. They have to deal with two different departments in connection with one and the same matter as far as they are concerned, a matter which has to do with their ultimately attaining citizenship in the Republic of South Africa, the country to which they have chosen to come. I am sure the hon. the Minister will realize what it means to a person to pull up his roots and to move from his country of birth to a country where he seeks to be adopted. When such a person comes here, he undergoes this kind of traumatic experience. I want to quote a letter from a person who was trying to become a South African. I personally investigated this case. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not take a matter to his department, to the Minister himself or to his Deputy until I have personally satisfied myself that that case is deserving of my support. The officials of the department appreciate that. I am not prepared to stick my neck out for every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to come into the country. I only do it when I am satisfied that the case is deserving. This letter states—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am always amazed at the logic of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In reply to what the hon. member said in regard to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I do just want to ask him a question. Like the hon. member for Green Point did last night, the hon. member made the accusation—this is very common—that we on this side of the House were the people who were creating the problems. According to them we are creating the problems through our ideological legislation. The hon. member has just said that again. The hon. member’s whole argument boils down to the fact that he rejects the Population Registration Act and everything which goes with it. Where does the hon. member apply his policy as regards population registration in applying his federal policy? That hon. member and his party did away with the concept of a common voters’ roll years ago. They are back to separate voters’ rolls now. If the hon. member rejects this type of legislation, what are they going to do? We should like to know. What is the ideological background of his legislation which he proposes to introduce in this regard?

I want to return to the hon. member for Green Point. In the House yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for Green Point spoke in this House about the Public Service Commission and related matters. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member said that unfortunately he did not have much time and could not make a thorough study of the subject. In fact he could only confine himself to certain questions which he wanted to ask and he would very much have liked to argue matters in depth. Why does he not argue the matter in depth? What did the hon. member say here? The hon. member said the following about the Public Service Commission—

After that the hon. member referred to the so-called Gerdener report. Furthermore he pointed out that we have 44 Government departments in South Africa, which is of course wrong. Actually there are only 43, but let us include the Post Office. He went on to say—

He quoted the examples of Canada, the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan. If the hon. member had been original, I could have conducted an argument with him about that, but the hon. member was not even original. The hon. member did not do any research in this regard. All he did was to echo Martin Creamer, who wrote a report in the Sunday Times under the prominent title “Do you know that you are being strangled by the biggest octopus in the world?” He simply quoted Martin Creamer. What did Mr. Creamer actually say? He said the following, amongst other things—

And—

This is in South Africa—

Then we have this drastic statement—

This is an extremely irresponsible statement which Mr. Creamer made. I do not want to argue with his allegation that Government officials or people in the service of the Government vote for the Government, but when he says that the Government is afraid to make the Public Service effective, for the sake of gaining a few votes from those who work for it, I want to say that this is absolutely irresponsible. Like the hon. member for Green Point, I did not have the time to investigate all these cases, but the hon. member echoed parrot-wise what Mr. Creamer said. Mr. Creamer says that Canada has 26 Government departments. The hon. member for Green Point knows what the idiom says about comparisons. Had the hon. member taken the trouble to investigate a few of these countries and determine precisely what the circumstances there are—by the way, circumstances differ from country to country and one cannot say that because their population is more or less comparable in size, the number of their departments can be compared—he would have thought otherwise. Since we are speaking of Canada now, let us take it as an example. I have before me the 1975 annual report of the Public Service Commission of Canada. I wish the hon. member for Green Point would take the trouble to look at it. What would he have discovered had he looked at this report? He would have discovered that the State of Canada does not only have departments, it also has so-called agencies. The hon. member would have also discovered that there are about 64 departments and agencies in Canada. If I count them and I think I can at least count—I count altogether 49 departments in the Canadian Public Service. In addition there are another 15 agencies. Where does the hon. member find 26? It is clear that the hon. member merely echoed Mr. Creamer. However, he never investigated whether Mr. Creamer’s facts were correct. Canada has more departments and agencies than South Africa.

Of course, this is not to say that the departments of the Canadian Public Service are at all comparable with what we call a department in South Africa. However, this just proves once again where this type of argument gets one; especially when one tries to clinch an argument with it here in the House. I think that the hon. member could just as well have taken the trouble to look at this information.

I want to give him another example. One of the departments of the Canadian Public Service is referred to as “National Revenue”. However, under agencies the list mentions “national revenue: taxation.” Therefore it is a subdivision of the former. Furthermore there is also “national revenue: customs and excise”. The latter is also an agency.

Now, when we compare this with our Departments of Internal Revenue and Customs and Excise, it becomes apparent that the total number of agencies and departments in the Canadian Public Service probably exceeds ours. The actual test is of course how many Cabinet members there must be to administer all the departments. We have 18 of them here, plus their six Deputy Ministers. This is the test which the hon. member for Green Point ought to apply. If the hon. member can state positively which of these departments can conveniently be merged in one department, or which department can be eliminated without allocating the functions of that particular department to another department, the hon. member would have really had a valid argument. However, he does not do that.

Speaking of Canada, I refer to the report once again. It seems that the Canadian public service commission responsible for only a few aspects of the administration of the staff of that country’s public service. They also have something called a “Treasury Board”. This is a body which carries out most of the administrative functions in Canada. According to the report, the Canadian public service commission has a staff of 4 000, while the activities of our own public service commission are performed by a staff of only 237. Naturally, I am not alleging that the Public Service Commission of Canada and that of South Africa fulfil identical functions. I am only referring to this in order to indicate where comparisons can get one. I could just as well have taken these figures and said that on the strength of this, South Africa has a very much more effective public service commission than Canada. However, I surely cannot make any such statement.

Furthermore the report mentions the fact that the staff of the Canadian public service, increased by an average of 5,4% in the year covered by the report, 1974-’75. During the same period the staff of the South African public service increased by an average of 5,1%. This is quite normal. I think that under the circumstances, the figures quoted and the insinuations made by the hon. member for Green Point in this regard have been taken completely out of context and are uncalled for. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Green Point to Die Staatsamptenaar of April 1977. It contains the text of a speech by Dr. S. S. Brand, Deputy Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for me to react to the speech of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I do not have any problems with it and I readily agree with what he said.

I want to come at once to the matter on which I should like to exchange a few ideas with the House in the few moments at my disposal. The key word in the budget is saving. Practically the whole budget is characterized by cut-backs and economies affected by eliminating unnecessary expenditure. Economizing is the key word in the budget. If one reads through the budget speech of the hon. the Minister, every page, practically every paragraph testifies to this. That is why I think it is fitting for us to pay attention to this aspect. The Government is paying very serious attention to the matter on the highest level. The hon. the Minister has already said that there will have to be even further cut-backs.

The Government can probably expect the same to be done at the lower levels of government. The Department of the Interior and the Minister responsible for and concerned with lower levels of government and that is why it is fitting for us to consider what can be done at those levels in order to link up with the general endeavour of the Government to limit expenditure to a minimum this year. At the same time we shall not only have to consider the elimination of unnecessary expenditure, but also of course consider where we can prevent wastage or the misapplication of funds. The question in connection with these levels is: Are there not perhaps some services and privileges which could be reconsidered? Are there services and privileges to which we have become accustomed, but without which we could most probably manage quite well? If such cases exist, they should be eliminated.

If we can identify a few of these spheres in which further savings can take place, I think that we might very well explore at the sphere of all forms of State aid which are being made available and which are extended to people who do not need it or do not even want it. In this regard I am thinking of State aid which people receive when they have not asked for it. At the same time we must also take into account the fact that, as our Ministers say from time to time, we shall have to be prepared to adapt our standard of living in future. We shall perhaps have to be prepared to accept a lower standard of living. There are spheres like this, such forms of State aid, which are made available to certain people who do not need it and, in many cases, do not even want it. I should like to refer to a few of these.

We find the explanations for some of these cases, for example, in the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967. In section 2(1)(e), it is determined that “education (including books and stationery) shall be provided free of charge … ". This means therefore that in terms of parliamentary legislation there is no choice. That service and those privileges shall be provided free of charge to everyone. Now we find the anomaly that many well-to-do parents have to accept this form of State aid—this is the system—while they would definitely not have requested it and are not really interested in it.

This means that we really have an element of compulsion in the acceptance of State aid. I wonder whether we should not reconsider this. We must remind ourselves that this element of compulsion is actually the characteristic of the well-known socialistic system in Sweden. Sweden is the socialistic utopia, the ideal welfare state. We must guard against moving in that direction too rapidly and too far. In Sweden it is a test of patriotism if one makes use of all the State aid at one’s disposal. Indeed, not only is it a sign of patriotism if one takes it, but it is actually a demonstration of subversion if one does not take it. I want to read one quotation from the book The New Totalitarians—

Fortunately we are very far from this situation—and we are also very grateful for it. However, there is an element of this phenomenon in that one is compelled to receive State aid which one perhaps does not want. Fortunately our nation has more pride and self-respect than the Swedish people who are making a tradition of taking everything from the State.

The fact is that we may possibly be justified in reconsidering this system, for which large amounts—I do not have the precise figures at my disposal—are for example, voted every year for free books, stationery and similar items. I think that an amount of almost R10 million is voted by the various provincial administrations every year. Probably the amount for free transport and transport allowances amounts to approximately R20 million. We cannot save this entire amount, but the question is whether we cannot reconsider this entire system. It is not possible for a change to be made in the case of those who are not interested in this form of aid? A reasonable amount of saving could be effected in this way.

I want to emphasize that I am not for a single moment asking that aid should be taken away from people who need it. There are people who do need it. Nevertheless we can possibly investigate the system once again in order to determine whether it is not possible for the people who do not need the help or do not want it, to make a contribution in some or other way towards this service which is being provided free of charge at the moment.

There is another sphere of possible saving, although it is indirect. This is a sphere which the hon. the Minister himself identified a while ago. He referred to the prevailing staff administrative practices at certain of the local authorities and other statutory bodies. There is tremendous pooching of staff and as a result we do not achieve the optimum utilization of manpower in this country. This matter is very pertinent. The Public Service has calculated that they are losing up to 35% of their staff to these institutions. It is alleged that up to double the salary is being paid in order to buy people. Consequently there is an immense labour mobility. Of course this means a below optimum utilization of manpower, a situation which can be harmful to our objective and endeavour, i.e. the full and optimum utilization of our manpower. The hon. the Minister and his department are probably aware of this and I merely asking that attention should be paid to it again. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have the support of the hon. member who has just sat down in my appeal to the hon. the Minister of the Interior that the Government should be able to save, out of the inefficient expenditure which we are asked to approve in this House, enough money to spend R95 million—that was the figure he gave us—on an investment for good personal relationships in South Africa.

I was busy dealing with the hon. the Minister’s department and with the question of the dual control of the system and the inefficiency which we are finding in the system. A particular applicant applied for an extension of a temporary residence permit on 7 January in Durban. On 3 February, when he enquired about his application, he was told that it could take six weeks. I cannot understand why it takes six weeks to extend a temporary residence permit. The people have come into the country, the guarantees are there, the return tickets are there; why does it take six weeks for a little extension of a temporary residence permit? At the same time these people had made an application for permanent residence …

That is the problem.

No, that is not a problem at all; that is the difference between the hon. the Minister’s attitude and my attitude. I believe we need these people in this country, that we should welcome them here and that we should make it as easy as possible for them to become immigrants into South Africa, to get permanent residence and thereafter to take citizenship and to become good citizens.

All of them?

No. The hon. the Minister did not listen when I spoke earlier on and said that these were cases which I personally had investigated. The proof lies in what comes at the end. On 4 February this person, for his family, received a letter from the Department of Immigration advising him that his application for permanent residence could no further be considered as his temporary residence permit had expired. What happened then? On 24 February, seven weeks after the application had been made, the temporary residence permit was extended and, finally, on 5 May, permanent residence was granted.

So what?

The hon. the Minister says “so what”, but the point is that this division of control between these two departments is creating these problems. Why cause that heartache and heartsore to these people by letting them wait for that time, wondering what is going to happen to them and with the fear of being thrown out of the country at any moment? They sit without any documents. Their passports have been handed in to be stamped and all they have is a piece of paper issued by the Department of the Interior, a piece of paper which means nothing to the Department of Immigration. This is the point. In another case a person received a letter saying: “This is a final extension of your temporary residence permit. You must leave the Republic by the date that it expires.” At the same time these people are waiting for their applications to be considered by the Department of Immigration. These things have got to be put together in one department so that the left hand can know what the right hand is doing.

We also have this sort of situation. I received a letter from the Department of the Interior in which they state—

In this case a specialist in her field was sitting in Rhodesia, while the hospital in Eshowe was waiting for this person to come. They needed her desperately because there was nobody available in the country with those qualifications. Incidentally, she was trained here in South Africa, but because she is now a Rhodesian citizen she has to sit in Rhodesia and wait while the Department of Immigration are considering her application for permanent residence, and in the meanwhile the hospital at Eshowe is in need of that person, all because the Department of the Interior will not grant a temporary residence permit and a work permit to allow her to carry on in the meantime until permanent residence is granted to her. Permanent residence was granted eventually.

Then there was the case of a person who is employed by a large public corporation, one of these corporations established by the Government. His first application for permanent residence was refused, his temporary residence visa expired and he was warned to leave the Republic. His employers appealed to me and said: “Mr. Webber, what can you do about this?” I wrote to the Department of the Interior and asked them: “Please, extend this temporary residence permit.” I wrote to the Department of Immigration and asked them: “Please have another look at his application”. The Department of Immigration replied that they would have another look at it, but the Department of the Interior said “no”. They wrote back the following—

Of course.

Of course, in terms of the Act, but that is not the way to deal with people when we want them to come and live in South Africa and make their home in South Africa. What happened then? Eventually the Department of Immigration agreed to reconsider his application. Again I wrote to the Department of the Interior and said: “Please, give an extension.” I received the following reply—

That letter was dated 6 December. Two days later I received a visit from the police force. They wanted to know where they could find this man. I told them where to get off, Sir. I want to know how they knew to come to me.

Oh, come off it!

“Come off it!” says the hon. the Minister. Are we to expect, when we deal with matters such as this that the department is going to …

Do not be childish; grow up.

I am not being childish. In any event, will the hon. the Minister answer that question?

How must I know?

On 24 January, six weeks after I received that letter, the Department of Immigration granted that person permanent residence.

Fine, good luck to him.

Exactly, Sir. The hon. the Minister makes my case. Last year I pleaded that the Department of Immigration should be done away with. Today I believe that the hon. the Minister has got to take the opposite decision. All his authority which he has to deal with people who want to come to South Africa and become good residents in South Africa, should be passed over to the hon. the Minister of Immigration for him to deal with. I do not know whether this is a reflection on the attitudes of the various Ministers. Is this perhaps a case of “verligte Piet” versus “verkrampte Connie”?

I do not know whether that is perhaps being reflected through their departments. This is causing unnecessary hardship to people who wish to come and live in the Republic of South Africa and who wish to become good citizens. The Immigrant Selection Board and the Department of Immigration have proved me right in these cases. I do not intend to discuss the individual cases with the hon. the Minister. I quote these as examples of what has happened.

The Minister told us last year in reply to the debate that the Public Service Commission was continually looking at the situation of the overlapping between departments. He told us that this particular case had been looked at but that they had decided to leave it as it was. I now want to reverse my plea and ask him to raise this matter with the Public Service Commission again, so that these powers can be taken away from his department and given to the Department of Immigration. Let them deal with visas, with temporary residence permits and with work permits. If, ultimately, this Minister insists that he must deal with citizenship, once these people have obtained permanent residence and are making a contribution to the country, they can then apply back to his department for citizenship. Mr. Chairman, I raise this matter in all seriousness with the hon. the Minister. I believe it is a serious matter. We need more immigrants. The Department of Immigration is doing its best to bring people to the country and the Department of the Interior, as far as I am concerned, at this stage is doing its best to chase them all out again.

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to argue with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South about the objections which he has now aired with regard to the issue of temporary residence permits. I only want to give him the good advice that he will achieve much more if he goes to the departments of the Minister and discusses these matters calmly with them. If there is any merit in his representations, the necessary attention will be paid to them. It is not necessary to hurl reproaches in regard to these things about in the House.

†Mr. Chairman, I also want to tell the hon. member that as far as I am concerned, and I think as far as most of us are concerned, he is the person who has the least justification for complaining about arrogance on the part of the Deputy Minister, or anybody else for that matter, because he is the very epitome of arrogance in this House.

*I want to draw attention to another matter about which the members of the PRP and also members of the official Opposition seem to have an obsession, and that is the question of the issuing of passports to South African citizens who want to go abroad. Hardly a session of this House passes by without a number of questions being asked about passport control. The refusal or withdrawing of a passport regularly enjoys great publicity in the pro-Opposition Press.

They proceed on the assumption that every South African citizen is ipso facto entitled to a passport to go abroad. However, I challenge hon. members of the Opposition this afternoon to present any justification for this assumption to the House. I want to make the categorical statement that this assumption has no legal ground whatsoever. There is no such enactment or regulation in constitutional law or international law; not even in the so-called International Bill of the Rights of Man of the UN is there any indication of such an alleged right to a passport. In effect, if it had been different, it would not have been necessary to apply for the issue of a passport and every citizen could be supplied with a passport as he is at present supplied with an identity document.

A passport gives the holder thereof all the recognition, authorization and protection of the State or of the authority issuing the passport while he is abroad. It is not only the right, but also the duty of the authority concerned to prevent the misuse of its passports. Passports are only issued to the citizens of a State; i.e. to people in respect of whom the State authority concerned has jurisdiction. There can therefore be no doubt as to the ability and right of the State authority concerned to refuse a passport, to withdraw it or to make it subject to certain conditions.

