Mr. Speaker, after the Prisons Vote has been disposed of the Public Service Commission Vote will come up for discussion.

†That will be followed by the Vote of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. Tomorrow and on Friday we shall also deal with the other Votes of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. The Immigration Vote will be discussed on Friday morning.

*After disposing of the Immigration Vote, the House will proceed to deal with legislation as it appears on today’s Order Paper. On Monday, 22 May, the Financial Institutions Amendment Bill will come up for discussion, while the Water Affairs Vote will be discussed in the Senate Chamber. On Tuesday, 23 May, the Forestry Vote, as well as the Forest Amendment Bill will be discussed.

During the second half of next week, up to Friday, 26 May, the House will give precedence to legislation as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the debate yesterday, I had said very important people had attended the inquest into the death of the late Mr. Steve Biko. I had also pointed out that I had not noticed the same people at the funeral of the late Mr. Clemens Kapuuo.

It also came to my notice that the American Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law had sent Dean Pollack, a very distinguished Pennsylvania University lawyer to attend the Biko inquest. One appreciates the fact that these people take such an interest in human rights that they send such distinguished people to attend these inquests. This is really appreciated. However, one wonders whether there was any official recognition of the funeral of Mr. Curtis Hosten, who, as I said, was after all an American citizen. Perhaps the facts were not known to these gentlemen. I do not know. But I think one should reveal these facts. I do not claim that they are true, but they are reports that I have taken from the American Press. However, there seems to be enough data available from this Press report to enable one to ascertain whether what is said is true or not.

In the Observer, under the heading “Justice comparable to South Africa”, by one Byron Gilikson, I read the following—

Sir, these are all ascertainable facts, and the article goes on as follows—

Mr. Chairman, when I first read this article in this newspaper I did not know what that meant, but I have subsequently found out that “m.f.” is a very ugly word, which I cannot even mention in this House. The eye-witness account continues as follows—

In the light of this sort of thing, one hopes that in the interests of human rights, someone in America will take the trouble to go into this case as thoroughly as the American lawyers went into the case of the late Mr. Stephen Biko.

Are you assuming that they will or that they will not?

I am not saying anything about it. I do not know whether they will or whether they will not. What I do say is that if they do not, they will be applying a double standard to South Africa, which I do not think is fair. [Interjections.] Let me refer to another article. The New York Herald Tribune of 19 October 1977 carried a report from San Antonio, Texas, which was published in the New York Times. I quote from that article in the New York Times—

Again, I say that this surely merits investigation by the Human Rights Lawyers’ Committee. One wonders why all the trouble was taken to come to South Africa when, on their very doorstep, this sort of thing was apparently happening. One also wonders at the hysterical outcries of the international press with regard to the events in this country when these cases surely merited the same outcry.

Let us look at another report, again from the American Press. Let me say, Sir, that I am simply taking things from the American Press; I am not saying anything against the American Government as such. I am reading things in their newspapers, just as they presumably read things in our newspapers. A report published in the Wall Street Journal of 11 November 1977 tells a story of how, on 6 May, six White policemen took a Mexican American prisoner to a downtown parking lot. Five of them then began to beat him. He was then thrown into a river next to this parking lot, and he was drowned.

I am mentioning these shocking facts because of the fact that our own Press and the international Press carried on as if South Africa was the only country in the world where things could happen which would get people like Amnesty International interested in us. One wonders, however, whether they are as interested in the cases that I have quoted. One would certainly hope that there would be a balanced assessment meted out to all people when this sort of thing happens. I am not mentioning these facts to try to exonerate the S.A. Police from their responsibilities in any way. We have laws to deal with transgressors, and we use our laws to deal with transgressors, but the question that arises is whether the American Civil Committee for Human Rights under the Law had appointed to the Grand Jury proceedings, in all these cases I have mentioned, an observer as eminent as the hon. dean who came to South Africa. If not, in the name of human rights I ask: Why not? Why single out the S.A. Police for this sort of double standard treatment?

Let us see what Amnesty International does in the name of human rights. It writes a vitriolic and disgraceful letter to one of the most eminent State pathologists in the country. I have the letter here. It has been given to me. It is a letter from Amnesty International addressed to Prof. Isidor Gordon, Department of Medicine, University of Natal, Durban. It states—

Then some names are quoted—

No year is indicated—

This is now where the scandalous bit comes in—

They are referring to Prof. Gordon—

With reference to one of the names I quoted, mention is made of a death in the Caledon Square police station in Cape Town. Prof. Gordon, however, has never worked in Cape Town. The second was detained in Johannesburg and was never seen by Prof. Gordon. The third was detained and held at the Victor Verster Prison in Cape Town and died in the Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town. He was never seen by Prof. Gordon. Yet the scandalous suggestion that under international law “you are held responsible for these acts and will have to answer for them some day” is made to this very eminent surgeon in South Africa.

Who wrote that letter?

It was written under the heading of Amnesty International.

Who signed it?

It is signed by a Werner Etling.

The point is: Who feeds them the information?

Yes. The letterhead is that of Amnesty International. I sincerely hope the hon. members opposite will take note of this and try to stop this campaign, because letters like this are also being sent to the ordinary policeman doing his duty in the street. They are trying to undermine the whole police system in this country, and I certainly hope that the Opposition members will take note of this, because they have also been complaining about detentions all along and they have also been overseas and said all sorts of things about South Africa. If they look at me askance, I shall start quoting what they have said overseas. These things are absolutely scandalous. The hon. members opposite should raise their voices in protest against it. [Interjections.]

That goes without saying.

That does not go without saying at all—that is our problem. It does not go without saying when members of the Opposition go overseas. What does go without saying is that they will speak out against their own country there.

That is a scandalous untruth.

Order!

I have denied categorically that South African policemen, and particularly security policemen, were torturing prisoners. We have laws for transgressions of this nature, and we shall not hesitate to see to it that our laws, regulations and standing orders are obeyed.

*I hope hon. members opposite, as far as this sort of thing is concerned, will stop expressing unjustified criticism of the S.A. Police. If they come and ask me, I shall give them all the information they need. What we have here now is the position that a number of people have died; some of them from natural causes and others by committing suicide under circumstances which caused the inquests to state clearly that no one was responsible for them.

Never anyone to blame.

There! The hon. member for Houghton is again saying covertly that she does not accept it.

I did not say that.

She does not accept it. As far as she is concerned, the Security Police allowed these people to die. The scandalous insinuation is that they have indeed been murdered by the Security Police …

It is your own fault, and I will tell you why.

… because for what reason would the Security Police have people commit suicide? If they want to interrogate a man, why should they have him commit suicide? The insinuation is that the Security Police kill these people and make it appear like an attempted suicide and that everything that follows is a lot of eyewash. I want to say that members of the hon. Opposition must put a stop to this type of conduct and this type of speech which they deliver everywhere. Every time they attend a congress, the discussion is about the “detainees”, about “deaths in detention” and that sort of thing. I think that is scandalous. It must stop.

You must stop deaths in detention.

How does one stop that? The hon. member must tell me how to stop a suicide; then I will tell him how to stop the Black Power people.

Are you then not trying to stop it?

I am trying to stop it and I am also trying to stop Black Power people and Black Power preachers—that is what I am trying to stop.

*But that is not so easy, because these things creep out everywhere and use all sorts of tactics.

What are you insinuating? Say what you mean.

What do you mean “say what you mean”? I told you last year what I mean. I spelt it out for you. I gave you your whole history last year, and you could not deny any of it. You sat there with your mouth closed. You could not say a word about it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Just look at the damage you have done the country—no one has done more damage than you.

Damage I have done the country? That is not one quarter of the damage which that hon. member has done the country with his speeches overseas and his feigned intellectual detachment in respect of the situation in South Africa. That is indeed a shame! He brags there that he is a member of the Opposition and that the Government is evil. That is indeed scandalous!

And then he expects peace prizes, too.

Together with Kaunda.

In conclusion, I want to say a few words about Biko, and I trust that this will be the last time I need refer to this matter. Wherever I go in South Africa, people tell me that when they hear the word “Biko” they feel physically ill. They have become sick and tired of it, but nevertheless it is continually being dished up overseas—in books, on the television and in the newspapers—and is simply not allowed to die a natural death. I just want to refresh hon. members’ memories again. I think one should do that. I shall deal in a moment with what happened in my administration. I want to refresh hon. members’ memories as to what the Government did in this case. In the first instance, we ordered a proper post-mortem examination by the most able Government pathologists in the country in the presence of a well-known private pathologist who acted on behalf of the Biko family. Their finding was that this man had suffered from brain injuries of a contrecoup type, with an absence of the countrecoup injuries. I quote from the medical report—

1. (1) ’n sentralisasie van die bloedsomloop met ’n gevolglike verswakking van … deurbloeding van die organe;
2. (2) ’n verdere komplisering van intravasale bloedstolling en akute nierversaking, met uremie.

In layman’s terms: Mr. Biko got a bump on his forehead and the shock was transmitted to the opposite side of the brain, where it disturbed the impulses of the brain and impeded certain bodily functions, and this caused his death.