The impression is also being created that the number of South African citizens to whom passports are refused, or whose passports are withdrawn, is inordinately high. According to the annual report for 1976 of the Department of the Interior the facts are that during 1975 four passports were withdrawn, 145 applications for passports were refused and 193 156 applications for passports were approved. In 1976 21 passports were withdrawn, 109 passports refused and 221 014 applications for passports approved. That means that in 1975 less than one out of every thousand applications for passports were refused. In 1976 approximately only one out of every two thousand applications for passports were refused. If hon. members of the Opposition want to claim that this number of refusals is too high in South Africa’s present circumstances and the times in which we are living, they should rather urge the total removal of all forms of passport control.

Furthermore it is insinuated that we discriminate against non-Whites in the consideration of applications for passports. A critical report appeared in the Sunday Times of 16 May 1976 under the heading: “No passport for Black writer” on the refusal of a passport to Mr. James Matthews. It is interesting that according to the same report, Mr. Matthews himself said—

The facts also belie the mentioned insinuation, because figures for 1976 demonstrate that 21 passports were retracted, of which 12 were those of Whites; two of Coloureds; two of Asians; and five of Bantu. 136 passports were refused, of which 57 to Whites; 10 to Coloureds; 41 to Asians; and 28 to Bantu.

Finally the charge is made that the refusal or withdrawal of passports by the department is used as a means of political blackmail or extortion and that people are refused passports solely because they do not agree with the Government’s policy. These accusations, too, are completely devoid of truth. Hon. members of the PRP regularly travel all over the world. I presume that they do it on South African passports. They make the most outrageous statements here and abroad, but I still have to hear of any of their passports being withdrawn or that any of them were refused a passport. Should one now infer from this that those hon. members all agree with the Government policy?

Let us take a closer look at a few of the cases about which a fuss was kicked up recently. During 1976 Mr. Norman Middleton, the chairman of the South African Soccer Federation applied for a passport to enable him to attend the July 1976 congress in Montreal of the world body concerned. In spite of his actions and statements in the past Mr. Middleton was nevertheless not refused a passport but he was merely required to confirm in writing that he would not harm South Africa or the country’s sport in any way. What could have been more reasonable and fair in the circumstances? At a time when South Africa’s sporting ties with the rest of the world were under pressure and the Government was making every effort to normalize those relations, we could hardly allow Mr. Middleton to go over and break down all the constructive work that had been done abroad. In spite of the reasonable attitude of the department Mr. Middleton was not prepared to give the required confirmation. On the contrary, he confirmed the correctness of the department’s action through a statement which he made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I think that somehow he missed the point. The dispute does not concern the legal issue relating to the granting of passports to various people at all. The complaint that is made in South Africa has nothing to do with the law. The trouble is that in many cases the Government sees the enemies of the Government as being the enemies of South Africa. In fact, the Government sometimes has difficulty in distinguishing between the political enemies of the Government and the enemies of South Africa. Sir, I do not have time to deal with this at length, but I want to say baldly that we believe that there are cases in which the Government has used the granting of passports as a political weapon against its enemies. We believe, too, that there have been cases where the Government has used the granting of passports as a punitive measure. To issue a passport conditionally involves, I believe, a completely wrong principle altogether. When a passport is issued conditionally, who is to be the judge of the actions of the person concerned? The judge of that will be the Minister himself, or the Nationalist Government, and he is not going to be in agreement with views contrary to Government policy and will therefore very likely withhold such a person’s passport in future as a punitive measure. I must say, too, that I believe that it is the right and the duty of an Opposition in this Parliament to act as a watchdog over the rights of individuals, whether it concerns 300, 500 or 3 000 of them. I believe that the Opposition must particularly act as a watchdog over the rights of those who disagree with the Government.

I should like to raise, very briefly, with the hon. the Minister a matter which is causing concern in the Transvaal local authorities. I refer to the position of the Town Clerk in the municipal structure. In terms of section 2 of the Industrial Conciliation Act the Town Clerk is excluded from the provisions of that Act. This, basically, means two things. Firstly it means that the Town Clerk does not enjoy the protection given to employees in terms of the Act; and secondly it means that he has no negotiating powers concerning his conditions of service, salary and the like. In the Transvaal the position has been aggravated by provincial legislation. The Administrator must approve the salary of each and every appointee; leave bonuses have been pegged at R260 per annum, whereas most other employees receive a percentage of their salary as their bonuses.

This simply means that a town clerk, for instance, will obtain by way of leave bonus less than the amount paid to a typist. Telephone and transport allowances have been pegged, etc. A person ignorant of local government may say that the plight of a relatively small number of senior municipal employees is not worth worrying about, but that would be making a grave error. The town clerk is the main cog around which every single local authority administration is built. It is in his power, by virtue of his rank, by virtue of his expertise, to save his city or his town, to save the province and the State, millions of rand by building, maintaining and promoting an efficient and effective government at local level. It is a top job which should in fact attract top people. Each appointment affects vitally the level of public expenditure in a community, and the quality of service rendered to that community. At the present time, because of the artificial limits placed upon the earning power of these vital administrators, in almost every municipality in the Transvaal, while being the head of the staff of every municipality, the town clerk earns less than several of his junior employees in each municipality, whose salaries are not pegged. The result is and will increasingly be in the future that these positions will not be filled, or will be filled by people of less or under-qualified status. That situation will cost municipal government, and has in fact already in some instances cost municipal government, hundreds of thousands of rand and it will cost the ratepayers of the Transvaal and in other areas where this is applied dear. Local government as a whole is already showing the first signs of slight degeneration. Dedicated and qualified municipal employees and officials are no longer interested in becoming town clerks.

It would not be the wish of this House to interfere in the affairs of the provinces, but there is one thing we in this House can do about the matter and we can do it soon. That is to give the town clerk that basic right which should be at the disposal of every employee, viz. the right to bargain through his organization for the betterment of his employment conditions. I believe that a very small amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act, including these officials within the scope of its provisions, can achieve just that. Such action by this House will not set aside the provisions of provincial ordinances, but it will have the effect of ensuring that the kingpins around which municipal government is structured will be able to speak for themselves and thus, in time, ensure that these posts are filled by the best people, which will redound, I believe, to the eventual immeasurable benefit of ratepayers, of local authorities, of the provincial authorities and in the end result of the State itself.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton had an axe to grind with us about the issue of passports. No one—neither this Government nor anyone on this side of the House—has ever asked anyone to defend the policy of the NP or not to criticize it abroad or anywhere else. If this had been the precondition for obtaining a passport, the hon. member for Houghton would never have obtained one again. The hon. member for Pinelands, too, would definitely not have obtained one. I challenge the hon. member for Sandton today to show us where it has been made a condition that the policy of the NP may not be criticized. All we ask is that when these people travel abroad, they should not act in a manner detrimental to the interests of South Africa. That hon. member and his party are so fanatical in their hatred of the NP that they can no longer distinguish between attacking the NP and prejudicing the interests of South Africa. In the process they do the NP and, what is more important, South Africa, a great deal of harm by this kind of action. Having listened to the debate as conducted by the hon. members of the UP and the PRP, I want to say with grave displeasure that we are not at all pleased about the unfounded accusations we have heard from hon. members on that side of the House. With regard to some matters they have expressed wholly unfounded criticism of the Government. That kind of criticism was heard in particular from the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Sandton—I have already referred to him—and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Actually, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is a pleasant person. However, when we talk about him outside, we shall refer to him as a real old windbag. After all, one simply does not raise a song and dance as he did today. However, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has already dealt with him effectively.

Attempts have constantly been made over the years to brand hon. members on the Government side as heartless people and to present the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department to the outside world as people entirely lacking in sympathy with the life, and the weal and woe of the people. This is what they have tried to do. The hon. Opposition takes it even further. Through their efforts they create the impression that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department show no sympathy or mercy to people of colour in particular. This is the standpoint which those hon. members regularly adopt. We saw this again today in this debate. The hon. member for Green Point goes on to maintain inter alia that there is no Christian justification for the actions of the Government. I think that that was a scandalous remark to make. The approach being adopted by that hon. member and his party in this respect is a scandalous one. I think that their behaviour is disgraceful. I want to put it in even stronger terms and say that in my opinion this approach is despicable in the extreme. Their allegations are not true. The image they present is a distorted one; a caricature of the truth. It is a misrepresentation of the facts. Not only is it unfair and unjust to the Government, I believe that it is also dangerous to South Africa. Through that type of behaviour, through that type of approach, they are bedevilling relations among the Whites, the Brown people and the Black people in South Africa.

I believe that the official Opposition ought to have a far better understanding of its responsibility in this respect. Now those hon. members are blaming the Government and maintaining that it acts heartlessly with regard to the classification of people, among other things. This is an extremely difficult matter, a matter in which one often has to deal with real heartbreak cases. Who knows this better than the department and the hon. the Minister, who have to deal with all these cases? Certainly not those hon. members who make such a fuss about the few cases that have come to their notice. It is an irrefutable fact that there are different nations living in South Africa. We are not quarrelling about that. The hon. member for Sandton also admitted this this afternoon. The hon. member for Innesdal also referred to it.

Because this is so, one has to classify the people and the different peoples. There is no other way of dealing with the matter. As soon as one classifies, one draws a line. Wherever a line is drawn, there are borderline cases. As soon as there are borderline cases, there are also heartbreak cases. I should like to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South how they are going to set their system of community municipalities in operation and make it succeed if they do not classify the people. I do not understand it, nor do I believe that he can explain it to me.

However, in Natal and elsewhere there are also the problem cases of the Indians. This is a community in which real heartbreak cases also occur. I am now referring specifically to those cases in which we have to deal with the aged parents or spouses of Indians who would normally not be allowed in South Africa. Those hon. members who are so assiduously accusing the Government of heartlessness have definitely not yet taken the trouble to determine how many elderly Indian parents whose only source of support is in South Africa today have in fact been permitted by the Government to enter South Africa in recent times. They did not do so, because after all, this is not news. It is not a stick with which they can beat the Government. However, I shall tell them how many cases there have been. Looking at the record, we note that about two of these people have been permitted to enter South Africa every month for quite some time. Furthermore, notwithstanding all the criticism levelled at the Government by the hon. members of the Opposition, I wonder whether they have taken into account the fact that the representations made to the Government recently by the Indian Council concerning the sporadic admission of spouses in compassionate cases is at present enjoying the sympathetic consideration of this Minister and the Government. Out of humanitarian considerations, and taking into account his responsibility, the hon. the Minister will certainly help these people. However, I want to sound a serious warning in this connection with regard to one matter. Any possible sympathetic consideration the hon. the Minister may give this, will undoubtedly be torpedoed if any concession made is abused. I have in mind any kind of abuse, for example, inundating the Government with cases which are not really justified on merit. That would certainly torpedo these efforts. The hon. the Minister also has a duty and a mandate in this regard towards other peoples and nations living in South Africa. That duty and mandate he will carry out. I want to ask that people who are concerned with this matter bear this in mind and realize that it will put the hon. the Minister in an impossible position if this really sympathetic consideration is abused.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg suggested that we have been causing a lot of strife and argument, as he termed it, “oor ’n paar gevalle”. I want to tell the hon. member that the Population Registration Act has been on the Statute Book in various forms for 27 years. In those 27 years I have had something to do with it in each year. In the days when the Population Registration Bill was first introduced, these human problems could be dealt with and were dealt with sympathy and understanding. Broken and divided families did not occur. I remember, long before I was involved in politics, being able to go to the late Mr. Tom Naudé, who was responsible for the administration of this matter, and to say: “Oom Tom, this is the problem.” It was sorted out in a peaceful manner which did no harm and did not disrupt the family life. Now we have the hon. the Deputy Minister getting onto his high horse this afternoon and being quite irritable because he has such great sympathy for the people who are affected by this Act. However, it was the members on that side who brought the Act in. What happened in 1969 when these amendments to the Act were introduced, these amendments which fettered any discretion that there was on anybody’s part? They are provisions which have no regard to human circumstances. I want to say quite clearly that I have no quarrel with the Secretary of the department. The Secretary is hide-bound in this matter because of the amendments which were introduced in 1969. I want to quote from the Hansard of that time—

When any connection with colour has long disappeared the fact of the classification of that parent must still be applied. It goes further—

Where is the sympathy? Where are the grounds for the sympathy?

The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that I should apparently have been at his door with every one of my problems. In the House last year I referred to the type of reply I received from the Deputy Minister. Some years ago I referred to him a case of great personal hardship, as I saw it. I asked him for some advice as these people asked me what they had to do. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied—

Because of his inability to meet the situation with the sympathy he professes, these people have left the country. Good South Africans had to leave the country to set up family life somewhere else.

You are quite unfair. You asked for my advice. It has nothing to do with classification.

I asked him what he expected them to do.

You asked me for my personal advice. It had nothing to do with classification.

I presented the facts to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I told him that the reclassification would not be agreed to and then I asked him what he expected these people to do. Would they have to take a chance and live in sin or would they have to leave the country and get married elsewhere? The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that he hoped that I had the necessary wisdom.

Of course.

Yet he professes his humanity. I can only say that it is unfortunate that we do not have a Tom Naude attitude in the department’s handling of this matter.

I want to refer to one or two other matters. The hon. member for Rissik had much to say about us criticizing the Public Service, but not doing anything about it. He said that we were not constructive in our criticism. He, as well as the hon. members for Koedoespoort and Innesdal, said that we on this side of the House had said that the public servants were not doing their job, that there should be some change and that we had suggested that the Public Service was kept large to provide voting fodder for the NP. Nobody has said that. The hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this way have ignored the fact that a rearrangement and a reduction in the size of the Civil Service and in the number of State departments has not been advocated by politicians. It has been advocated by the very specialist the Government has appointed, viz. the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission made those recommendations in 1971. We did not appoint the commission. They were appointed by the Government. They made similar recommendations in 1972 and 1973. Now the hon. members opposite suggest that we are the ones who are making these complaints. What we are saying is that since experts are advising the Cabinet it is surely time that the Cabinet took notice of those recommendations. That is what we have asked.

It has also been contested that Government policy contributes to the proliferation of State departments. Can hon. members suggest for one moment that four different heads and Ministries are necessary to deal with education, or that matters such as sport and housing should be dealt with by different bodies for different races and that one then has efficiency? If one looks at a number of these departments, I think that what this Government needs to do is to delegate a little more power to the provincial authorities, the homeland Governments, the Coloured Council and the Indian Council. The Government must let them get on with the job. They must not feel that they must always act as the big brother who is there to correct everything these bodies do with the powers delegated to them.

The question has been mentioned of the streamlining of the Departments of the Interior and of Immigration. It has also been mentioned how many man-hours must be wasted when one department communicates with the other as to how far they have progressed with the issuing of visas or with the establishment of permanent residence. These are matters which the Public Service Commission has had regard to. I only ask the hon. the Minister to give an assurance to this House that these recommendations will receive serious consideration and that he will try to limit to the maximum extent the involvement of the economically active Whites in the Public Service. That is a question I ask him in view of the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission in the past.

I want to deal with one further aspect. It has always interested me to see in the report of the Department of the Interior the number of applications made for passports and the number refused. When one looks at the figures for 1976, one finds that 211 014 passports were approved and that 109 were refused. In other words, 0,05% of the applications were refused, has the time not arrived for travel authority and citizenship authority to be contained in the identity documents that are issued? This is something I have suggested before. It seems to me incredible that it is necessary to process 200 000 and more applications, with the cost that is involved in the processing of those applications, when the matter can be dealt with in the reverse by the withdrawal of that provision from a book of life as and when it might be required to be done. I think it is a matter that can be considered and the hon. the Minister should realize it. An awful amount of work and cost are involved in dealing with the issuing of passports as it is done at the present time. I am not suggesting that it is an easy answer, but it is something which I think deserves to be considered.

I want to raise one further point with the hon. the Minister. I am sorry that I have not indicated it beforehand so as to place him in a position to answer it, but I notice that there was a fairly substantial increase in the number of exit permits that were granted. During the previous year the number was 3 271; while in 1976 it was 4 431. I would like to know that this is not attributable to conditions being imposed on the issue of passports so that people would rather take out exit permits instead of taking out passports. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us some indication as to why there is this alarming increase of 30% on the figures for the previous year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to request the Committee to display a little patience and understanding this evening. In the debate, which has lasted from yesterday evening until now, such a wide field has been covered—from the salaries of town clerks through the labyrinth of visas and passports, through the whole Public Service Commission and eventually to the Publications Act—that it is virtually impossible to reply to everything. This illustrates, at the same time, how really wide the joint task of the Department of the Interior and the Public Service Commission is and with how much dedication all the matters are handled by the relevant officials in the interests of South Africa and all its various departments.

Firstly, before I start dealing with anything else, I want to pay tribute, at the outset, to the officials of the two departments for the outstanding work they have done during the past year. They have not only effected the savings asked of them, but have also gone further than that. Perhaps it is not easy, but a department that spends money in some manner or other—I do not want to come along with any reproaches or cast any reflections—for example a department dealing with water affairs or something of that nature, can simply decide that although it would be an inconvenience, it will nevertheless build one dam less. It thus saves the money by delaying the construction of the dam by a year or two.

It is not that easy.

I know it is not. However, the Department of the Interior deals with living people whose numbers increase every day, with a daily increase in births, deaths and marriages. We cannot dam up the stream for a short period, so that our staff can cut down on expenses, because the task must be carried out day after day. Therefore, under increasing pressure we must effect the same savings that other departments do, and because we have succeeded in doing so, I want to pay tribute to all the officials for the fine co-operation in that connection.

I shall try as far as possible, to answer hon. members’ questions, and if I skip something or leave something out, hon. members must please draw my attention to the fact when I have finished speaking. I made notes as far as possible.

I want to say at once—this time I say it with great seriousness—that I am exceptionally proud of the team on this side of the House which spoke on this matter. I shall also be paying compliments to the other side of the House where necessary, but I shall come to that later. Hon. members on this side of the House made trim and orderly speeches relating to their specific spheres of interest, speeches which clearly attest to the thorough study and research they did. Whether the subject was passports, the Public Service Commission, or whatever, one could immediately see that the speaker had thoroughly prepared himself in studying the subject, thereby delivering a neat, well-rounded speech which is an asset to the standard of debate in the House and actual proof of the in-depth study I welcome from our speakers. I briefly want to deal with a few of the matters.

Firstly, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for False Bay yesterday evening in connection with the computerized population register. He quoted very interesting figures which were probably a revelation to all of us. He also indicated what significant results and usable data can be found in that register. In my few words of thanks and appreciation to him, I merely want to highlight one or two points further. It is general knowledge that the register has also been planned to include, apart from the population register, the central register of births, the central register of marriages, the central register of deaths, a central address register, a central register of driver’s licences and a central register of fire-arms. If there has ever been a saving, and if a study has ever been made of how these matters can be coordinated, this is the clearest proof of that.

The latter two registers were to have been created as separate registers with other departments. The Government had decided to do this. However, the Department of the Interior has now offered to build up and maintain these two registers, together with and as a by-product of, the population register. By doing this, millions of rand are saved. Merely the compilation of the two registers, as separate registers, would have cost, according to calculations, more than R4 million, more or less R1 per person for each register. As an integral part of the population register, the cost is less than 25 cents per person, or a quarter of the total cost. At the same time the compilation of the population register now costs less per person than the compilation of separate central registers for driver’s licences and fire-arms would jointly have cost. The central register for fire-arms has virtually been completed and 80% of the central register for driver’s licences has already been completed.

It is perhaps necessary to indicate what the benefits of the central automatised registers are. Let us take the example of a central register for fire-arms and look at the tremendous amount of red tape that has been involved in the past. Previously fire-arms were registered alphabetically under the surnames of the owners at each magistrate’s office in the Republic. That was the system previously adopted. Those registers were 35 years old when a start was made on the central register. Over the years fire-arms have changed owners and owners have moved from one magisterial district to another. It was impossible to determine how many licensed firearms there were in the country or to say how many persons possessed fire-arms. To determine whether John Citizen had a fire-arm, about 300 magistrates throughout the country had to be consulted. It was simply impossible to determine who the owner of a certain fire-arm was. At present, within a few seconds, we can get the following facts about fire-arms from the computer—

1. (a) how many fire-arms, designated as pistols, shotguns, etc., of every calibre there are in the country;
2. (b) how many persons have fire-arms;
3. (c) what fire-arms a particular person has and what his registered address is; and
4. (d) to whom the particular fire-arm belongs.

You can just imagine what an asset this is to the Police and to everyone who deals with the maintenance of law and order. I am purposely mentioning this because I want to pay a tribute, in that connection, and indicate what a great asset it is.

The next matter I want to touch upon, I touch upon in all seriousness. Here I want to appeal to our Press to assist in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of all the political parties in the country. On the recommendation of the latest Select Committee on the Electoral Laws, during this session provision was made, in the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, No. 34 of 1977, for the fact that parliamentary voters’ rolls can be drawn up from the population register, and the next general registration of voters was postponed for 12 months to give voters, whose names have not yet been included in the population register, the opportunity to apply for identity documents. Up to 30 April 1977 the names of 1 882 000 parliamentary voters, i.e. South African citizens over the age of 18 years, were recorded in the population register. On the voters’ rolls of South Africa there are 2 266 000 names. In other words, in order to get the same number of names on the population register as there are on the voters’ roll, a mere 384 000 names have yet to be recorded. The population register will then be as comprehensive as the voters’ roll. The voters’ roll is compiled after a general registration of voters, and then there is the ceaseless, monotonous task, for all political parties, of continually registering people. It is a gigantic task for each political party. At the moment there are already considerably more 18-year-old, 19-year-old and 20-year-old voters on the population register than on the voters’ roll. Indications are that in total there are also more voters than the voters’ roll indicates. It is estimated that by 30 June 1978 there will be 2½ million South African citizens of 18 years of age and older. Therefore, from now until 30 June 1978, 40 000 South African citizens per month must be recorded in order to meet the requirements we have set ourselves. 40 000 identity documents per month must therefore be issued in order to achieve that ideal. During August 1976 voters were notified of the envisaged arrangements by way of a Press statement and encouraged to submit applications for identity documents. At the same time I contacted the various political parties represented in this House and requested their co-operation, asking them to help us, via their party organizations, to get hold of people and to encourage them to apply for identity documents. Apart from the fact that we can draw up a very comprehensive voters’ roll, on the basis of the population register, we are going to save the country several million rand by virtue of the fact that a general registration of voters will no longer be necessary. The reaction was a very positive one, and I want to pay tribute to all the political parties for their co-operation. Each co-operated in his own way. I have just received a letter from the Leader of the PRP, and even though I attack them in all spheres, I nevertheless want to thank him for his party’s co-operation in this specific connection. They did their best. The hon. member sent me a copy of the poster which they drew up for their specific purposes, a poster on which the following appears—

That is how the Progs do it, and as it behoves them the poster is, of course, bilingual—

It has apparently been displayed in their offices.

Membership cards at the same time!

Membership cards at the same time! I have no objection to that. They have thus appealed to their people to do this. By way of the party secretaries of the four provinces the NP has granted all the possible co-operation that I could have expected from it in this connection. I also phoned the secretary of the UP, Senator Horak. They also did their share. With all these joint efforts—and I want to express my thanks for those efforts—we have achieved interesting results. In August of last year we received 30 000 applications; in September, 35 000; in October, 33 000; in November, 45 000; in December—a holiday month for the political parties as well—11 000; in January, 43 000; in February 46 000; in March, 51 000, with a decrease to 31 000 in April. I do not like the trend that is displayed. If we want to maintain an average of 40 000, a further effort must be made to push up the 31 000 applications to 40 000 or more per month. The number of applications received in April was not as desired. That is why I again want to make an appeal here to hon. members, our parties and the Press, to make known to the general public that the next voters’ roll is going to be drawn up from the population registration list. In other words, there are two requests I am making. In the first place White voters must be encouraged to apply now for identity documents. Secondly: Voters to whom identity documents have already been issued, must make sure that they give notification of changes of address. Those are my two requests. Instead of the parties going round organizing from house to house and filling in registration cards for the next election, the appeal is: Encourage those people, who do not yet have identity documents, to apply immediately and encourage those, who already have the identity documents, to take out the convenient little address cards at the back of the identity documents, to fill them in and to post them. Then the change of address will automatically be recorded. There has already been good co-operation and I really want to make an appeal in the interests of all of us, and of the voters of the country, to all political parties to help us in this connection. Thank you very much to the hon. member for False Bay who raised the matter.

The hon. member for Meyerton spoke about another matter which is dear to our hearts, i.e. the question of elections. He requested that the deposits of candidates be increased to R1 000. I want to say at once that matters affecting the Electoral Act are traditionally, in our country, matters which are agreed upon in a Select Committee in which the various political parties are represented. I think it is a good custom. We normally appoint a Select Committee to investigate such matters and to come up with a recommendation. A recent Select Committee discussed the matter of deposits and eventually recommended that the deposit should be R600, if I remember correctly. That recommendation is being considered. I just want to add that if we compile the voters’ roll from the population register, we shall no longer need registrations from that quarter. Hon. members of the Opposition laughed about that, but it is possible that when identity cards are issued to the White voters in the country, as they should be, the person’s exact polling district and constituency will be indicated on each card. Then we shall need no voters’ roll. If there is then a general election, the voter can go to a magistrate with his identity card or identity document. From the identity document it can then immediately be deduced from what constituency or polling district he comes. A ballot paper can then be issued and he can vote. Once he has voted, the identity document is stamped so that he cannot vote twice. In that way an election can be held without a voters’ roll and the concomitant organization. Those are all advantages of this system. Hon. members may laugh, but we are not so verkramp; we keep abreast of the times.

How can postal votes take place without a voters’ roll?

There can be one voters’ roll. I have no objection to that. However, we shall not need 500, as we do at present. We shall only need a master voters’ roll.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a fine speech about passports. He studied the matter thoroughly and furnished many facts. I am grateful to him for that. There are numerous people in the country who think that everyone has a right to a passport. I want to emphasize again that a passport, even in a democratic State, is not a right. If it were a right, it would automatically be issued to all of us together with a birth certificate and baptismal certificate.

Previously it was a right.

That is not so. In no country in the world, including the Western countries, is that the case.

It was previously a right in South Africa.

I am not concerned about those days. In no Western country at the moment is a passport something that is issued as a matter of course. The purpose of passport control in the modern world is to exercise control over persons leaving the country. The most democratic Western countries have a passport system. Even America has it. A passport is not something that is issued as a matter of course. There are certain restrictions placed upon the issuing of a passport. This is my point of departure. The hon. member for Mossel Bay was quite right about that. Although we issue passports automatically and without any problems in 99% of the cases, there are 1% or 0,1% of cases in which, for certain reasons, and in the interests of a country, passports are not issued. That is why control must be exercised in that regard. I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his approach in this specific connection. On the basis of his approach I could, once again, explain what our official standpoint is in this connection. As I have said, it is not only our standpoint, but also that of many other Western countries.

The hon. member for Algoa spoke in general about saving. He indicated in what way we could save. He also referred to the question of certain employers poaching workers from other employers. Let me say at once that I enjoyed his speech. With his experience of administration, particularly at the provincial level, we have definitely learned something from his speech. I just want to quote a few interesting figures. Over the past ten years the work of the Department of the Interior as a whole has increased by more than 70%. The work in connection with the control of aliens, about which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke, has increased, in the past ten years, by more than 500%. Over the same period the establishment of the department has only increased by 20%. It was possible to limit the increase in staff by centralization, computerization, work study, production control, systems of incentives and training. As in all departments, in this department there is also no profit motive. The administration and supervision in the department are conducted with a view to costs and State capital, and manpower, time, money, buildings and equipment are efficiently employed.

From what I have indicated, it is clear that here we have not only saved a great deal. Let me mention an example of something else. The current official telephone expenditure of the department is only 10 cents per month per staff member. It is very clear to me that this expenditure on private calls is extremely low, particularly when one bears in mind that there ought to be a high frequency of official calls because the public as a whole, from the cradle to the grave, are clients of this specific department and calls therefore have to be made every day. The thrift motive in the department is very strong, however, and we shall continue along those lines.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made a very positive contribution. He asked me a question in connection with the spouses of South African Indians living in India. That is a matter that has been receiving attention for a long time, a matter about which the Indian community feels particularly strongly. I understand that, and politically it can be fully explained why, when it was decided in 1960-’61, under the late Dr. Verwoerd, that Indians should be accepted as permanent residents in South Africa and could become South African citizens, it was also decided, at one and the same time, that there would be no immigration of Indians to South Africa. Politically it is obvious, and I am honest enough to say this, that we could make these people citizens and accept them in South Africa if steps could be taken to limit their numbers. However, if their numbers were not limited, and free immigration were allowed, we would have been creating another future problem for ourselves by an influx of too many Indians from the over-populated India to a paradise like South Africa, as everyone considers it to be. There was consequently a motivation for the standpoint that was adopted. I want to concede at once that in this instance there are also the heartbreak cases. In all respects we are human, a fact which I shall give further proof of in due course. We received representations from the Indian Council. The Indian Council is a responsible body and speaks on behalf of that community. This is the result of a decision of the Cabinet Council on which the Indians and the Coloureds, together with a certain number of our Ministers, are represented. They asked for a re-examination of the question of Indian women.

Let me explain immediately what is going on. Indian men, South African citizens, who are living in South Africa, go to India to study, on holiday or whatever the case may be, and there marry Indian women who are not South African citizens. In terms of the Act those women cannot enter South Africa. That is in accordance with the regulations I have already referred to. We have cases of Indians who were married in 1959, and also subsequently, and who have four or five children, but their wives still live in India and the husbands live here. The men do not want to relinquish their benefits in South Africa and the Indian women cannot come to South Africa. We therefore have a problem here. After representations from the Indian Council I have now decided, and this is accepted as such, that the department first wants an overall image of the extent of this problem. How many people are involved? Are there 200, 500, 1 000 or 10 000? How many are there? No one knows. No one can furnish a figure. Everyone has his own guess. Before the department is aware of the overall extent of a problem, it cannot decide what action will be taken. It was then decided that all those who are married to Indian women and want to bring them to South Africa must apply to the Indian Council and furnish full particulars of those affected—the wife, the number of children, together with names and everything else, so that the department can make a reliable survey of exactly who are involved. When I have that overall picture before me, I shall review the situation with sympathy and devise a system whereby we can meet these people halfway without eliciting an influx of Asians to South Africa but also without prohibiting them completely. We shall find a way to do that with the necessary sympathy that a case such as this demands.

I should now briefly like to discuss the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South’s argument in connection with temporary and permanent residence. I know that the hon. member must make a speech here every year because he is the secretary of that group. This year he had no other theme, because what else could he speak about? He knows the rules in this connection much better than many other hon. members in this House. He is one of the Opposition members who gives our department the best cooperation possible in this connection, and I want to thank him for that. He first investigates a matter before he brings it to the department, and he knows the rules and the policy, as laid down, better than many people in this House, and definitely better than people outside. Of him it can be said, as of the devil—there is not a lazy hair on his head. That is all I can say about him.

The hon. member makes it unnecessarily difficult for us by attacking us with fire and zeal and tremendous verbosity, as if we are doing terrible things here, though he knows as well as I do what the problems are. Even if the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior were to become one department tomorrow, it would make no difference to this problem. What are the realities we are faced with? Mr. Chairman, if you and I were to visit countries abroad as tourists we would go there to tour those countries; we go to see those countries. We consequently obtain temporary residence permits, and visas if necessary, and we tour the country, look at the scenic beauty and enjoy what there is to be enjoyed. Then we return home. We are therefore tourists. That is what a tourist is. Everyone who enters South Africa on a temporary residence permit is regarded by us as a tourist. What else is he doing here? In his application form he is asked what the object of this visit is. In 90% of the cases the answer is: “Tourism.” When he applies, he signs a document in which he undertakes, as long as he is in South Africa, not to apply for a permanent residence permit or a work permit. He signs that document when he applies for permission to enter the country. He therefore enters the country with his eyes wide open, knowing what the rules are. He comes here as a tourist on three months’ holiday. Because he is a tourist he may not apply for a permanent residence permit or a work permit as long as he stays on here. If he is not coming as a tourist, he is subjected to much stricter selection than a tourist is. That is surely logical. A tourist is not subject to selection. Unless there is something conspicuously wrong with him, he is allowed to enter the country. He is allowed in very easily. However, when someone applies to live or work here permanently, he is scrutinized with completely different eyes. South Africa has a selective immigration scheme, not an unrestricted one.

So someone enters the country under the said conditions. In numerous cases they give this part of the world their careful scrutiny, and in spite of the fact that the outside world alleges that we create a problem for the world, that we threaten world peace and that we are sitting here on a powder keg that could explode at any moment, I know a few people who come here and do not want to stay. After someone has scrutinized this part of the world very thoroughly for about two months or so, he suddenly decides he wants to stay. Then he wants to apply for permanent residence. We originally selected him, however, on the basis of temporary residence. At that stage there is nothing to indicate to me whether I shall, in fact, be able to grant him permanent residence. I do not even know if he complies with the requirements prescribed by the Immigrants’ Selection Board. I do not have the faintest idea. I could allow him to stay another three months while he waits for the results of his application for permanent residence, but after three months the matter may not yet have been concluded.

Many such people come from countries where the educational qualifications differ considerably from ours. Their qualifications must therefore first be evaluated. Someone may have some or other qualification from a school in Greece. It must therefore first be ascertained exactly what his qualifications are and where they fit into the South African training pattern. Someone else, on the other hand, may have some or other qualification or certificate from Portugal, or a profession or trade he practised in Portugal, or whatever the country may be. Those aspects must first be duly evaluated. It must first be determined what significance can be attached to them in the South African milieu.

We are frequently involved with trade unions, with professions and with educational qualifications, and it sometimes takes a great deal of time to evaluate those aspects properly. If I therefore allow someone to remain here long enough, every now and then I have to pick the bitter fruits of such a decision because of what happens. While the person is here he falls in love with one of our girls. This happens, as surely as two times two equals four. He married her, or tries to marry her, or even worse, there is an illegitimate child on the way. He has by now become so entrenched here that the Immigrants Selection Board can virtually no longer refuse him. He has courted himself into such a jam that he has to get married to get himself out of it. That is a real problem. [Interjections.]

That is exactly what it amounts to. We are then confronted with the fait accompli that we now, I ask you, have to approve his application or the South African woman—whoever she may be—has to leave the country. What happens then to our whole process of immigrant selection if someone can simply circumvent it by digging himself in here to such an extent, while merely here on a temporary residence permit, that he cannot be budged and we cannot get him out of the country?

That is why I want to keep the period, for which temporary residence permits are valid, as short as possible. The longer a person is allowed to remain here, the more entrenched he becomes as he gains more interests and ties here. The longer he remains here, the more friends he makes who argue his case and make representations on his behalf. Amongst those friends there are frequently members of Parliament, Senators and clergymen. Hon. members simply do not realize who all come to my office with representations in this respect. That is why there is an agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration not to extend someone’s temporary residence permit merely to enable him to await the result of his application for permanent residence. This is something that is abused. Sometimes people quickly submit an application form for permanent residence to the Department of Immigration a week before they have to leave the country, i.e. before their temporary residence permit expires. Just after that they come with angelic faces to the Department of the Interior, alleging that they have applied for permanent residence and requesting an extension of three months in order to await the results. What must we do with such people? Must we approve them? We are frequently too good to people.

It also happens that after a person’s three month period has elapsed, he requests a further three months because he is really enjoying his visit here so much, because the country is so beautiful and there is so much scenic beauty. He finds everything so beautiful that he wants to stay another three months. Out of the goodness of our hearts we then grant a second period of three months. When those three months have elapsed, and he no longer has any arguments to put up, someone suddenly advises him to apply for permanent residence. In so doing he succeeds in having his temporary residence permit extended for a further period of three months. Those are the kinds of abuse we encounter. Whether this department is one department or two departments has nothing to do with the matter. This is the kind of problem that cannot be overcome. That is why we have this arrangement with the Department of Immigration, and it is a good arrangement. A person is not allowed into South Africa on a temporary residence permit merely in order to await the result of his application for a permanent residence permit.