When one considers that every Saturday, hundreds of rugby players bump their heads together in the scrum, and that boxers are continually throwing punches at each other, it would appear that a contrecoup is a very rare phenomenon, perhaps so rare—and I am guessing now, because I am not a doctor— that it only occurs in one out of a thousand cases. In other words, no one could suspect such a thing straight off. That is the point I wish to make here, because the issue here is the actions of the police. No-one could suspect that a contrecoup was taking place. Another important point I wish to make, is that the bump on the forehead was not visible to the naked eye at the time of the examination by four doctors. Nothing was visible, and it only became clear after an intensive pathological examination. It was necessary for doctors to carry out a full and very penetrating scientific examination before they could see that mark. It could therefore hardly be expected that Col. Goosen should have seen it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I note the scepticism of those hon. members, and I challenge them to repudiate the statements I have made.

Have you seen the photographs?

If they have the sense and the courage, they must do so. That was the first step the Government took. In the second place, the State held an open inquest. Once again, I want to call to witness the advocate who appeared on behalf of the Biko family, to indicate how open this inquest indeed was and how fully he had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. In the third place, the State placed all the policemen involved at the disposal of the cross-examiner. It was therefore an open inquest. In fact, I can think of many inquests overseas which were not as open as this one. I could refer here to a case overseas, and hon. members will know the well-known case I have in mind. I do not think that in that case things went as they did in this case. Through the ages, a cross-examination has been shown to be the best method of exposing the truth. I do not think there is any jurist who will deny that. It has been proved through the ages. If there is anyone—especially on the Opposition side—who wants to allege that the policemen lied at the inquest, he must necessarily also allege that the family’s advocate was unable to expose the truth. These two things go hand in hand. He had the opportunity of cross-examining as much as he wanted. The legal theory is that cross-examination always exposes the truth. If, therefore, the hon. member is still of the opinion that the policemen lied here, the hon. member must automatically assume that the Biko family’s advocate was not able to expose the truth, and in my view there is no one who can allege that the advocate who appeared for the Biko family was a poor cross-examiner. It is generally known that he did his work outstandingly well. If that is the case, one must necessarily agree with the chief magistrate and assume that the inquest showed that no policeman had been criminally implicated in the death of Mr. Biko. That was his finding, too. But the State went even further. In the fourth instance, I referred the record of the proceedings back to the two Attorneys-General—one in Pretoria, and the other in the Eastern Cape. They again studied the record of the proceedings with a view to a possible prosecution of policemen. They also found that no criminal charges could be brought against the police. What is more, these two gentlemen are people of high calibre and of indisputable high standing. They had the right to order a further investigation with a view to a possible prosecution if they wanted to do so and if it was justified. They did not order such an investigation. One must therefore conclude that they were satisfied that no further evidence could be brought which would incriminate these policemen. Although the leftists in this country literally screamed for revenge and demanded that some policeman be brought to trial, I cannot order such a thing without evidence. That was evidently what they expected of me. Mr. Biko’s family are of course free to institute proceedings privately if they so wish. Evidently they decided against it. I now want to refer to possible administrative actions …

Have they not sued you?

I cannot listen to the cackling of that hon. member all afternoon. Does the hon. member want to put a question?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Biko family is not suing him in his capacity as Minister, or the department.

The hon. member for Houghton will know better than I whether or not such a summons has been issued against me.

Except for the scuffle which the policemen concerned had with Mr. Biko—that was covered very thoroughly at the inquest and was considered by the chief magistrate—I still felt unhappy about three aspects of the administrative actions. I ordered one of the highest-ranking officers in the Police Force to carry out a thorough investigation of the following aspects: In the first place, the lack of adequate reports to the Commissioner of Police—and as a result, also to the Minister— for the period of 6 September 1977 to 12 September 1977. If I had been informed at an early stage, I should immediately have ordered that Mr. Biko be taken to a provincial hospital under police protection.

The second aspect to be investigated, was why Mr. Biko was not sent to the provincial hospital on the evening of 11 September. The third matter they had to investigate, was why, during the evening of 11 September 1977, he was sent to Pretoria by landrover in the circumstances in which this was done. I have the result of the investigation before me. The officer concerned compiled a very thorough report. Although he found that there had been errors of judgment, he also found that they were not of such a nature as to justify an administrative charge by way of a police board of inquiry.

There were therefore the Attorneys-General who looked at the record of the proceedings, and there was also a very thorough and in-depth report on the matter by a high-ranking police officer. The finding is that although there were errors of judgment, they were not of such a nature that an administrative charge by way of a police board of inquiry can or should be instituted. The errors of judgment committed by Col. Goosen, were based on favourable medical reports which caused him to believe in good faith that Mr. Biko was not as ill as he indeed was. In fact, on 11 September, Mr. Biko was discharged from hospital with the permission of the specialist.

I have scrutinized the report very thoroughly and have weighed its every possible aspect. The problem is that now, on a dispassionate reflection, we have the benefit of an intensive, penetrating and thorough post-mortem examination which involved microscopic tests. I shall refer to this as report “A”. I wish to point out to hon. members that Col. Goosen did not have this report available to him when he had to make his decision. What he did have, was a report—to which I shall refer as report “B”—by doctors which indicated that there was nothing physically wrong with Mr. Biko, and which accordingly gave rise to a strong suspicion that Mr. Biko was feigning illness. If we judge the police action in the light of the contents of report “A”, we cannot understand why certain decisions were taken, and some of their actions appear callous. But in fairness to the police, I had to regard their conduct from the point of view that they only had knowledge of the original medical report, report “B”. This approach is the only one which would be fair to them. I could not expect of the police that at the time when they took the relevant decisions, they should have known of details which Dr. Loubser discovered only after an examination of several months. In fairness to them, I had to place myself in the position in which they had been, i.e., with only the details in report “B” available to them. As I have already stated, this report read that the man was not so ill and that caused them to suspect that he was possibly feigning illness. If one approaches the matter from this point of view, then despite the content of the report, errors of judgment were nevertheless committed. The police report made the same finding. If, however, one considers all the circumstances in which the police had to make their decision—for example, the pressure of work, the eight other people who were under interrogation at the same time, and the upheavals of that time—then in all fairness, one can come to no other conclusion but that that the policemen concerned acted in good faith. I therefore decided to bring the errors committed to the notice of the officers concerned, and having done that, I am going to close this file.

In consequence of the police investigation, a set of rules has been compiled which has already been circulated to the Police Force. There was a set of rules previously, but things were perhaps not spelt out so clearly as in this set of rules. I should like to read the new rules to the House—rules, instructions and guidelines which must in future immediately and strictly be complied with—

1. (a) Klagtes en tekens van ongesteldheid van ’n aangehoudene

1. (i) die dienste van ’n bevoegde geneesheer moet onverwyld bekom word.

I just want to point out that Col. Goosen did this in any event—

1. (ii) uitvoering moet aan die opdragte van die geneesheer gegee word, maar indien die aangehoudene vir behandeling na ’n hospitaal anders as ’n gevangenis-hospitaal verwyder moet word en die mening word gehuldig dat so ’n verwydering ’n veiligheidsrisiko inhou, moet Hoofkantoor eers geraadpleeg word.
2. (iii) Die feit van enige ongesteldheid moet sonder versuim per druktelegram aan Hoofkantoor gerapporteer word, sodat die Minister ingelig kan word indien nodig. (Daar was nie vantevore so ’n opdrag nie.)
3. (iv) Geen siek aangehoudene moet sonder Hoofkantoor se goedkeuring van een stad of dorp na ’n ander stad of dorp verwyder word nie.
4. (v) Siek aangehoudenes moet met betrekking tot slaap-en eetgeriewe spesiale aandag geniet en moet meer gereeld as onder normale omstandighede besoek word.
5. (vi) Behalwe in buitengewone gevalle, byvoorbeeld waar openbaarmaking van die feit van die aanhouding van ’n terroris die ondersoek sal skaad, moet die naaste bloed-of aanverwant van enige siektetoestand wat enigsins as emstig beskou word, in kennis gestel word. Besoeke aan die siek aangehoudene moet egter nie sonder Hoofkantoor se toestemming toegelaat word nie.

1. (b) Selfmoorde

1. (i) Neiging tot selfmoord kom meer en meer onder aangehoudenes voor; ’n gebeurlikheid wat beswaarlik voorkom kan word. Om dié verskynsel suksesvol te bekamp, sal alle voorwerpe waarmee ’n aangehoudene homself kan ophang of verwurg, verwyder moet word. Sodanige voorwerpe sluit natuurlik kledingstukke, beddegoed en dies meer in, maar die verwydering van dié artikels is nie alleen ongewens nie, maar ook die oorsaak van buitengewone kritiek en kan nie sonder meer aanbeveel word nie. Voortdurende aandag aan aangehoudenes blyk die enigste uitweg te wees.
2. (ii) Die gebruik van hand-en voetboeie kan slegs in uiterste gevalle toegelaat word, want selfs boeie kan vir selfmoorddoeleindes gebruik word.
3. (iii) Tydens elke opsluiting moet ’n lid van die Veiligheidstak persoonlik verseker dat geen voorwerp wat maklik vir selfmoord of ontsnapping gebruik kan word, met die aangehoudene sy sei ingeneem word nie. Hier word gedink aan messe, skerp voorwerpe, dasse, lyfbande, hemde met lang moue, skoenveters, lang kouse, gifstowwe, vuurwapens, ens. Die beampte moet onverwyld ’n aantekening in ’n register wat vir hierdie doel gehou moet word, maak en onderteken.
4. (iv) Aangehoudenes wat enige self-moordneigings openbaar of buitengewoon neerslagtig of morbied raak, moet spesiale aandag ontvang.
5. (v) Stasiebevelvoerders moet versoek word om aangehoudenes meer dikwels as ander gevangenes te laat besoek.
6. (vi) Aangehoudenes moet gereeld van ten minste twee weerbare beamptes verwees wanneer hulle van een plek na ’n ander geneem word.
7. (vii) Ondervraging in geboue moet, in gevalle waar dit nie op die grondvloer gedoen word nie, slegs in versterkte kantore plaasvind.
8. (viii) Alles moontlik moet gedoen word om te verhoed dat aangehoudenes uit geboue spring.
9. (ix) Onnatuurlike sterftes onder aangehoudenes moet deur ’n onpartydige vertakking van die Mag ondersoek word.