Secondly, the Department of Immigration does not dare consider someone’s application for permanent residence while he is in the country illegally. That is the understanding that exists. I am not blaming anyone here in the House, but my problem is that the person concerned inevitably has family or friends who know a member of Parliament and have made a donation to his party during the previous election, or have done this or that. Consequently people descend on me from all quarters asking that the person concerned should not be put out of the country because he is a good friend of theirs, etc. If we have to impose control on aliens, we must impose it. If we do not impose it, we must simply leave things at that and say that people can do what they want to. Either a thing is done properly or it is not done at all. The work in this specific sphere has increased by 500%. I just want to give hon. members an idea of the magnitude of the task and of the increase in the work. In 1975 the number of aliens in South Africa, which the department had to handle in this way, numbered 3 240 000. For 1976 the number was 4 577 000. It is an enormous task that the department must carry out. I really cannot allow myself to be talked into a position of handling this matter with kid-gloves, thus relinquishing control over aliens completely. I am sorry, but I cannot change the policy. If we have to carry out a task, we must do it properly.

Did you say 4 million?

The exact number of people is 4 577 563. Who is questioning that? I am speaking about temporary permits and people who have to be made to leave the country. Some are tourists, others visitors, but all are dealt with in the same way.

Is that the figure for one year?

Yes. The figure is in the annual report. The hon. member is free to have a look at the annual report. I do not have the time to look it up now. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South can look it up. Has the hon. member found it? Is it correct?

Yes, it is correct.

The hon. member confirms that my figure is correct. Are the hon. members satisfied now?

It also includes persons cleared at the border posts between the Republic and Rhodesia, Botswana and Swaziland.

But of course! They are all temporary visitors, whether they come from Rhodesia, Swaziland or whatever other country. That is logical. The hon. member therefore confirms that I am not furnishing incorrect figures. This shows how big the task of the department really is. Hon. members nevertheless want me to soften my approach to these matters. That is surely impossible; I simply cannot do it.

The hon. member also objects to the fact that it takes six weeks to consider a temporary residence permit. I could say “no” to an applicant within a week. That is easy. In considering the facts, however, I have to find out from the Department of Immigration what the position is. I must check whether there is a possibility that the person may immigrate and remain in South Africa. I must consider exactly what is going on. Is it a bona fide case of a person who really wants to extend his vacation, or what is the position? I must check those aspects. It is the easiest thing in the world to say “no”. I could do that within a week, and if the applicant wants things speeded up, I can say “no” many times within a week. However, if I am to investigate the matter and satisfy myself, I must be granted the necessary time to do so.

With regard to the question of people waiting in Rhodesia while the Immigrants’ Selection Board considers their applications, I just want to know what assurance I have that their applications are going to be approved by the Immigrants’ Selection Board.

Give her work for one year or for six months.

Then she gets married and has children, and then I am saddled with the difficulties if the Selection Board does not approve her application. I do not create unnecessary problems for myself. She remains where she is until she has been selected. If her application is approved, she enters the country; if not, she remains outside the country. That is better for her and for me—for everyone.

She would not be able to have children within six months in any case! [Interjections.]

I usually obtain a medical certificate to ascertain that. The hon. member need not be concerned about that.

I want to say a few words about the speeches of the hon. members for Innesdal and Koedoespoort about the Public Service Commission. Then I shall come to the hon. member for Green Point’s attack on that commission. Both the hon. members on this side of the House made fine speeches about the Public Service Commission. The hon. member for Koedoespoort made a very thorough study of the position in Canada. I had some of those facts at my disposal. He made such an efficient study of the matter that it is not necessary for me to react to what he said. I can give the hon. member for Innesdal the assurance that attention will be given to his request about training programmes. On his behalf and on behalf of the Government I want to take this opportunity—I hope I am also saying this on behalf of all the political parties in the House—to say thank you to the officials in South Africa who, in the present economic and financial conditions, and for the sake of the country’s economy and prosperity, have refrained from making wage demands.

Hear, hear!

We appreciate their attitude most sincerely. On behalf of the Government—and I accept the fact that I am saying this on behalf of everyone in this House—I want to express my thanks to the officials of all the various departments, including the Railways and the Post Office, for the understanding they have of our problems and the love they display for their fatherland by not making unreasonable or even justified claims at the present moment. I would be glad to have my thanks conveyed to them in this way.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point who yesterday evening made an attack on the Public Service Commission which is supposedly so big and clumsy.

[Inaudible.]

He launched an attack on the Cabinet because we supposedly do not listen to the Public Service Commission’s recommendations. Firstly, the hon. member was very surprised at the fact that I was handling this Vote and not the Prime Minister, because in terms of a law amendment last year the Public Service Commission is now the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of the provisions of section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act, the Prime Minister has the right to delegate to any Minister a Vote allocated to him. Previously the provision stated that the Public Service Commission would automatically be the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior. It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister who can delegate it to any Minister. He could take the responsibility away from the Minister of the Interior tomorrow and allocate it to the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Finance or whatever. That is the difference brought about by the change last year. The fact is that the Prime Minister gave it to the Minister of the Interior.

In fairly strong terms the hon. member held it against us that the report of the Public Service Commission was to have been published in 1969. I have the report here with me at the moment. I firstly want to tell the hon. member that this report, which was published by the Public Service Commission, was not addressed to the Government or the Cabinet. I want to say what this report means in practice. The requests of the commission were based on a report of the Public Service Inspectorate to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Inspectorate, consisting of Messrs. Steyn, Weilbach and Loxton, drew up a report for the Public Service Commission. What recommendations do they make to the Public Service Commission and the Cabinet? I quote from page 17 of the report—

1. (a) Gedagtig aan die wye omvang en die verwagte tydsduur van die ondersoek, die Kabinet se instemming slegs in beginsel met die breë rigting waarin die Kommissie van voorneme is om die ondersoek na die herindeling van staatsfunksies te stuur, verkry word.
2. (b) Magtiging aan die Staatsdienskommissie om vir die doel van hierdie ondersoek, sodanige inligting as wat benodig mag word van enige statutêre liggaam of ander regeringsinstansie te vorder.

That was the recommendation, and that recommendation was accepted. In other words, the commission has the authorization to do this work, and it does so. From time to time the commission made recommendations in connection with merging of certain departments. Each time the Cabinet gave careful consideration to the matter and each time, for valid reasons, did not approve the recommendations. I want to refer to a single example. I am now speaking from personal experience. I cannot remember the exact date, but the commission recommended—something the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also asked about—that the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior be merged into one department. The consideration at that stage was that during that year we had had a particularly high immigration figure. For years, by way of recruitment, we worked and struggled to establish a good immigration figure. During the previous year we had had a beautifully high immigration figure, and the opinion at that stage was that if we were to abolish the Department of Immigration and amalgamate it with the Department of the Interior, this would create the impression abroad that we no longer placed the same premium on immigration. That in turn would have had a negative effect and fewer immigrants would have come to South Africa. For that reason the Public Service Commission’s valid recommendation was rejected by the Cabinet.

It happened just the other way round.

That is done from time to time, and recommendations in this connection are still being made. We now have a new Public Service Commission. It has already been announced and is doing outstanding work. I could give forth a whole eulogy here about how they are liaising with departments, the private sector and everyone concerned. I really do want to pay tribute to them and express thanks for the work they are doing. These days it is a pleasure to be the Minister of the department. At present the Public Service Commission has a directive from me—they are already busy with this—to have another serious look at the possibility of either reducing the scope of the departments or amalgamating them with a view to a better and smaller, organized Public Service. That possibility is again being investigated at present. There is consequently no problem in that connection. The reproach that is levelled at us, to the effect that we are empire builders, is completely unjustified. There are negotiations from time to time, when circumstances permit. I quoted a specific example in the House, and I think that anyone with any feeling for politics will agree with me that the Cabinet made the correct decision in that connection, i.e. in opposing the recommendations of the Public Service Commission.

Will you undertake to table the recommendations of the commission?

I shall consider it when I get to it. I do not want to tie myself down, because it depends on the nature of those reports, how confidential they are and where exactly the information is obtained from. However, I shall consider the matter and, if it suits me, table the report. I shall definitely consider the matter. Reports made by the commission are naturally only for the responsible Minister. The Minister then takes them to the Cabinet. It therefore eventually becomes a Cabinet matter. However, for the hon. member’s sake I am prepared to consider the matter or to show him the reports in private, if he is interested.

I could go on elaborating on the Public Service, but I do not know if I should argue the matter any further. I do, however, want to quote a few figures in that connection. A comparison one can make, this certainly being a scientific way of doing things, is to indicate the number of officials there are for a specific number of members of the population. If one then compares the statistics for South Africa with those for other countries of the world, one ought to get very interesting figures. What is the position in South Africa? In 1955 there was one official for every 25,02 members of the population as a whole. In 1965 the ratio improved. Then there was one official for every 29,44 members of the population as a whole. In 1975 the ratio improved even more. Then there was a ratio of one official for every 30,53 members of the population as a whole. In other words, proportionately fewer officials are now doing the work for more people. In my view this is a good sign. History tells us, with respect to all the countries of the world, that the more sophisticated a country is, the higher the percentage becomes and the greater the number of things involved. In America the ratio is one official for every 27,54 members of the population. In a country like Brazil the ratio is one official for every 36,67 members of the population. Hon. members can now compare the figures for America and Brazil and decide for themselves which of the two is the most acceptable. In South Africa the ratio is one official for every 30,53 members of the population. In other words, the relative decrease in the number of public servants in relation to the population was 22% during the period 1955 to 1975. I know the Opposition does not like that; I do not think they like it, but those are the facts and they have a scientific basis.

Do you intend to adjust the relation of public servants to the population down to provincial level and down to corporations?

Yes. It includes, inter alia, the following: central Government; provincial administrations; diverse statutory bodies such as the CSIR, the SABS; the Department of Posts and Telecommunications; the S.A. Railways and the control boards. What more do hon. members want? All the bodies are included in the calculation. I think I have made my point in that connection, and I am therefore not going to elaborate any further. In my opinion it is an old tune that is rehashed every time allegations are made that the public Service is big and clumsy. I think that for once we should be honest to public servants and really take a look at what is done to see whether this is the case or whether it is merely a slogan someone has thought up and now repeats here every year. It is so nice to say it. It is also so easy to say it because who can prove the opposite? It is so large and complex that it requires tremendous scientific argument to try to prove the opposite. I leave the matter at that.

There is another matter I want to put right, and I think it is necessary to do so in his interests and in mine. Yesterday evening the hon. member made an allegation to the effect that there are other countries which have as few Government departments. What he quoted there happens to come from a confidential report. It is a confidential report which was drawn up by the Public Service Inspectorate for the Public Service Commission, a report which is only open to examination by officials at that level and Ministers of the Interior. Portions of that confidential report were quoted in the newspapers. I hope the hon. member realizes the implication of that. I have this report in front of me. What is stated very clearly in the report? I quote—

Not departments, but State Ministries. Germany has 22 ministries. I may just state that the numbers the hon. member mentioned were correct, but he said they were departments and not ministries. I want to repeat that the hon. member obtained the data from a source which stated that they were departments. I do not blame the hon. member because he made use of a source which stated that they were departments. If he were to read the original report, from which those facts were unlawfully taken, he would see that they are ministries. That unlawful quotation, let me just say, is a violation of the trust that a Minister ought to have.

I must make it clear that I am not referring to the hon. member now. I am not reproaching him at all. I should like to quote further data from this report. Germany has 22 State ministries, and not departments. The Netherlands has 10 ministries. South Africa’s 43 departments must therefore not be compared with those ministries. South Africa’s 18 ministries must be used in the comparison. If that is done, the hon. member’s whole argument falls away. The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out with perfect precision that it is ministries that are involved, and he did so by quoting the position in Canada. Canada has 26 ministries, but he quoted from a 1975 annual report of theirs to indicate that they have 64 Government departments. I hope the matter is clear.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to the question of race classification, but after he had spoken there were a few more speeches about that subject. I shall therefore come back to that issue when I end off in a moment.

The hon. member for Durban Central raised the question of the wage gap. I want to say at once that it is very difficult to make exact calculations of what it would cost to do away with the wage gap. It is easy to have figures and theories bandied about. It is also easy to make estimates, but there are so many implications involved. For example, must one take qualifications into consideration or not? If one does not take qualifications into consideration, it costs a great deal more. If qualifications are taken into consideration, it costs a great deal less. Can one do it or can one not do it? Must one do it for everyone, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu? If one does, it costs a great deal more. If one only does it for the Coloureds and Indians, it costs less, but then problems arise in connection with the Bantu, who can make just claims. What about the homelands? The people there have their own budgets and must find their own money with which to pay their way. It is therefore a tremendously complex problem. It is easy to theorize about what it is going to cost and how much goodwill it will engender, but if the realities of the situation are taken into consideration, it is much more difficult. I asked the commission to try to determine a figure so that we could at least have an idea of what was involved. I want to say at once that this must not be accepted as an unassailable or infallible figure. These are figures they worked out to the best of their ability, bearing all the circumstances in mind. I quote from their findings—

Those are the bodies we can control. We do not have control over corporations, boards, etc. I quote further—

We find then that to bring medical practitioners up to the same level will cost R1,4 million: R1,3 million for Coloureds and Indians and R0,1 million for Bantu. To bring nursing staff up to the same level, will cost R14,2 million: R2,5 million for Coloureds and Indians and R11,7 million for Bantu. To bring education up to the same level, with the exception of education in the Bantu homelands, would cost R46,4 million: R29,3 million for Coloureds and Indians and R17,l million for Bantu, because qualifications must be taken into consideration here. There are more Bantu, but they are not all qualified to the same extent as the Coloureds and Indians, and this does not affect the salary scales so drastically. The total is therefore R46 million.

Are the qualifications of teachers calculated from qualifications higher than matriculation, or does it apply to all qualifications?

The teaching scales are divided into categories, and category M means a matriculation certificate plus a one-year teaching qualification, etc. If one were to transfer the scales which are at present applicable to Whites, to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, having regard to equal qualifications, many Bantu will not even qualify for category A, because they do not have a matriculation certificate plus a one-year teaching qualification. They are lagging behind because their circumstances are completely different. If one does not take the qualifications into consideration, it will cost this amount.

If one does not take the qualifications into consideration?

I beg your pardon. I mean if one does take the qualifications into consideration. If the qualifications of the Whites are taken as minimum criterion for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, it will cost less than it would cost if those qualifications were not taken as a criterion. There are fewer of them who qualify under that criterion. Some of them have a Std. 8 plus a two-year teaching qualification, and then they do not qualify. As I have said, the amount for education as a whole is R46,4 million. For Coloureds and Indians it is R29,2 million and for Bantu R17,1 million. The rest of the staff …

Earlier this year the hon. member for Pinelands put a question to the Minister of Statistics. The reply to that was that the total for Bantu would be R6,5 million, if those who have a higher qualification than a matriculation certificate were taken into consideration. That is the figure I quoted.

I do not know on the basis of what information the question was asked and the figure furnished. The figure I have quoted here is the figure we arrived at. For the rest of the staff the total will be R102,9 million: R18,6 million for the Coloureds and R84,3 million for the Bantu. This gives the grand total, when a qualification requirement is laid down—in other words, if he does not have the qualification, he does not receive the salary—of R164,9 million. That is the total for eliminating the wage gap at once in these professions. The estimated expenditure in respect of teaching staff represents only those groups with equal qualifications. If the remainder of the non-White teachers were to be incorporated on the same salary as those who are qualified, the estimated expenditure in respect of all teachers would eventually add up to R58,3 million for Coloureds and Indians and to R139 million for Bantu—a total of R 173,6 million. This is only for education. It then becomes totally unthinkable and impossible. Together with the salaries for medical practitioners, nursing staff and the remainder of the non-White staff, the eventual elimination of the wage gap in this category alone will amount to R316,1 million. Particulars of the qualifications of the remainder of the staff are not readily available. If this group is in the same ratio as the teaching staff as far as the qualification aspect is concerned, the equalization will obviously amount to several million rands more. This is the closest we can get to a calculated figure. Bearing these figures in mind, it is surely necessary for us to treat this matter with more respect in future. We are tackling this problem step by step. There are people who ask why we do not simply eliminate the wage gap for medical practitioners and get done with it. One would be able to do it easily for the medical practitioners, but then the nursing staff and the teachers would immediately agitate for it to be done in respect of them as well. They will immediately want to know why we are doing it in respect of one group and not in respect of them, for, after all, they are also a profession. Shortly afterwards, the next group will also begin to agitate for it. It is a real problem which cannot be overcome. Therefore, the policy of the Government is very clear, which is that that with every adjustment of salaries we narrow the wage gap. This is not only being done by way of a percentage, but also in real terms. It is worked out in such a way that it is a real adjustment, which we effect in every case. I want to give an example. With the latest salary increases we wanted to increase the salaries of Whites by 10%, the salaries of Coloureds by 15% and those of Bantu by 17½%. This is what we considered doing. The commission looked into the matter and found that the increase of 17½% for the Bantu would not narrow the gap in real terms. We were then compelled to increase their salaries by 20% in order to keep our word of honour and narrow the gap in real terms. That was how the matter was dealt with. In other words, the bona fides of the Government was demonstrated beyond all doubt here. We shall continue in this manner.

It is going to take a long time.

There is nothing else we can do; we do not have the money to do it any other way. I am sorry. I do nevertheless want to tell the hon. member that quite rapid progress is being made. It is interesting to look at the statistics in this regard. According to my information, the Government and the Public Service are streets ahead of the rest of the country as far as the narrowing of the wage gap is concerned. I shall furnish hon. members with the appropriate statistics. If we let the average monthly income of White employees be 100, the following ratios apply: In an industry such as mining and quarrying the figure for the Coloureds is 70,3; for the manufacturing industry, 70,2; for the electrical industries, 30,1; for construction, 40,6 and for the central Government, 43,8. In the case of Indians the comparative figure for mining is 40,2; for manufacturing industry, 31,8; for construction, 56,9, and for the central Government, 80,1. So I can continue. I have all the statistics here. In conclusion there is one other thing I wish to point out which is also important, or perhaps even more important. Apart from the steps that have already been taken to narrow the wage gap, the number of posts for non-Whites have increased by 26,5% since 1970, as against an increase of 26,5% in respect of posts for all Whites. In other words, opportunities have been created for these people that did not exist before. Mr. Chairman, I could continue in this vein, but I am going to cut my reply short at this point. There are other matters I still have to reply to.

I want to come to the question asked by the hon. member for Walmer concerning the Chinese. I want to tell him that that is a community that gives us few problems and little difficulty. As I have said before, the Chinese community in South Africa is a small community which gives us few problems. It is a law-abiding community, with which we co-operate very cordially, and which will never try to impose its will on others or agitate in any way. One could of course argue that they should be incorporated with this group or that group. Perhaps some of them do wish to be incorporated with some group or other—I do not know. The best I can do is to quote the following letter to the hon. member. It was a letter addressed to the Chinese community by one of my colleagues who was responsible for the matter, and in this letter the Government’s policy was, in my opinion, made very clear. In regard to the Chinese, he wrote—

The major problem we have here, a problem I wish to single out, is that it is a small group which nevertheless has its own culture and its own identity which differs from that of the other groups. They are highly civilized, sophisticated people for whom one has a great deal of understanding. However, I do not think it is in their own interests or in the interests of anyone else to involve them in the White situation. The hon. member spoke about full citizenship. That means political rights, and all the other rights. I do not think it is in their interests or in the interests of anyone else to involve them in the political struggle between White parties, Coloured parties, or any other parties. I think they would be far happier and much better off without those political rights. To be honest, I do not think that they feel in any way strongly about the fact that they do not have political rights. I have never received any representations from them in this regard. They are happy to be in this country. Normally, they live well. I think the position is clear therefore. I want to thank the hon. member for his representations but unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member any other reply at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister whether it is the intention that political rights will never be created for them?

I cannot play the prophet as far as the distant future is concerned. Far be it from me to do that. What I said was that no representations in that regard has been addressed to me. No pressure in that regard is being exerted on their part. I am not going to create problems unnecessarily where problems do not exist. We have enough other problems.

I should now like to say something about the question of race classification. I shall deal with it very briefly. The Deputy Minister of the Interior is responsible for race classification. I have delegated it to him and he and Mr. Fourie, the Secretary to the department, are dealing with this extremely difficult problem, with delicacy, with sympathy and with the necessary insight. As regards the section 5(5)(c) cases which were raised here, a total of 136, if I remember correctly, were approved this year. In other words, if the shoe really pinches and there are genuine human considerations, those cases are accommodated under the provisions of that specific section.

I think the problem is, and I think every party here will appreciate this problem, that whether it is the United Party policy of a race federation—I do not know where the PRP are going with their policy—or whether it is our policy, I am convinced that it cannot be implemented without some or other form of indication to which nation an individual belongs.

By registration.

The hon. member last spoke of registration. In all honesty I am asking the UP whether they can implement their policy of federation if they do not classify and register people. How are they going to decide who is going to be registered as White and who as Coloured if there is no classification?

What about South West Africa?

We have heard the South West Africa story a hundred times. The question is: How is the United party going to register people? In 99% of the cases there is no problem. The person’s appearance, his acceptance, etc. shows one who he is, and there is no problem in classifying him. But for the 10% of border-line cases there has to be classification, whether it is called registration or distinction or whatever it may be called—there has to be something.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will explain to this House how the Natives and the Coloureds were on a common voters’ roll in the old days, but still on a separate panel on the common roll, without race classification?

From the nature of the case it is surely clear that there was a small percentage on that roll; it was minimal. The developed individuals had certain qualifications and they were even qualified enough to be able to indicate. Here we are dealing with the masses.

Must they comply with certain qualifications?

Of course! They had to comply with the required qualifications, and that is why they qualified. The hon. member can argue whichever way he likes. I accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that there should be no classification. But he does not represent the standpoint of everyone in his party. That is precisely where our problem lies. I accept that it is still the policy of the UP that they stand for separate schools, or is it mixed schools now? Surely it is separate residential areas, or what is their policy now? Surely it is still separation on separate lists for the race federation, politically speaking. How is that party going to draw a distinction if they do not in some way or another indicate the various groups by means of classification or registration, or whatever?

The moment any of these criteria are applied, there will be heart-break cases. Just as we have it under our system so they will have it under their system. These heart-break cases are considered with as much sympathy as is practicable. Last year I told a human story here in this House of what was done in some cases. I did not want to mention names because I did not want to prejudice the persons concerned. It was a case of a woman who simply escaped from her environment. I am saying “escaped” because she was born in a Coloured area and grew up there, but moved away when she saw that the people there accepted her as White. She then moved out of that community and went to live among the Whites, where she fell in love and lived together with a White man. Eventually she had two or three small children. She wrote to me enclosing photographs in her letter and asked me please to help her so that she could contract a normal marriage. She said that she was accepted as White by the people there. In this case I caused a thorough investigation to be made. After a thorough investigation it was found that she was living in an area in which everyone was accepted as White. She worked at a bank where she was accepted as White. She was accepted as White in all respects, and the department, in terms of the provisions of section 5(4)(c), humanely reclassified her as White and kept quiet about it. But the problem lies in practice. If she did not want to co-operate and had wanted to be spiteful, she could have come back to us and said that in terms of the Act all her brothers and sisters still living in this Cape Coloured residential area should also be declared White, because they were of the same origin as she. They had the same mother and the same father. There is where the problem lies. I helped the one out of humanitarian considerations, and now the Opposition attacks me in this regard because I am supposedly discriminating between the one and the other. That is impossible.

I referred to the descent. [Interjections.]

Whether it is descent or origin—it makes no difference. Let us take origin. The hon. member knows how thoroughly—he himself has frequently dealt with such cases—the origin of people is investigated. He also knows how thoroughly the origin is investigated, and particularly the aspect of acceptance. We send people to investigate, to speak to the neighbours in the vicinity, and to establish at the school whether the people concerned are accepted as Whites. Acceptance is, after all, the decisive factor. One is doing a person a disfavour when one classifies him into a group to which he does not belong. In that way life is made literally impossible for the children, particularly in the school. Hon. members know how cruelly children can behave towards one another. We have all had experience of that. Therefore my submission is that this matter is being handled with respect, with humanity and with regard for the human dignity of people in terms of the provisions of the section concerned. I give my word on that, so that hon. members need not reproach us in regard to this matter. I repeat that—whichever policy is applied—there is no question of a possibility that heart-break cases will not occur. Heart-break cases there will always be.

Under the policy of the Progs as well.

Yes, under the policy of the Progs as well. But I now want to refer to the position of town clerks. This was a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Sandton. In regard to the town clerks I want to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that there are three tiers of government. There is the level of the central Government, then the provincial and the municipal levels. Because one naturally wants an overall picture and wants to prevent the one group from pulling a fast one on the other or the various groups poaching one another’s staff—with promises of increased pay and so on—we had to find some method of establishing a ceiling beyond which people would not be able to go.

What about the Bantu Administration Boards?

Oh, please! The hon. member for Pinetown should rather go and watch Haas Das. [Interjections.]

Go and look at the salary scales of the Bantu Administration Boards and then you will keep quiet. [Interjections.]

We had to devise a plan to prevent the reciprocal poaching of staff. Consequently it was agreed that the salaries of town clerks would be pegged. Being the highest paid administrative official in his department, the salary of the town clerk was pegged. Therefore no one can pass him administratively. Professional people, engineers, medical practitioners and others, people who also have a market for their labour, people whose field of labour is also limited, must be offered higher salaries if they are to be expected to stay on. However, the position of the town clerk is a conservative position. This has to be the case to prevent the salary scales of the other professions getting completely out of hand.

At present we are in this respect enjoying wonderful co-operation from the provinces, as well as from the local authorities. I accept it in this way. However, we shall have to reconsider the position and see whether we cannot render assistance. However I feel that I cannot display that measure of co-operation whereby I simply say that we should not restrict the salary scale of the town clerk at all. This would mean that one of the three tiers of government would get completely out of hand. Therefore I shall not be able to recommend that.

Will you not give town clerks the right to negotiate this themselves through their association?

The problem of the town clerk is that his position is a special one. He is in a confidential position vis-à-vis his town council. He is their adviser in regard to the salaries of the rest of his staff. He is in a confidential position, and the question is whether he should be allowed to make representations concerning his own salary through some organization or other. I think that the relationship between a town clerk and members of his town council is such that those powers should not be conferred on him. I think it is incorrect that a town clerk who furnishes advice in regard to the salaries of others, may make representations in regard to his own salary. That is how I feel.

Finally, I want to talk about the Publications Board. The hon. member for Parktown has once again let himself be heard on this matter. As I did last year, I once again wish to take the strongest exception to the concept which the hon. member for Parktown introduced, implying that we were engaged in censorship. We do not have censorship. If the hon. member had investigated the matter a little, he would have established that we do not have censorship. He would do well to consult a dictionary and establish what censorship is. Censorship means that one omits certain portions of a publication, of whatever nature it may be, and publishes nothing in its place. When a newspaper is being subjected to censorship, the reports are read in advance. If it should be decided that a section should not be there, the newspaper appears with a blank spot in the place where the report should have been. That is censorship. We do not have that in South Africa, because the Publications Board does not in any way make use of such a method. Nor is this done by the committees, or anyone else. We do not have censorship in South Africa, and the fact that this term is being used so persistently is simply a way of casting suspicion on the entire matter. There is no censorship, and I therefore take exception to the use of the concept.

The second allegation made by the hon. member was in regard to a specific publication. He alleged that literature was going to be completely violated. With great prolixity he said that the Afrikaans literature was going to suffer to a far greater extent under the system than the English-language literature. What are the facts in regard to Afrikaans literature, and the number of books that have been affected? I should just like to furnish the hon. member with the facts quickly. As far as Afrikaans literary works of value by writers of renown are concerned, only a single book has been banned in the period since the commencement of the legislation until the present, and this ban was confirmed by a Supreme Court judgment. Another book was declared undesirable. The matter went on appeal, but before the appeal could be heard it was withdrawn. I am referring to Kennis van die A and in the first case, and Om ’ n Sinkende Skip Blou te Verf written by Breyten Breytenbach, in the second. These are the only two Afrikaans works of an academic, literary nature in South Africa which have so far come under the lash of the Publications Board. Numerous books have in fact been submitted, none of which were found undesirable: Hagada vir’ n Wit Afrikaan, by Johan de Jager; Roofvis: Skrikbewind, by Haasbroek; Seisoen in die Paradys; Engel met ’ n Besemstok by Elsabé Steenberg; Oomblik in die Wind, by André P. Brink; Magersfontein, O Magersfontein!; Sewe Dae by die Silbersteins, by Etienne le Roux; Isis, Isis, Miskien Nooit and Lobola vir die Lewe by André P. Brink; Die Ysterkoei moet Sweet by Breyten Breytenbach; Kruistog na die Ewigheid by De Wet le Roux …

What does that prove?

It proves that the hon. member is talking nonsense. [Interjections.] The hon. member alleged that Afrikaans literature is being crippled and is languishing under this Act. Since the Act came into operation until today only one Afrikaans book has been banned. That is all. Is that crippling, or is the hon. member talking nonsense?

It only proves that you know nothing about censorship.

Of course not. I do not want censorship. [Interjections.] The hon. member objected vehemently to the judgment in regard to The Dawn Comes Twice. I want to quote what the judge said in his judgment—

Therefore I have no problems in this regard and I trust that the matter is clear to the hon. members as well.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of this Bill deals with the board established in terms of section 2 of the Publications Act. Subsection (6) of that section, which is now being amended in paragraph (a), deals with the question of a quorum when that board meets. Paragraph (b) of the clause deals with the question of where the seat of the directorate shall be. In the amendment the hon. the Minister has incorporated here he asks that he should be allowed to determine where the seat of that board should be. Furthermore, he asks that this Committee should now empower him to establish other offices of the directorate at any place he might consider it necessary or convenient. I want to hasten to say that we on these benches will support paragraph (b) of clause 1, but find difficulty in supporting paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of clause 1 provides for the substitution for an existing subsection of the Act by a new subsection.

In effect, however, the only amendment being brought about, is to reduce the quorum of the board from three to two members. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Minister pointed out that although the Act provided that the Directorate of Publications could comprise of a chairman and four other members, he had found that in practice it was not necessary to have a board of five members and that, in fact, a board of four were adequate to do the job. In future, he said, it was his intention to work with a board consisting of four members, and that on the basis of a board of four members, a quorum of two members should be adequate. There is no argument with regard to the logic of the hon. the Minister when he makes such a suggestion. However, if we examine the subsection he intends to substitute for the existing subsection, we find that a decision of the majority of the members present at a meeting of the directorate will be decisive. Then, too, we find the following proviso—

When one has a quorum of only two members, one of whom is the chairman who, in effect, has two votes against the one of the other person, one immediately creates a dictatorship. The hon. the Minister nods his head. I am glad he agrees with me. I hasten to add that whatever I am saying now must not in any way be construed as a reflection on the chairman, Mr. Pretorius, who is doing a job of work well in so far as he is permitted in terms of the Act. [Interjections.]

In the Second Reading debate when we raised this issue, the hon. the Minister made the point that these were not matters of importance that were going to be discussed by the board and that we should not worry too much about the fact that one did in fact create a dictatorship. One makes a petty dictator of the chairman of the board. He can enforce his opinion upon every decision where only two members of the board are present. If this amendment is accepted, the presence of only two members will be required to give a decision which will have the force of a decision of the board as a whole.

What are the matters which the board will have to consider? They will submit matters for consideration by a committee. They have the right to take any matter and submit it for consideration. They must advise the hon. the Minister on the application of the Act. Therefore, the chairman is made a petty dictator, because as far as the application of the Act is concerned, he can have a meeting of two persons present, his view will obtain and his view will go to the hon. the Minister so that the hon. the Minister will be guided by that man alone. The board has the power to appoint committees or to decide on the constitution of the committees and who shall be the members of those committees. In other words, again the will of the chairman can obtain in every matter. The board has the right to lodge appeals against decisions of these committees so that if a committee has made a decision and the chairman does not happen to agree with the decision of the committee, because he will have a dictatorial right in the board, he will have the power to decide to appeal against the decision of that committee. For that reason I move the amendment as it appears in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

I know there are members of this Committee who believe that what I am moving is a lot of nonsense, because the effect will be that there will be no quorum for a meeting of the board. I see the hon. member for Mossel Bay nodding his head. Is he one of those who believes that if my amendment were carried, there would in effect be no quorum for the board?

It could have that effect.

The hon. member must not say that it could have that effect, he must say “yes” or “no”. Does it have that effect or does it not?

You are making the speech, not me.

Yes, I am making the speech and now I am going to teach that hon. member. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is by way of being a gentleman learned in the legal process. I now want to draw his attention to clause 1(a) which reads—

The effect of my amendment, if it were to be carried, would be that the existing provisions of subsection (6) of the Act would remain. That would mean that the quorum would remain at three. Does the hon. member understand now? The hon. member nods his head and I am glad that he sees my argument. I believe that it is right that the quorum of the directorate, even though there are only four members, should remain at three.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment. Experience has taught us that we can do the work with four directors and consequently it is unnecessary to have all five directors. This promotes economy and furthermore, the powers of the directors as such are not such that they can make any decision themselves concerning the desirability or otherwise of a document. This, in fact, is the real issue. Their entire task is administrative and we are convinced that four directors can do the work. If we have four directors doing the work, then in my opinion two are sufficient for a quorum, because if one member were to be absent on leave and a second ill, then if the hon. member’s motion were to be accepted we should not be able to continue with our work, because we should not have a quorum. This would therefore be unrealistic and I think it is asking too much. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment and I stand by the point of view that the quorum be reduced to two.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The reference in the clause to section 5(3) of the Act is incorrect because this article refers to the chairmen of committees designated by the Minister, whereas the intention is that any member of the committees may be asked to furnish advice relating to a publication submitted to him for investigation. This arrangement has been implemented for a long time already, and it is now being placed beyond question in law.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to expand a little on his reasoning in this matter. Under the Act as it is now contemplated, it shall provide that the directorate may submit any matter relating to its functions to a person designated under section 5(3), i.e. to a chairman of a committee, or to any person who is an expert on such matters, for his advice. However, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, as I understand it, the directorate can now refer a matter, not to the chairman of a committee, but to any person who is a member of the committee or on the list.

Chairman as well as a member.

No, not “as well as”. It includes the chairman, admittedly.

That is the point.

Yet it is no longer obligatory to go to the chairman.

You are right.

The directorate can bypass the chairman.

Yes.

… and go to an individual …

That is right.

… or to an expert. However, I am not concerned with the “expert” aspect here. However, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why it is necessary, where he has chairmen of committees established for particular areas, for those chairmen to be bypassed. Why should the director have the power to bypass the chairman, if he so chooses, because he would be able to do so in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, and go directly to any member who is on the panel envisaged in the proposed section 5(1)(b). I think it is important to know why it is necessary to do that. It may well be that it is because of the seat of the committee or where the chairman is, but it seems to me to be stretching the matter a bit too far, in view of the fact that one has a person with the status of a chairman of the committee, to have the director able to go to an ordinary member and not via the chairman of a committee.

Mr. Chairman, this is so as to give the director an opportunity to obtain expert advice.

An expert is all right.