1. (c) Aanrandings en Mishandeling

1. (i) Dit is onnodig om te sê dat aanranding op en mishandeling van aangehoudenes onwettig en strafbaar is. Gereeld en op onrusbarende skaal kom sulke dinge soms voor. Dit gee ander partye die geleentheid om dit vir propagandadoeleindes te gebruik.
2. (ii) Bevelvoerende offisiere moet egter paslike stappe doen om enige moontlike aanrandings en mishandeling totaal uit te skakel. Ondergeskiktes moet gereeld teen sodanige optredes vermaan word. Onreëlmatighede in hierdie verband sal nie straffeloos gelaat word nie.
3. (iii) Klagtes van aanranding, mishandeling of enige onwettige optrede jeens aangehoudenes moet onverwyld, verkieslik deur ’n onafhanklike vertakking van die Mag, ondersoek word.

Mr. Chairman, I think that disposes of all the questions which have been put to me. The last question the hon. member for Houghton put to me was whether I had instituted an administrative investigation. My reply to her is, therefore, that I have already done that. I have given her the findings.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. the Minister has given us such a full report of the investigations which have been held following the Biko inquest. I have to hand it to the hon. the Minister that he certainly is a quick recoverer. He is indeed very different from the dejected, remorseful man we spoke to in January about this case. He has certainly made a very rapid recovery.

How can you say a thing like that?

The attitude of the hon. the Minister is very different indeed. He now makes accusations against Amnesty International and ourselves, etc.

You are talking to the overseas Press.

However that may be, I am glad to hear that there has been an investigation. I might say that I personally cannot understand that absolutely no blame has been attached to anybody following the unfortunate death of Biko, which has caused South Africa such enormous harm both here and overseas. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has read Sir David Napley’s report on the inquest, because if he has not read it, I suggest that he ought to read it. Right now it seems to be the doctors who are taking the blame and I am certainly not about to defend those doctors whose behaviour, according to the evidence that I have read in the court record, was reprehensible. There is also no doubt, however, as the Napley report and the evidence brings out, that the doctors, were gravely misled by the police who, throughout the case, attempted to pretend that Biko was shamming illness. I think there is a great measure of responsibility on the doctors in this case as well as on the policemen who handled this detainee.

However, what worries me, are all the other cases of persons presently in detention, and persons who have died in detention. What sort of medical attention did they get, and just how much blame can we ascribe to the lack of it? I want to say at once, while I have the opportunity, that I must correct one impression I gave yesterday where I said I thought there had been four deaths after the Biko case. The hon. the Minister said there had been none.

No, there was one.

Right. We were both wrong. There was one. The hon. the Minister said none and I said that I thought there were four, but actually there was only one. It was the case of the young man Sipho Malaza who died in Krugersdorp while in detention. The other three I thought were security cases died in detention, but they were not being held under the security laws. I want to make that quite clear.

I must tell the hon. the Minister that the cases he read out yesterday in respect of the Institute of Race Relations are quoted in the Institute’s Report in exactly the same way as he described them to us in the House. It is true they are listed under “deaths in detention”, but I must tell the hon. the Minister that one of the cases that he objected to yesterday, namely Samuel Malinga, is also listed by the hon. the Minister as being a case of death in detention under the security laws. I have here the hon. the Minister’s answer, given to me on 14 February 1978, in reply to my question as to how many persons had died during 1977 while in detention in terms of security laws and No. 4 on the list is Samuel Malinga who died of natural causes—pneumonia. In fact the Institute also gives the post-mortem findings of death by pneumonia. So the hon. the Minister must not complain about those cases. I must also tell the Minister we are not impressed by the whole business of double standards. We know that there are double standards. The hon. the Minister must realize that he personally and the cases that have been brought to public notice have given an enormous amount of ammunition for people to use overseas against South Africa.

You are not worried about that! [Interjections.]

I am not interested whether similar cases occur in America or not. We are against brutality of all sorts wherever it may occur. However, that does not in any way exonerate South Africa from the accusations which have been made against it regarding the behaviour of the Security Police towards political detainees. That is the note on which I wish to end. The hon. the Minister must realize that these are political cases. They carry a very special significance and we are not expected to behave like a country which is behind the Iron Curtain.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 28.—“Prisons”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by saying a few words about the report of the Commissioner of Prisons. This report covers the period from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and it reveals the usual alarmingly high daily average number of prisoners in South Africa. We have an average of close on 100 000 prisoners in our prisons daily, a figure which is very high indeed for a country with a total population of about 25 million people. The report tells us that there has been an increase of 4,3% on last year. I want to point out that the corresponding figure—that is the latest figure I could get—for the United Kingdom is that in a population of 56 million there are 46 000 prisoners daily, on average; in other words, less than half the number of our country with a population of more than double that of South Africa. The American figures—figures obtained for another comparison—are 220 000 prisoners daily, on average, in a population of roughly 220 million. Our figures, pro rata, are about 4,5 times that of the United Kingdom and four times that of the United States.

The amounts on the estimates show that the hon. the Minister has budgeted for a cost per prisoner per day of R236-46. That adds up to an overall cost of more than R92 million for prisons, which is an increase of R11,5 million on the previous year. Of course, the main trouble is that we cram our gaols with short-term prisoners who are merely statutory offenders, people who have been put into gaol either for contravening the pass laws or curfew regulations or for trespassing. These include also, of course, dagga offenders. I am hoping very much that next year we will see an improvement on the figures when the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission are implemented and when the amendments to the Prisons Act are implemented.

I want to take this opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister if he will not look into the possibility of granting remission of sentence to the thousands of prisoners who are presently serving mandatory prison sentences in our gaols for dagga offences, in view of the fact that the drugs abuse Act has been very considerably amended this year. I believe I am correct in saying that until now there has been no remission of sentence for persons serving prison sentences for those offences. If I am right, I hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity of improving this situation.

The main subject that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the attitude that he and the Prisons Department have adopted this year regarding university education for persons serving prison sentences for crimes against the State.

On 15 February this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister in this connection, to which he replied—

I believe that five prisoners presently serving long-term sentences at Pretoria Central prison, have in fact been allowed to continue with the courses for which they are registered. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether any of the prisoners on Robben Island, serving sentences for crimes against the State, have been allowed to continue with their degree courses?

I am at a loss to understand why this privilege has been abolished. It is, of course, a privilege. It is not a right. However, I want to know why it has been abolished. Three main reasons for this were given by the hon. the Minister. I believe all three of these reasons are most unsatisfactory. According to him the prisoners abuse this privilege. I do not know how they abuse the privilege. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. The only courses that prisoners can do are registered courses with Unisa. Of course, the only way in which material comes in or goes out of a gaol—I mean study material—is through the prison officials. Therefore, the hon. the Minister must surely be incriminating either the prison officials or Unisa when he says that prisoners are abusing their privileges.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister says that the prison staff is inadequate to supervise the studies. Now, why has this suddenly arisen? I cannot understand it. Why are the prison staff suddenly unable to supervise prisoners who are doing degree studies? There is no financial burden on the State because the prisoners finance their own studies. Surely it is worthwhile to keep prisoners relatively contented? Is it not foolish to take away a privilege which by and large must certainly aid the Department of Prisons in fulfilling its custodial and rehabilitation functions? The hon. the Minister says that released prisoners have been using degrees for incitement on release. I really do not know what he means by that; perhaps he will tell us. I want to point out to him that there are people who are serving life sentences for crimes against the State. For these crimes there is no remission of sentence. So, unless there is a change of Government, it is unlikely that any of these people are going to be released. For those prisoners at least the hon. the Minister should surely consider exemption from this very harsh provision.

One of the arguments which was used by the Commissioner of Prisons when he opposed the application by the Pretoria Central prisoners for the right to read newspapers was that they were not cut off from mental stimulation because they were allowed to study with Unisa. I believe that since that time abbreviated news reports have been broadcast to prisoners in Pretoria Central. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to tell me that these abbreviated news reports are in any way an adequate substitute for study privileges. I want to point out that study privileges, apart from keeping a prisoner sane, as one ex-prisoner told me it had done for him, do carry with them other privileges. There is the privilege of keeping one’s lights on until 11 p.m., the ability to use books other than the books in the prison library, the availability of writing materials, and the chance to keep oneself intellectually stimulated. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister is going to reconsider the decision that he and the department came to as far as this is concerned.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister, and here too I hope he is not going to hit the roof. I want to refer to the disturbing number of deaths in prison. I am not now talking about prisoners held in terms of security legislation or of deaths in police cells; I am talking about convicted prisoners. There have been 358 such deaths. I hasten to add that about 80% were due to natural causes I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will take note of the fact that a number of deaths take place as a result of assaults on prisoners by other prisoners. This, I think, is particularly bad as far as awaiting-trial prisoners are concerned. I have had reports, for instance, that the North End gaol in Port Elizabeth has very poor accommodation indeed for awaiting-trial prisoners. It is common practice for gangs to form up in these prisons amongst both awaiting-trial and convicted prisoners. Brandvlei prison was notorious for this at one stage. These gangs assault other prisoners. A man in prison is a helpless human being, and if he cannot even be protected against death by assault from fellow prisoners, then I must say that I consider that our prison system does not have the degree of supervision for prisoners that I would think is essentially necessary in a modern prison.