I am referring to expert advice from a committee member, an appointed member. If an ordinary member has this special knowledge, and the chairman does not have the special knowledge, surely it is in the interests of the director to consult the man who has the knowledge and the expert advice. If he is an ordinary member, surely the director should be entitled to contact him to get his advice, and not be forced to only consider chairmen who may not have the expert advice on the relevant matters. That is the only reason. Furthermore, all the members have been elected and appointed for one year as a result of their knowledge of certain aspects of the relevant matters. So it surely only stands to reason that under the circumstances one must have the best advice possible. One cannot therefore force the director to deal only with the chairmen.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I realize that in the administration of a measure such as this, which we do not like in any case, there are administrative problems. What I am trying to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, is that this leaves one open to having certain persons becoming respected as expert committee members— “experts” in inverted commas—on the writings of a certain individual. This could mean that there is a more circumscribed approach being adopted to the writings of a particular individual because the same committee member is the one who is asked to review the writings of that particular person. I mention this merely to indicate a danger. Decisions are being canalized to one particular person, not because of his being an expert, in the specialist sense of the term, but because he is a person who has been particularly associated with the writings or the works of a particular individual. I can understand that there are practical difficulties, but I raise that matter because a pattern could develop which would be undesirable.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s argument may have something in it, but the fact remains that as the Act reads at present, the directorate has no access to those members to obtain expert advice. I want to say at once that I believe that in practice, the specific committee member who served on the committee which made the decision will not be approached again for advice. This will not be necessary because the directorate would already have his full written report in which he advised his reasons for supporting or opposing a certain thing. It would be somewhat unrealistic and illogical to approach that same man again to ask for further advice. I take it that the whole purpose of this is to obtain a third or further opinion from a different member of the committee. But then we want the wide spectrum of all committee members to be available and not merely the group of chairmen who became chairmen for entirely different reasons. This is the whole aim behind this, namely to afford the directorate the full opportunity to consult anybody if it is deemed necessary to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment here, inter alia, changes the situation in so far as subsection (2) of section 8 is concerned. This subsection sets out the type of publication which is not included within the scope of the censorship provisions. There are three categories. The first category relates to legal documents, i.e. law reports. The second category relates to scientific documents, i.e. in the words of the Act, publications “of any matter in any publication of a technical, scientific or professional nature bona fide intended for the advancement of or for use in a particular profession, branch of arts, literature or science”. The third category relates to religious material, i.e. the publication “of any matter in any publication of a bona fide religious character”. In terms of the existing legislation these three categories are excluded from the provisions of censorship in the Publications Act. All other publications are subject to scrutiny, excluding newspapers of course. The effect of the proposed amendment—I speak particularly in regard to paragraph (a) of clause 6—will be to bring within the ambit of the censorship legislation publications of a technical, scientific or professional nature as well as publications of a bona fide religious nature. The question I should like to ask is: What is the mischief which the hon. the Minister is trying to overcome? Could it be that he is worried about one or two scientific, religious or technical and professional books which come into the country, or which are published here, and in which appears perhaps one offensive photograph or picture, or perhaps a single offensive passage, or is it that the hon. the Minister has found, according to his definition, that there is an inflow of subversive material contained by means of religious publications? Or perhaps he has found that there are publications masquerading under the guise of religious publications or under the guise of being technical journals, and by bringing these books into the scope of the Act, he hopes to deal with them. If that is the mischief the hon. the Minister is trying to counter, I believe it is quite unnecessary to bring into the scope of the Publications Act all publications of a religious, technical, professional or scientific nature.

I believe the means to counter the mischief is already in the hands of the hon. the Minister. I ask whether the key is not to be found in the words “bona fide” in the existing legislation. If publications of any sort carry pictures which are offensive or contain passages or contain chapters which are offensive or subversive, which are pornographic or indecent, surely the finding would be that such publications were in fact not publications of a bona fide religious character, or were not books or publications of a bona fide technical, scientific or professional nature. I suggest that the remedy which is sought by the hon. the Minister to the sort of mischief I think he is worried about, is therefore already to be found in existing legislation. In the case of truly offending documents I believe they would not enjoy the protection of the section which excludes them at the present moment.

There is a second argument I should like to put forward: How many publications does the hon. the Minister think are affected by the exclusion of religious and scientific publications as is at present the position? How many offensive publications does the hon. the Minister think come into the country or are available to the public by virtue of the provisions in the existing legislation? I suggest it is perhaps not more than two to five, or perhaps even 10 publications, in an entire year. By bringing in the exclusion of these entire categories of work …

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Would you keep quiet, please!

Order!

Sir, by bringing into the ambit of the Publications Act matters of a religious, technical or scientific nature, does the hon. the Minister realize what extra work is going to be involved? Does he realize that this could well bring into scope of publications’ administration a vast new array of personnel who are going to have to be qualified scientifically and technically and even in religious matters to be able to pass judgment on the text and illustrations of the documents concerned? This again means an expansion of the personnel who deal with publications’ control. I ask the question: Is it worth it? The answer I would give is that it is not. Accordingly, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, this clause was discussed at length during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Basically, the arguments which have now been advanced by the hon. member for Sandton was advanced at the Second Reading as well. The hon. member makes great play of the fact that we are concerned here, amongst other things, with literature which is supposed to be bona fide religious literature. However, I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that we have religious freedom in South Africa. When we speak of religious literature, therefore, this includes the literature of any conceivable faith. Furthermore, I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that we have a Satanism cult in South Africa. The hon. member for Sandton must tell us whether we should allow literature of this cult to be freely distributed in our country—literature containing the most outrageous things—as being bona fide literature of that cult. I am just mentioning this as one example of the extremes to which people can go within the provisions of the existing Act.

The hon. member also makes great play of the words “bona fide”. However, the question is who is to determine the bona fides. The hon. member seems to proceed from the assumption that if literature can in some way be connected with some religious conviction it is bound to be bona fide religious literature. However, one can easily imagine that literature containing the most outrageous things can in some way be related to some religious conviction. Regarding works of a technical nature or works or for the promotion of science, too, one can easily imagine that literature which may originally have been intended as technical or scientific literature may also contain material which is offensive and that those works may then be distributed, not as scientific works, but for the very purpose of publicizing that offensive material. For that reason we dare not leave this loophole in the legislation. We must close this loophole, for we have already seen that there are people who abuse this loophole to distribute literature which is regarded as undesirable. Then they hide behind this provision of the Act as it stands. For this reason I believe that we must accept this amendment in order to gain control over this type of literature as well.

Regarding the hon. member’s argument that this would mean a great additional burden, I do not think there is any merit in the argument that experts in each of these fields will now have to be appointed to the board.

Could the hon. member give an example of one of the works of literature to which he is referring now?

The example was given during the Second Reading debate. If the hon. member had been here and had taken any interest in that debate he would have known this. We are not concerned with the extent to which this loophole has already been abused, but the fact is that the one case which has been mentioned here shows that a loophole does exist. The hon. member may laugh; that does not detract from this fact. “It is the loud laugh that bespeaks the vacant mind.” The mere fact that there is a loophole shows that there is an opportunity for exploitation by people who thrive on man’s lower instincts, and we have learnt from experience that they will not hesitate to exploit every loophole. Even if there is only one example as yet, there is no guarantee that there will not soon be many more examples if we do not close the loophole.

I want to come back to the argument of the hon. member for Sandton that the proposed amendment will mean that experts in each of these fields will have to be appointed to the board. The hon. member is completely mistaken, for the board does not have to evaluate the technical nature of these works. The board has to determine whether those works contain offensive material, and there need not be an expert in every separate field to determine when they do contain offensive material. After all, this is what we are concerned with. The board is not going to evaluate the technical nature of the work; it is going to evaluate its offensiveness. For this reason there is absolutely no merit in that argument, nor is there any reason why we should not accept this amendment. I venture to say that only people who do not want to close this loophole will vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has again exhibited an attitude of mind on the part of the Government that whenever the courts take a decision on a law passed by this House a decision which does not accord with the views of hon. members opposite, then somebody “het ’n skuiwergat gebruik en ons moet dit nou toemaak”. That was the attitude of what he was saying. The whole intention of this legislation is “om ’n skuiwergat toe te maak”. The Act as it stands at the moment contains certain exemptions from the provisions of the Act. The important aspect is to exempt the production of an undesirable publication or object being an offence, provided it is a bona fide scientific and technical document which is bona fide intended for the advancement of or for the use in a particular profession, arts, etc. and similarly in regard to a bona fide religious publication. I would ask the hon. the Minister to be good enough to think again on this proposed amendment to the principal Act. The effect of the existing provisions of the Act is, in broad terms, that the production and dissemination of publications of this kind could not constitute an offence if for some reason, at a later stage, the contents thereof may be found to be undesirable. In other words, the production of a document of a scientific or religious nature does not become a punishable offence if it falls within these categories and if it is subsequently found to be undesirable.

Most, if not all, of the publications which are dealt with in these two exemptions would be journals which are not produced for popular consumption.

How do you know that?

I shall deal with the hon. member’s Naked Yoga presently. [Interjections.] These are journals produced for a specialist market comprising members of a particular profession and advanced research workers in the field covered by that particular journal. I would suggest that there are four grounds on which the existing exemption is justified. The first one is that without this exemption the quality of research is likely to be adversely affected, if this type … Yes, the hon. the Minister may shake his head … if this type of publication cannot be published without fear of prosecution under the wide range of criteria contained in the Act. That is my first ground. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with it.

The second ground is that the market for the material of this kind is a very limited market. The impact, therefore, on the average South African is likely to be very, very slight. The third ground is that the likely reader of this kind of material is, shall I say, an intellectual or a specialist in the field for which this publication caters. It is a publication published for the specialist, for the intellectual.

Fourthly, the publishers of publications of this kind are unlikely to publish sensational material for the sake of sensation. The removal of this exemption will mean that the contributors to and the publishers of publications of this kind will now become liable to prosecution under this Act if it is found that what has been published is undesirable.

A few examples, I believe, will illustrate the effect of this. The Publications Appeal Board has rejected the relative concept of obscenity, if I may put it that way. In other words, the material is no longer judged obscene in relation to the potential market or the potential readership, in terms of recent decisions by the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board has indicated that the potential market for publications only has a relevance under section 8(2) of the principal Act where these exemptions exist. That is all. With the repeal of these paragraphs the position becomes wide open as to what test is going to be applied in so far as publications of a technical or of a religious nature are concerned. The mere fact that the material will only come into the hands of intellectuals or specialists may not be relevant. It will then have to be judged by average community standards, which may well differ from the professional or religious standards, particularly bona fide professional standards.

Exemption is at present granted to universities. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the present exemption will not cover publication of material of this kind. It is ineffective because the exemption can only apply to journals produced under the auspices of a university. In any event, I believe it to be—and I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is—extremely undesirable if technical journals in South Africa had to operate and be published under an exemption granted by the directorate only. After all, that is the only other way in which they can operate.

The directorate would say that it regards the Law Journal or the Medical Journal as worthy of exemption, and they would operate under that. The adverse effect on the quality and the standing of the journals would be considerable. I want to suggest that it is difficult to understand why these paragraphs, if they are properly understood and interpreted, should be repealed. The repeal is going to threaten—I say this in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister—the publication of academic research documents. It must. In this country the potential harm to the community by a publication of undesirable material in this form is absolutely minimal. The hon. the Minister has confessed in his Second Reading speech that his purpose in bringing in this amendment is because the courts found that the publication Naked Yoga was a scientific publication. He says now that because that has happened and because he does not agree that it is a scientific publication—he thinks the photographs are obscene—the exemptions of universities and religious publications must now be done away with, because he disagrees and feels this is stretching it a little bit too far to suggest that Naked Yoga is a scientific publication.

Who decides whether a publication is scientific?

It is a fair question which the hon. member puts. The test is if the publication is bona fide scientific. If that is questionable, it is left to a court to decide. In the case of Naked Yoga the publication was approved by the appeal board as being a bona fide scientific publication. I seriously suggest that provisions of this kind will serious affect the standing of research in South Africa. Let me take the example of the Medical Journal. It might deal with the decomposition of the human body or something of that sort. If it were not for the exemption in the legislation now, when it was judged to offend the public at large, it would be found to offend. It will be something most objectionable if pictures of that sort are published. However, when it is within a medical journal and has the protection of the Act as it now is, then the question does not arise. I do hope that the hon. the Minister realize that the steps he is taking are far too severe to deal with the fact that one publication, Naked Yoga, has been declared a scientific publication. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we in these benches cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sandton. But we accept the amendments proposed by the Bill.

You do not believe in Yoga.

If the hon. member for Durban Point would just keep quiet and open his ears instead of his mouth, he would hear the reason why. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point stated that the amendments proposed in the Bill threatened publications by academic researchers, and that without the research in the specialist market, research will be damaged because of the fear of prosecution. He said the removal of this exemption would make people liable under the Act. The hon. member for Green Point who is a respected friend of mine and a respected attorney, should really have consulted his ex-colleague, the previous hon. member for Orange Grove. There is an exemption under clause 8. The hon. member looks only at the provisions proposed to be deleted, e.g. (2)(b)(iii) and (iv). However, if he had looked a little further at section 8(3) of the principal Act he would have found that—

Surely this has a controlling influence. When we receive—the hon. member for Mossel Bay mentioned it here—a scientific document called Torture in South Africa?, a document produced by certain scientific “skelms” and subsequently banned under cover of a letter of the Christian Institute of Southern Africa, signed by Rev. So-and-so, Regional Director, how do we define whether this is a scientific or a religious document or not? A genuine religious or scientific organization can appeal to the board saying that they intend publishing certain documents and that they want to be exempted because what they want to publish is scientific or religious news in South Africa. In that case they may be exempted from the provision.

I believe that under the circumstances in which we are living in Southern Africa today, we need such control, because if there is a blanket exemption to any scientific documents per se, one could produce a perfectly bona fide scientific document on the Marxist theory or on Mao’s theory. That document would be bona fide under the Act as it stands. That would be perfectly all right for scientific research. Should we not have the right to check this type of document? Certain strange religions have been mentioned, bona fide religions as far as their adherents are concerned. There should be that control. There is always the right to apply for an exemption. It is stipulated in the principal Act. I believe that under the circumstances in which we live in Southern Africa today, it is necessary that application for exemption be made for the genuine scientific or religious work which is necessary for research and study.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. I do it for one very simple reason and that is that the withdrawal of these provisions simply constitutes a widening of the censorship net. This is the effect of it. If I may, I want to say that the hon. the Minister’s statement this afternoon that there is no censorship in South Africa, must go down as the most unlikely or most astonishing statement in 1977. I shall leave it at that.

I want to deal with this clause from the point of view of the universities. Under the Act, universities are already significantly hindered by the permit system, whereby a degree of exemption from the provisions of the Act is granted to university libraries as bona fide institutions. By repealing the provisions of the Act which exempt technical, scientific or professional matter from the scope of censorship, scholars are going to be further handicapped and restrained in their intellectual and academic freedom. This is the real mischief of this clause. I am not referring to the exceptional cases to which the hon. member for Albany has referred. Those are screwball cases nobody really worries about. The real danger of this clause lies here. No evidence has been produced that academics have in the least abused the exemption granted to them in terms of the Act. Therefore I suggest that it is unnecessary to amend the Act to cope with publications such as Naked Yoga, which seems to be on the minds and some other parts of the anatomy of various members, publications which claim to be bona fide publications intended for the advancement of or for use by a particular profession or a branch of art, literature or science. These publications were dubious to begin with. Why anybody takes the slightest notice of them, heaven alone knows!

What are we doing—using another sledge-hammer to kill a gnat? I suggest that the repeal of these provisions poses a very serious threat. As the hon. member for Green Point has said, the publication of academic research in learned journals in this country where there is potential harm to the community in the publication of undesirable material in this form, is minimal or non-existent. There is, however, something even worse than that. There is a graver danger than that. Even if these provisions are not enforced, I maintain that their mere existence on the Statute Book is likely to result in self-censorship, and their existence will therefore cast considerable doubt on the integrity of publications and the research on which they are based. I believe this is a very real danger and I ask …

We do not take you seriously.

That hon. member cannot take anything seriously. I suggest that provisions of this kind will seriously affect the standing of research conducted in this country, and I believe this is likely adversely to affect attitudes outside South Africa, at those universities where research is conducted. I believe this is a compelling argument. That is as far as the universities are concerned, but other people, too, are worried about the matter. We had protests from the Civil Rights League in Cape Town. They made the following very valid point—

They go on to say—

That is the broad general argument against this, and therefore the assurance that the power which is contained in these provisions will be used sparingly and with discretion, simply does not impress anybody. Our argument is that there is no danger which necessitates a law like this. We are simply extending the area of censorship, restricting the area of freedom and creating a whole host of problems for people engaged in genuine academic research.

Mr. Chairman, we have here an amendment to section 8 of the Act. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that no person shall produce, distribute, possess or import an article or a publication or an object which is banned or which is undesirable. Subsection (2) provides that the provisions of this section shall not apply with reference to four specific items. The third item relates to those who are bona fide intended for the advancement of science, and the fourth item to the publication of any matter in any publication of a bona fide religious nature. I want to deal with the fourth item before I deal with the third item.

The hon. member for Albany in referring to the hon. member for Green Point said that he did not read the section and that he was not aware of subsection (3). It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Albany was not listening when the hon. member for Green Point spoke, because he did mention it. Half of his argument was based on the fact that there are exemptions. It is no good the hon. member for Albany taking the hon. member for Green Point to task regarding the question of exemptions, because if he had paid attention during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard the hon. the Minister say that he has granted blanket exemptions to all the universities. The hon. the Minister nods to confirm that. Once again the hon. member for Albany is out of court. I want to say to him that this “vryery” that is going on, is now becoming a little bit tedious.

Let us come back to the fourth item, the question of publications of a bona fide religious character. I ask the hon. the Minister with tears in my eyes: How can he now, in all seriousness, remove the exemption from matters of a bona fide religious nature? He has already heard three members on this side of the House addressing him on the question of the interpretation of “ bona fide religious nature”. Well, a matter of a bona fide religious nature is the Bible as I have suggested to the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate. Is it his intention now to lay the Bible before a committee?

Do not make a fool of yourself.

What is the meaning of the term “bona fide”? It is a term which can be determined. It concerns a matter which genuinely falls within a certain sphere. There must be no question at all about their being matters of a bona fide religious nature. I believe that it is a shock to all the people of South Africa to realize that the Government of South Africa can, in any way, think that a board appointed by this Government should have the right to determine matters of a bona fide religious nature. Matters of a pseudo-religious nature are quite different, of course. Then I say: By all means, let us do this. As the hon. member for Mossel Bay put it, there are certain sects such as Satanism. Let me put it this way. A document dealing with Satanism would not be of a bona fide religious nature.

Why not?

Because it is not a recognized religion. It is not a religion.

By what standards?

By our standards, your standards and my standards; all our standards; all accepted Western standards. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Chief Whip whether he believes in Satanism. [Interjections.]

Order!

Does he accept it? Obviously he does because he seems to wish to defend it.

You are talking through your neck.

It also appears that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs wants to defend Satanism. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that I am talking through my neck. That is the impression that is given by the reaction to this. I therefore want to say exactly the same as my friend, the hon. member for Green Point: Please, think again, certainly with regard to the fourth aspect, the question of matters of a bona fide religious nature. Let the courts decide. If a matter is not of a bona fide religious nature, the courts will decide. Let them then take action against the people concerned. The matter is easily ascertainable or identifiable.

Now I come to the third exemption, and I quote—

Again one is brought back to the question of the interpretation of “bona fide intended”. Intended by whom? I would suggest that the interpretation by any reasonable court would be: Bona fide intended by the producer, in terms of any offence under section 8(l)(a). I ask the hon. the Minister am I right or am I wrong? Is the hon. the Minister saying he does not know? Is he piloting a Bill through Parliament without knowing what it means?

[Inaudible.]

All right; then let me put it in the following terms. Will he come with an amendment to make it clear that the bona fide intention shall be that of the publisher? We would then support him.

No.

He says “no”. Very well, shall we then make it also the bona fide intention of the distributor?

No.

The hon. the Minister says “no”. Shall we also make it then the bona fide intention of the importer?

No.

The hon. the Minister again says “no”. Shall we then make it the bona fide intention of the possessor?

No.

The hon. the Minister again says “no”. Why? Because he informed us in the Second Reading that he intended to re-submit that book to the Publications Control Board and have it banned. The hon. the Minister nods his head. Here I have it: Naked Yoga. I took it out of the library of Parliament. It is not banned. It was approved by the old board. However, not only this provision but also the amendment to clause 8 are designed so that he can re-submit the publication to the board with an instruction that they should ban it. What is Naked Yoga about? I want to mention random subjects covered by the publication: “Good health and a tranquil mind: When, where and how?” “Diet—non-fattening, high energy, nutritious foods,” “Breath control,” and then a scientific description of the various postures adopted in the practise of Yoga. Thereafter a number of beautiful pictures of two beautiful girls in those particular postures. [Interjections.] I want to say that I found nothing at all undesirable about that. In fact, if one looks at the picture on the back it is one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen. One only has to look at the composition of it. I repeat that this is one of the most beautiful pictures I have seen.

Let us see it again.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is welcome to it: I shall send it along to him. [Interjections.] I am absolutely serious about this matter. If there is a doubt in the mind of the Minister as to where the bona fide intention lies, then he can come with an amendment to apply that intention to the producer, to the distributor, to the possessor, to the importer to those persons who commit the offence. And let us make it clear so that the courts will know how to interpret his intention. Sir, I do plead with the hon. the Minister not to remove this blanket exemption from all matters of a scientific nature simply for the sake of this one book. The hon. the Minister says that this was produced as a scientific matter, that it has been made a matter of common interest by the fact that it was distributed through all sorts of bookshops and restaurants, tea-rooms and corner cafés. I think that was the term he used. I want to say to him that I do not believe that it was ever distributed under those circumstances. This book after all was sold for over R10. This is not the sort of thing that a person who walks into a café to buy a paperback will buy. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Justice is not here. He will recollect that at the time that we were sitting on the Publications Commission a copy of that book was sent to me in Pretoria and that I presented it at the commission sitting. At that stage it cost R10. I do not believe that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to impinge here virtually on the religious freedom of the people of South Africa by now not allowing matters of a bona fide religious nature and, further to infringe on our scientific and artistic advancement in this country by withdrawing the blanket exemptions, exemptions which were recommended to this House by a unanimous decision of a commission, the majority of the members of that commission having been members of the Government side of the House. Unfortunately I see only one, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, in the House at the moment. He does not seem to be paying much attention. [Time expired.]

Order! Just before I call on the hon. the Minister to address the Committee I want to point out that the substance of this clause has been very intensively and adequately discussed during the Second Reading. I therefore call upon hon. members not to repeat all the arguments advanced during the course of the Second Reading debate. I will allow the hon. the Minister now to reply to the matters raised by the hon. members, but after that hon. members must confine themselves to the details of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the hon. members on the other side, not one of whom practises Yoga, all want to see the book now, proves to me how right we are in introducing this legislation. I think we should get the facts straight for the sake of the record. The argument which has been advanced here is correct in terms of the original Act. In the original Act, we provided that bona fide works of a scientific or religious nature, etc., would not be subject to its provisions, and therefore, of course, they could not fall under the provisions of the Publications Act, under the control of the Publications Control Board, and under the present directorate. But that concession was abused. There is no doubt about that; it was abused.

… at R10?

Yes, it is R10; that is another argument in my favour.

Is that the only abuse?

Oh, please, just give me a chance. I have been listening very patiently all evening to everyone, including those who talked nonsense. I shall state the facts as they are. In the first place, the book was submitted to the old Publications Board which existed before the Act was amended, under the pretext, the allegation, that it was a scientific work which was exclusively intended for those who practise Yoga or who adhere to the Yoga cult, and that they would appreciate the various photographs and the various postures. The old board believed the publisher—the one whom the hon. member wants to laud to the skies now, the one who is supposed to be so honest—when he said that this was a scientific approach and that it was a scientific work which would be distributed exclusively for those purposes, and on the basis of that it consented to the distribution of the book. The board did not find it undesirable because it was alleged to be a scientific work, but the way in which it was distributed was certainly not the way in which a scientific work is distributed. Let me mention one example. Would a scientific work on the human anatomy or on any subject on earth be advertised as follows?—

Would one employ these terms in advertising a ‘work which is to be read and studied by scientists only?

I want to advance a further point. The first impression of the book cost R2,50 a copy. The second impression cost R4,50 and at the moment the price is R10. This is the scientific value of the work! It is so scientific that the publisher makes money out of it. My mind is made up about this whole matter.

Would that have happened if it had not been banned?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make the matter quite clear. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. We can have no quarrel about that. In the second place, we are not concerned here with the opinion of the publisher, of the distributor or of the importer. I am concerned here with an Act which provides that the decisive factor is public opinion. The people of South Africa will decide for themselves what they want to see and what they do not want to see. That is what the Act provides. My opinion of the matter does not enter into it at all. What matters is the opinion of the people of South Africa. What happened in practice? To begin with, the book was presented as a scientific publication. The old board then approved it. Then the publisher distributed it, but not as one would distribute a scientific publication. How is a scientific publication distributed? It is advertised somewhere and inquiries are made by the small number of people who are interested. However, this book was available in every café in South Africa. Is this the way one would distribute scientific publications of any nature whatsoever? The concession in the Act was abused. Subsequently the Act was amended and the book was resubmitted to the committee. That committee then turned down the book. Then the book was taken on appeal to the Cape Supreme Court. This court decided, in the spirit in which hon. members have been arguing here, that the publication is a scientific one, and it was approved by the court. Suddenly the second impression arrived and the price, which had been R2,50, was increased to R4,50.

Once again, hundreds of copies were distributed. What happened then? There was a tremendous reaction from the people. My mail was simply flooded with letters from all quarters, in which the strongest objections were raised to this book. [Interjections.] This is so. Public opinion in South Africa still counts for something with the Government. If it counts for nothing with the Opposition, that is not my concern, but we attach a great deal of importance to it. Consequently we took the ruling on appeal to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. Just let me illustrate on what a fine point the ruling hinged: The Cape court had no objection to considering the publication and giving a ruling on it, believing it to be subject to the provisions of the Act. However, the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein did not proceed from the question of whether it was desirable or undesirable. That court decided that it was a scientific publication and was therefore not covered by the provisions of the Act. In other words, the two courts differed about the question of whether it was a scientific publication or not. The Cape Court said that it was in fact subject to the Act, but that it was not an undesirable book. However, the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein said that the court had no jurisdiction over it because it was a scientific publication. Can hon. members see how fine the nuance of differentiation is between scientific and non-scientific publications and between what is bona fide and what is not bona fide?

For what purpose, then, was the Appeal Court instituted?

I do not want to argue the matter any further. The fact remains that we are faced with the abuse of a concession in the old Act. The people of South Africa object to this and the Government takes notice of their objection. For this reason the present clause was drafted to satisfy the people of South Africa. It is democratic—the people govern.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the thousands of objectors voluntarily paid to buy that book before objecting?

That I cannot say. However, I can say that I received quite a number of books that were sent to me. Amongst hundreds’ of other objections, I received one from a woman who wrote to me that she had gone to buy a loaf of bread in a café and had received her change along with the picture of a naked woman.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? Of course! In terms of that hon. member’s mentality there is nothing wrong. We on this side of the House still uphold certain standards, and if the Opposition is not aware of it, that is no concern of mine. We shall stand by the legislation. I am not prepared to make any amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have never heard such contradictory arguments as those which the hon. the Minister has just advanced. He speaks about the people. Has he tested the will of the people? How has he tested it? I am convinced that more people bought the book than complained to him about it. When is the hon. the Minister going to accept such a thing as a majority principle? Is not this Parliament based on a majority principle? [Interjections.] Is one to regard the opinion of one constituency as the opinion of the people? That is a ridiculous argument and it is one of the complaints against the hon. the Minister that he keeps on generalizing when he has received a small number of complaints from a few quarters. Surely there must be a balance. It is the duty of the Minister not to present a small number of individuals under the guise of “the people”. When he says that, he must tell us what he has done to test that will. It is high time he brought some balance into the decisions he takes.

What worries me most about the amendment which the hon. the Minister is now proposing by means of the Bill is that this is another case of an assurance given by the Government being broken. I also served on the commission which was appointed and which gave rise to the Bill. We sat for a long period. There were hundreds of witnesses. These matters were thoroughly canvassed. When draft legislation was prepared—the present Minister of Justice was the chairman of that commission—the solemn assurance was given that there would be no interference with books that were bona fide religious or scientific. One keeps finding this behaviour on the part of the Government. If the Government is dissatisfied with the ruling of a court, it removes the right of that court. It gives an assurance, and when two or three years have passed, the Government comes back to Parliament and it breaks that assurance.

Order! I have been very lenient with the hon. member, although I requested that he should not discuss the principle of the legislation because we had that ad nauseam during the Second Reading debate. He must therefore confine himself to the details of the clause.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. Then I shall conclude with the statement that this is another example of an assurance being broken.

Mr. Chairman, we seem to be dealing with a most unusual piece of legislation and I feel constrained not to cast a silent vote in this matter, because the University of Cape Town is in my constituency, and because I have had representations made to me by members of the staff and of the senate of the university concerning this piece of legislation. We stand in the surprising position that the hon. the Minister is persisting in an amendment in respect of which two courts have ruled against him. One court found that a publication was not undesirable. The hon. the Minister thinks it is.

Not the Minister. It has nothing to do with the Minister.

Well, why then the amendment?

Because of public opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can accept that if the hon. the Minister did not feel as he thinks public opinion does we would not have this amendment.

You must remember it is not a UP Minister.

No, it is not a UP Minister. That is the trouble, Mr. Chairman. That is the difficulty. The second problem we have, is that the Appeal Court decided that this was a scientific work, and the hon. the Minister will tell us that public opinion, as he reads it, was not satisfied. It seems to me a most extraordinary situation that because of one example of this kind, an attack is going to be made upon scientific and religious publications throughout the entire country, and it is suggested that because of the power to grant exemptions, no evil is being committed.

If one looks at these exemptions, one will see that the exemption at present granted to universities does not cover the publication of material of this kind in its entirety. Secondly, not all this sort of material is published by universities. Some of it is published by scientific institutions. Thirdly, the directorate has the right, I accept, to exempt institutions and persons generally. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the situation here in South Africa if every scientific society has to work under a general exemption which may or may not be renewed, or which may be withdrawn at any time? I think if ever there was an example of undesirable legislation, it is this sort of legislation, and I would ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness to reconsider this matter, even if he is not prepared to accept an amendment here to widen the scope of the exemptions which can be given under the power entitling them to exempt universities, and under section 8(3) of the Act, which allows certain exemptions.

It seems to me that here is a case for reconsideration. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the amendment he is advancing, let us at least have an amendment to the exemptions considered, an amendment which would cover the genuine cases which, I am sure, the hon. the Minister himself does not want to see, shall I say, silenced and muzzled.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to that briefly. Section 8(3) of the principal Act authorizes total exemption. In terms of section 8(3) of the principal Act, a general exemption has already been granted to all universities, exemption with regard to scientific and religious works. The only exception in this case is in regard to works on communism. This is the only subject which is not covered by a general exemption. In respect of all other scientific and technical works, an unconditional exemption has already been granted to all universities in terms of the provisions of section 8(3) of the principal Act. In other words, we provide for it under the concessions existing in section 8(3) of the Act. So there is no need to retain these other provisions for this purpose, provisions which have in any case been abused in the past. Therefore I want to leave it at that and I want to request the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to accept that we must have the reaction. We did have the reaction. The Minister concerned is naturally the sounding-board of public opinion. The sounding-board reacted in such a way as to leave us no other choice. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister emphasized that he spoke as a Nationalist Cabinet Minister and not as a member of the UP. May I ask him what the Nationalist scientific test is which declares, for instance, the naked breast of a Black person … [Interjections.] No, this is serious. This has been tested under the Act which the Bill now proposes to amend. Which test decides that while the naked breast of a Black person is beautiful and scientific, an almost identical photo of a White person is obscene? What is the scientific test applied when Bantu, an official Government publication, publishes a frontal nude picture which is found to be scientific and artistic while a similar photo of a White body is found to be obscene? What is the scientific test applied to differentiate between those two pictures?

Mr. Chairman, we are not concerned here with my opinion or the opinion of anyone else. This has nothing to do with the provisions of the section. We are concerned with public opinion in this regard. [Interjections.] Public opinion is interpreted by the public and it is gauged by the Appeal Board and the committees. They have given a ruling on the subject, and I am not going to concern myself with that. It is a ruling which has been given on that level and I shall leave it at that.

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nieman, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van de Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—86: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D, J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Before putting clause 8, I just want to point out that the purport of the amendments to the following five clauses is to reject those clauses. The clauses were discussed at great length during the Second Reading debate and I want to appeal to hon. members to discuss the clauses very briefly when dealing with them separately. It is unnecessary to discuss them at length once again. I now put the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. When I see the clause in its context I am reminded of some sadist who visits an area or a hospital through which a patient has passed after being declared healthy, fit and able to go about his work in the world. He then says to the patient: “Those people who did the examination may have slipped up; they declared you healthy when in fact you are not.” The likelihood of the predecessors of the present directorate and the present committees having slipped up by adopting a libertine view about matters which were submitted to them, is too ridiculous to contemplate. We can see no reason whatsoever why the Minister or the directorate should now be empowered to dig up out of the grave decisions taken under the old Act, declaring a publication not undesirable. I do not see why the corpses should be examined again because they might be found to be contaminated. We therefore oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not strain your patience, I promise you. We object to this clause because it is, in fact, widening the scope of censorship by giving the Minister the power to resurrect long dead and buried approvals. Why not leave well alone? I ask you with tears in my eyes. If something was not offensive two, three, four or five years ago, what in heavens name makes it offensive at this stage? This provision, I suggest, is going to introduce a new area of uncertainty into writing, not only as far as authors are concerned, but also as far as publishers are concerned, which is perhaps as bad. What is the purpose? What are we going to achieve by this? If the public were not corrupted in the past by whatever has been shown, how great are the chances of this happening in future? This provision seems to me to be absolutely superfluous and we object to it.

Mr. Chairman, our problem here is once again the problem with regard to the basic concept of the Act, namely that public opinion is the decisive factor. The people will decide what it wants to accept and what it does not want to accept. Among the people are Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who are objecting. [Interjections.]

What evidence have you got?

I want to add something. I can see hon. members are a little hot this evening. Publications which were approved two years ago are being reprinted and there is sometimes a reaction when they are distributed now. I want to put it clearly that these directions are the responsibility of the Minister. He decides when there should be a direction and when not. The Minister, as the sounding board of public opinion, can decide when it is an organized protest and when it is a spontaneous protest. That is his responsibility. Since we may be dealing here with a spontaneous protest, we must provide that such a work may be referred to the Appeal Board by direction. However this does not mean that this entails any instruction that the publication should be declared undesirable or anything else. It only means that the Appeal Board, in the light of the new circumstances, must determine whether it is desirable or not. That is the only matter for which provision is being made here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the hon. the Minister to please give the Committee one example of a publication that was approved by the previous board but which he feels is of such a nature that it has to be reviewed now.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat: it does not depend on me. It does not matter whether I want it or not. The Minister may direct this if there is a reaction from the people. It is not a question of my own taste. In most cases of directions I have not even seen the publication. I do not look at it. It is not my task to judge. There is a committee and an Appeal Board whose task it is to judge. My office is the sounding board and therefore I cannot mention an example in the world of books. There is an example or two in the film world that I could mention when we come to clause 14. There the same principle is applied in regard to films. However, I cannot mention an example in the world of books, nor do I wish to do so. However, I want to be in the position that if such a situation should arise, I am able to take the necessary steps.