There is a third matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I know it has been raised by the professional association, but I would like once more to go into the whole question of the denial of the right of certain lawyers to visit prisoners. I understand that certain lawyers are now no longer permitted to visit convicted prisoners. I understand that convicted prisoners are always visited in the hearing of a warder, while prisoners who are not yet convicted are visited in view of a warder. I understand that lawyers have to sign a certain undertaking that they will not abuse any of these privileges. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to inform the House why he has taken the step of using the amended prison regulations to forbid certain lawyers the right of visiting convicted prisoners in the gaols. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that the Prisons Vote is being discussed as an independent Vote in this Committee. I think this is something which ought to be mentioned. I think it is a good thing that the Vote is being discussed independently of the Justice Vote, because this department has been an independent department for a considerable length of time. In this way, we shall be doing more justice to the department as such. It is a small change, but nevertheless an event of historical importance.

I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Houghton for any length of time this afternoon. I think we are going to be in calmer waters as regards this Vote than we were during the discussion of the two previous Votes. I just cannot understand her reason for fighting with the hon. the Minister of Prisons about the large number of prisoners whom he has to accommodate. It is not the fault of the hon. the Minister of Prisons that these people receive prison sentences. That is the concern of another department, and I do not think she can hold it against the other department if its officials on the Bench do their duty and impose prison sentences in their discretion or in terms of the provisions of the laws of the land on people whom they find guilty.

However, there is a personal observation which I want to convey to the hon. member, to her party and to this House. This is the third Vote of this hon. Minister we are discussing. Up to this stage 20 speakers from this side of the House have participated in the debates. At the conclusion of these discussions a total number of 27 speakers would probably have participated in these debates. But up to now only four speakers from that side have participated in these debates. On this side of the House all speakers on Justice have been accommodated. In fact, we have more time than that Official Opposition, but they have more than a third of the time which we have, while on their side at this stage only a fifth of our number of 20 speakers have participated in these debates. One is merely asking oneself why this is so. There is someone in that party who is probably the person best equipped in the country to speak about police, justice and prisons. I am referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He is not even here—or is he perhaps here?

No, he is not here.

He is having a nap. [Interjections.]

Is he having some coffee? The hon. the Minister says he is having a nap. I am merely asking myself: Has that hon. member not been invited to speak in the debate? I am sure he would have been invited had he supported the hon. member for Houghton in her attacks on the hon. the Minister. Is he perhaps being kept out for a specific reason, or has he perhaps become so ashamed even at this early stage of the company he is keeping that he is no longer able to join in? [Interjections.] If there is a threat to democracy in South Africa, it is an ineffective Opposition which poses a threat. Their ineffectiveness is to be found in the fact that, except for old platitudinous politicking from their side about every conceivable aspect of the government of the country, they are unable to conduct an in-depth discussion in this Parliament on any matter of national interest. That is why they are causing the status of the Opposition and of democracy in South Africa to suffer. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke about executive council government instead of parliamentary government, that if he wants to sound a warning in this regard, he should first see that his own house is in order, pull up his party sharply and warn them to talk about matters concerning the government of the country and not merely to indulge in politicking on all matters.

Once again we have an excellent report of the Commissioner before this House. Other hon. members on this side of the House will refer to specific aspects of the report. In the time which I still have, I, too, should like to refer to one or two matters. I want to refer in particular to the high staff turnover which is unfortunately being experienced in this department. The high staff turnover means that there is a drop in the average age of the staff as a whole. The Commissioner points this out in his report. Whilst the staff has decreased, the prison population has increased. Rejuvenation is always a good thing, except that in a service like the Prisons Service it may be dangerous because I do not think any training in dealing with prisoners is as good as in-service training, the training derived from practical experience. I understand that several of the senior officers have in actual fact reached the stage where they will be better off financially if they were to retire now and invest what they would receive. I am pleased that in spite of criticism and difficult working conditions, they are remaining in service and displaying their loyalty to the department, the Commission and the Minister in that way.