Mention one instance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is quite right when he says that he is the one who is going to have to decide. The hon. the Minister goes on, however, and says that he is going to be guided by public reaction. In the previous debate on clause 6, the hon. the Minister mentioned that he had had an outcry from the public about Naked Yoga. He said that he had had objections. When my hon. leader suggested thousands of objections, the hon. the Minister said hundreds of objections. I want the hon. the Minister to be honest with this Committee this evening and to tell us how many letters of objection he has received. I ask this for a reason. We have to try somehow, in the words of the hon. the Minister, to determine what exactly the public opinion, the “volksmening”, is. Incidentally, I notice that he uses the term “volksmening” instead of “openbare mening”.

It is the same thing.

All right, it comes to the same thing, but unfortunately it does have an innuendo. I will accept that in his interpretation it means exactly the same thing. We have a situation where a little while ago a petition containing 20 000 signatures was presented to the Prime Minister asking for relief for pensioners. Nothing happened. Would 20 000 signatures on such a petition constitute the “volksmening”? The hon. Minister does not answer; he only smiles. I would say that 20 000 signatures on such a petition would indicate more of a “volksmening” than a couple of hundred, 900, 1 000 or even 3 000 objections to a series of publications. The hon. the Minister goes further and says that he believes that there are certain publications which could warrant another look by the new board. Are we going to have a repetition of the kind of thing that happened with Black Beauty? The hon. the Minister knows who was in charge of the last board. It was the late Mr. Kruger. He knows what happened under the late Mr. Kruger and how little got through the tentacles of Mr. Kruger and his board at that time. I do not believe that we now have anything which slipped through and for which the hon. the Minister now needs this power. I do not believe that it is necessary. If there was such an outcry from the public as really to constitute a demonstration, then I would say that the hon. the Minister would be justified in coming to this House with a measure such as this, but he, by his own admission, has said that he has not had any such demonstration and that he is simply making provision for the future. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can really be serious when he asks us to accept an amendment under these circumstances.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van Z.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 negatived.

Clause 14:

Clause 14 is similar to clause 8, the only difference being that this clause relates to films and not to publications. The passing of this clause will mean that films which were passed in terms of the old legislation and matters relating to their desirability such as age restrictions, racial restrictions and cuts can now all be reviewed at the instance of the Minister. Apart from any other situation which may arise, we believe that by accepting this amendment, this could quite easily lead to the further farcical situation we have seen in South Africa from time to time where films and plays—in this case only films—have already been viewed or watched by hundreds of thousands of people before any steps are taken. In this case that will certainly have been the situation because no matter that was heard by the previous board was heard after 1974. In other words, this concerns films that date back at least to 1974. The acceptance of this amendment will mean that those films which have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people will once again be referred to the Appeal Board for review.

We realize that the NP and the “Independent National Party” will support the clause, but I would like to tell you that we in these benches will oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this amendment widens the range upon which an appeal can be made and it widens the range upon which the Minister may direct an appeal. What I would like to point out to the hon. member for Sandton is that an appeal through the Minister or by the Minister need not necessarily be a retrogressive appeal. It can just as well cut the other way. It may be that something is being banned or restricted by the board and that the Minister directs a reconsideration of it and that it can thereafter be reconsidered and then released for publication or for show. This amendment widens the scope where an appeal can be made and where further reconsideration can be given to it. I believe that it cuts both ways and not just one way. I think we should be rational about it and therefore we do not support the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm that, as the hon. member for Albany pointed out, it means that in practice, in the case of films, it can cut both ways. There is nothing to laugh about. The complaint of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Parktown concerned the film Africa Addio, which, according to them, was harming race relations in South Africa at the moment. This is a film which was approved by the old board. I have listened to the hon. member’s objection to it and I am not going to allege that I shall do nothing, because the present Act does not provide that I cannot do it. But if this provision is accepted, a film like Africa Addio can be referred to the new appeal board for review. That is why I think that the PRP should support this clause at least.

Mr. Chairman, again we come to the question of public opinion. Does the hon. the Minister believe that because the hon. member for Sea Point put in an objection, he should take cognizance of that? He does not say so, but he offers that as his only argument in favour of this amendment. His only reply to the debate is that because the hon. member for Sea Point—and, incidentally, that is precisely the answer the hon. the Minister also gave in reply to the Second Reading debate—said that he did not like the film Africa Addio and that the hon. the Minister should do something about it, he is now going to take these Draconian powers…

Says who?

Says I and says the hon. the Minister.

I said I can take those powers.

Why then is he taking it?

I am not taking it.

Of course the hon. the Minister is taking the power. Mr. Chairman, with tears in my eyes, I ask what does the hon. the Minister intend with this amendment if not to take the power to have another look at films which were approved or rejected—I grant him that—by the old board? It is all very well to get a complaint from half a dozen people about a film. I accept that there is always going to be half a dozen Mother Grundies making complaints about films. The same applies to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I debated that at length in the Second Reading and I do not have to go into that again. I have here the statement which was issued by the hon. the Minister’s department, or rather by Mr. Justice Snyman, the chairman of the Publications Appeal Board in regard to this matter. I do not believe that even if he had 3 000 objections to the Rocky Horror Picture Show that by any way represented public opinion, because there were tens of thousands of people who saw it and accepted it. They accepted it in a balanced way and simply as something for entertainment.

Yes, but they did not write to the Minister.

Well, 3 000 or so did write to the Minister, and obviously some of them were upset about this film, otherwise the hon. the Minister would not have directed that the appeal board should have a look at it.

It is impossible for us under these circumstances to accept an amendment which will give this sort of power to the Minister. I want to repeat what my friend, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said, namely that this is simply an extension of the principle of censorship. Sir, we are getting more and more into this web of censorship and therefore we shall vote against this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, like clauses 8 and 14, clause 17 is simply a provision which gives the authorities the right to disinter what has long since been interred and largely forgotten. This time, however, instead of referring only to films and books, there is also a reference to plays, concerts, reviews and public entertainments generally. Once again there are no new arguments which can be raised about this issue, except to ask why the Minister does not leave well alone. We believe this clause to be unnecessary and objectionable, and will therefore vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, here we are dealing with productions such as live stage shows, etc. The same principle is contained in clauses 10 and 14, and similarly we shall therefore vote against the clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so afraid of public criticism. I know he is not very fond of political criticism. What is at issue here, however, is cultural criticism. One normally considers, or ought to consider, criticism as something which helps people to form an opinion. Could it be that the hon. the Minister has such little faith in the quality of the people he appoints that he has to shield them from criticism? It is not only the committees that are being shielded from criticism, but the directorate as well. The directorate is supposed to have only administrative powers. What strikes one here this evening, is the terrible inconsistency which is prevalent on the opposite side. Throughout the entire evening we have heard about how the hon. the Minister likes to listen to what the “nation” tells him. However, he now wants to shield the committee and the directorate from the nation. Surely we are faced with inconsistency here? Why can people not express an opinion about a book beforehand? After all, that ought to help those people who have to pass judgment on it. I cannot see the harmful effects of this at all. Consequently, we are unable to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that in a mischievous Bill this is by far the most mischievous and objectionable provision because it introduces censorship in South Africa in a new dimension. However little the hon. the Minister likes the word “censorship”, the fact is that this is censorship in reality, censorship in a new dimension. This is censorship of public discussion. It is a grave and indefensible intrusion into freedom of speech, writing, discussion and into the rights of the individual. To me there does not seem to be the slightest reason for introducing it, except to blanket all discussion on what is controversial. This clause seeks to prevent any public discussion. I know the hon. the Minister will say that public discussion will only be prohibited at certain times and I accept that. Any public discussion of what is to come before the directorate or any of its committees, in other words, potentially everything that comes before any of the committees or directorate at any stage, can, in fact, be blanketed by this ban. This means a total black-out of discussion at the only time when it can be meaningful. This is really the answer to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech in which he said “only at a specific time does this happen”. Public discussion is only meaningful when it is related to what is happening. One cannot have a public discussion in a vacuum. In other words, this clause seeks to prevent that kind of discussion at the time when it can, in fact, be meaningful. The discussion has to be related to an issue which is in the public eye or in the public mind. From the moment it happens that a book, a film or a work of art comes before a committee or is referred to the directorate for processing, a blanket of silence is imposed or descends over its merits or its demerits and there can be no public discussion about it. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout very rightly pointed out, we have heard a great deal about the “volkswil” tonight. These committees are an effort to help the hon. the Minister to decide what the “volkswil” is. I do not know what the “volkswil” is. Is it Wolmaransstad or Wynberg; is it Parktown or Parys; what is the “volkswil”? I would have thought that some kind of public discussion would have helped the hon. the Minister to decide. Why should public discussion not take place? The hon. the Minister should tell us why there should not be public discussion before a committee decides. Does the hon. the Minister have so little faith in these people that their minds will be changed by a healthy public discussion of this nature? The hon. the Minister never tires of telling us that censorship is there to reflect the “volkswil”, whatever that may be. If the “volkswil” is not going to be allowed to express itself in this way, I want to know how it is going to be articulated. The answer will doubtless be that the committees are doing it. Why wrap them in this kind of cotton-wool and protect them from outside influences to this ridiculous extent? I cannot believe that this can be intended seriously, because it is absurd. Do these people have no minds of their own? It means that these committees will have to operate in the dark. They are going to be enveloped in darkness even before discussing whatever issue is before them. Therefore, we are going to have a tiny little coterie of people, sitting there cosily, “broeiing mekaar warm” and deciding what in fact is the “volkswil”. It makes me sick.

I think that public discussion of the kind that is now to be prevented is wholesome and essential in a free society. It is an educational process, however destructive it may sometimes seem to the outsider. To prevent it even for a limited period, is therefore to eliminate a right and an educational factor from public life and I think this is indefensible.

In my view there is an even more important objection to this clause. I am now talking as somebody who has been involved in this kind of comment, the comment which the clause seeks to prevent, i.e. the question of the clause’s practicability. I will say, without fear of contradiction, that this clause cannot work. I shall give my reasons for saying that. In the first place, how are critics, not only professional critics working on newspapers, but also people who write letters to the editor, to know what is in fact before a committee at a precise moment in time? How are they going to know? What kind of machinery is there to inform these people? What kind of plan has the hon. the Minister got to inform the public that a particular issue is before a committee? For example, if a Cape Town committee is to consider a book, a film or a play which is of no immediate interest to anybody elsewhere at that time—not even Cape Town will probably know about it—how is the art critic or the drama critic of Oggendblad in Pretoria or The Daily News in Durban, for instance, going to know precisely when the matter has been referred to the committee? How will they know how long the discussion has been going on and how long the run-up of the discussion has lasted? They will not have the foggiest idea. They do not have any idea of when a decision is taken. There is a profusion of committees all over the country that are constantly taking decisions that nobody ever hears of until they make fools of themselves, which happens pretty regularly. However, that is neither here nor there. I want to know how the hon. the Minister and the directorate are going to inform the scores of critics, letter-writers and members of the public throughout the country that some issue is before one of these strange little bodies and that it may therefore not be discussed. I think that one of two things is going to happen here. Either the critics and the Press in general are going to take no notice whatsoever of this part of the law and therefore bring it into disrepute, or they are going to be so inhibited—and this is the real danger—that they will simply cry off discussing the book, the film or the work of art in question. Does the hon. the Minister want to introduce this kind of cultural desert into South African life? I would have thought that there was quite enough of it already without going any further. Either happening, namely contempt of the law or silence, will be deplorable.

This is a very grave invasion of the right of free speech. It is a grave invasion of the rights of the individual as well as the rights of newspapers. These are going to be the people who are going to be in real trouble because they are not going to know when all these funny little bodies are meeting and what they have decided or when they are going to decide. How is this information going to be given? The hon. the Minister may think that this is a trivial infringement because it is limited in time but I believe it all adds up to something very grave indeed and as far as public discussion goes, this is another light in South Africa that is being dimmed. We take the strongest exception to it and we protest against it.

Order! I want to point out that I see this clause as containing one of the important principles of the Bill as agreed to at Second Reading. Therefore, I shall allow one member from each party to express the opposition of his party to it briefly and afterwards I shall allow the hon. Minister to reply.

Mr. Chairman, once again I must say that I disagree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown. I believe that there is a censorship syndrome loose in the Opposition benches in this House and I believe that we are making mountains out of molehills.

I want to analyse this clause very carefully. The new section 37A provides that—

“Prejudice” is an interesting word. It can involve public debate, but only a specific type of public debate specifically directed to prejudice the directorate. I do not think that any one of us wants to have that sort of public debate. The hon. member for Parktown has talked about the poor critics who may not know that something is under discussion. I believe that something like this may improve the quality of the critics. We may then get a dispassionate, impartial and objective criticism of a work of art or a play. Some of the criticism which I have read has persuaded me to go and see a performance which has turned out to be total rubbish. I feel that this measure may perhaps improve their way of looking at things.

If they do their job objectively, they will not be prejudicing anything. Then one comes to the other word, namely “influence”. Influence does not only mean public debate. It could also mean bribery or anything like that. If I went to a member of the directorate and offered him R10 000 to keep quiet because a book was going to make me a million, that would be influencing. It is not entirely confined to public debate. Then there is the question of anticipating the decisions of the board. I do not think that anybody is entitled to anticipate a decision of any board. We certainly do not anticipate the decisions of this Parliament. We debate things fully here and the decisions take place according to how we vote. We will vote as we have voted before on this Bill, and support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, this clause proposes an addition to section 37 of the present Act. Section 37 of the present Act provides for certain protections of the appeal board. It is rather a limited field, and it says that no person shall insult, disparage or belittle any member of the appeal board or wilfully interrupt the proceedings of the appeal board or do anything which would amount to contempt of court. This is a board which when it sits is known to be sitting because the public has had notice of that sitting. The clause before us deals with the activities of the directorate or a committee. Will the hon. the Minister please help me with regard to the details of this clause? As the hon. the Minister is aware, the sittings and the workings of the directorate or of a committee are not known to the public at large. In these circumstances, would the hon. the Minister indicate, which he did not do during the Second Reading, what he regards as prejudicing a decision? Is it ex post facto, something which affects the position after it has been taken? One cannot prejudice something that one does not know has happended.

Secondly, I want to refer to the question of influencing or anticipating. With an amendment having already been adopted in the Committee Stage we have opened up a wide vista for review by committees of matters dealt with under previous legislation. I have great difficulty in interpreting the details of this particular clause. Will the hon. the Minister therefore indicate what he regards as prejudicing or influencing or anticipating something which you do not know is taking place, in such a manner as to make it an offence?

Section 37 of the Act already protects the appeal board, not only in these specific cases, but on a much broader base, namely that no person shall insult, disparage or belittle any member of the appeal board. We are now making the concepts “prejudice”, “influence” and “anticipate” applicable to the directorate and to committees. We do not go as far as we did with the appeal board. I want to mention two examples. For example, we do not want a decision to be anticipated. We want the committee to be able to decide objectively about a matter. Where a climate is created—for whatsoever reason and howsoever: in letter columns or in statements by critics or by politicians or whosoever—at a stage when a committee has something under consideration and it is artificially instigated, by the publisher or the authors or by anybody else, while the committee is considering a matter or if the directorate is busy with it, their decisions can be influenced, and we do not want them to be anticipated by public opinion. That applies only while the committee or the directorate is considering a matter. Afterwards everybody is free to criticise at will. We want to apply the sub judice rule for the time a matter is actually being considered, in order by so doing to ensure an objective discussion. That is the whole idea behind this.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. the Minister has missed my point. The protection of the appeal board deals with the persons of the members of the board. One cannot disparage or insult a member of the board. It has nothing to do with its decisions. One cannot interrupt the proceedings. The object is that they should confer and deal with matters in quiet. One cannot do anything which would be equivalent to contempt of court. All this has nothing to do with influencing the decision-making of the appeal board. Nothing whatsoever. One is actually free to make representations, to comment, to write a card or anything of that nature. If that is all that is given to the appeal board, I still do not have from him any suggestion as to how he believes it is wrong to prejudice, influence or anticipate a decision, not the members, but a decision of a committee, unless the hon. the Minister is suggesting that a committee can be swayed from its calm and sober approach to a problem by reading critics in a newspaper. However, I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister would say that of the committees.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member read section 37(1)(a) correctly. It reads as follows—

1. (a) insult, disparage or belittle any member of the appeal board…

Then it continues—

The words “or findings of the appeal board” are used and that is the point. That is exactly what I am talking about. I think that is the whole point.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

We believe that to impose this sort of punishment upon a firm or business which has had a publication declared undesirable amounts to a double punishment. It is a punishment, firstly by virtue of the finding of undesirability of the publication itself, a decision in terms of which it would in all likelihood lose revenue—in some cases not, but in many cases revenue would be lost—and, secondly, at a later stage when that company, for purposes of calculating its advertising rates for instance, cannot take into account the number of editions published and declared undesirable. This means that a publication, say a regular publication with a circulation of 5 000 or 10 000 a month would for that particular month find its entire circulation wiped out for purposes of setting its advertising rates. We believe that this is a double punishment and is not in keeping with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause two new sections are sought to be inserted in the principal Act. The new section 42B provides that there shall be a prohibition on the publication of any advertisement in any publication to which this Act applies within the Republic of South Africa. Furthermore it says: “any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence.” The effect of this is that an advert may not be placed in a publication which is governed by the Act within the Republic of any show, any film, any display which might take place in any of our neighbouring territories. That is the intention of the clause. It is quite obvious that it would be no good trying to place an advert such as the one the hon. the Minister read earlier in the debate this evening regarding the book Naked Yoga, once a committee had decided that it was undesirable and that it may not be distributed. If a bookseller in one of the neighbouring territories was to decide that he wanted to publish or advertise the sale of this book, he could do so in the Republic in a newspaper. But he will not be allowed to do it in a magazine such as Scope or Family Home and TV, or any of that kind of publication which fall within the scope of the Act. But he would be able to advertise it in a newspaper.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.