Some of our prison officials probably have less pleasant working conditions, especially in comparison with other sectors of the Public Service, in the light of the long, irregular hours which they have to work, the weekend duty which has to be done, exposure to the elements in the performance of their duties, the human material they deal with as well as the stereotyped nature of the work. In addition, they are subjected fairly often to sharp criticism like the lavish criticism on the part of the hon. member for Houghton, who often has something to say about the assault of prisoners by members of the service. However, very little mention is made of the assault of members of the service by prisoners. I want to point out that in the year ended March this year, altogether 43 members of the service were assaulted by prisoners. 29 of them were Whites, two were Coloureds and 12 Blacks. Six of the Whites, one of the Coloureds and two of the Blacks were injured to such an extent that they had to be off duty for more than three days. We must bear in mind the human material members of the service have to work with. I think we should also express our gratitude from time to time for the fact that there are still some of them who are so dedicated that they are prepared to do this difficult work.

What has impressed me particularly in the Commissioner’s report, is the fact that the department uses the material at its disposal to be productive. For instance, the department produced agricultural products to the value of more than R3 million in various prisons this past financial year. The broiler project at Zonderwater Prison, with a turnover of 3 000 chickens per week, has recently been put into operation and in this way they provide meat to all the prisons in Pretoria and on the Northeast Rand. As far as building work is concerned, they provide excellent accommodation from their own ranks. This is also in line with their task of rehabilitating prisoners. I think those of us who have visited prisons, has been impressed by the building work in particular, as well as with the planning and architecture of the buildings which they erect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof has dealt fairly extensively with what the hon. member for Houghton said about prisons here this afternoon. I want to agree with the hon. member for Waterkloof that it is a good thing that we have separated these three Votes and that one can now have a calm and peaceful discussion about prisons as such. In the past the three Votes of the hon. the Minister were usually dealt with as a unit. I see the hon. member for Houghton is nodding in agreement, but perhaps she should not be in quite such a hurry to do so. The debate may not be quite so calm.

These days, prisons, and the treatment of prisoners in South Africa, are under constant scrutiny. The self-appointed watchdogs over the weal and woe of the criminals in South Africa’s gaols are first and foremost the members of the PFP. These people, with their liberal hangers-on—and I almost want to say, communist hangers-on within South Africa too—and with the assistance of the liberal, leftist Press in South Africa and …

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member clearly links the Official Opposition with what he called communist organizations. Is he allowed to do so?

Order! Did the hon. member link the Opposition with the communists?

Mr. Chairman, I very clearly used the word “hangers-on”. However, if you want me to withdraw this word, I shall do so just so that I can continue.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

However, worst of all is that those hon. members are supported and incited, and to a large extent also prescribed to, by their leftist hangers-on, heretic hangers-on from abroad. They are the ones who fled from South Africa because they are communists, self-confessed communists. These are the people with whom they sympathize and who are the co-guardians of the prisoners in South Africa today. After all, it is a fact that the PFP, and to be specific, the hon. member for Houghton, has never even had the decency, when a single member of the prison service has died at the hand of a criminal prisoner, to send his family a telegram of sympathy or a wreath. However, she is very quick to contribute towards the Biko fund, but when it concerns the warden, the member of the Force, that hon. member is silent except to scold him and to find out whether they cannot prosecute him for something. In any event, she is not interested in the ordinary criminal in the prison. She is only interested in the so-called political prisoners, in the subversives and the terrorists who are being detained. After all, these are the people that she either visits, or inquires about, or tries to visit. The fact that these constitute a mere 0,1% to 0,15% of the total number of prisoners in South African prisons does not bother the hon. member. She is not concerned about the fate of the 99,9% other criminals in the prison. That is why I think it is appropriate for us to dwell for a moment today on what is being done for prisoners. It may be good for a few hon. members to know how prisoners are treated.

Since my time is limited, I want to dwell briefly on those who are serving a sentence of two years and longer. At the very outset I want to say that all prisoners in South African prisons are subject to the standard minimum rules, i.e. those rules which were instituted by the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission and which are known as the IPPC rules. When the UN was founded, these rules were taken over by a special body of the UN which meets every five years. What is important, however, is that South Africa has not only accepted these rules, but has kept to them and implemented them. The Commissioner is our direct link with this body, but he not only attends the congresses of that body every five years; he also attends all other international symposiums and congresses on prison regulations and the treatment of prisoners. We have 250 prisons in South Africa and their objective throughout is that the people in those prisons should be treated in such a way that they are rehabilitated and turned into better citizens who are better adapted and more balanced so that, when they are released again or when they go on parole, they will be able to fit in and adapt to modern life much more easily. The question can now arise: How is this done? I want to dwell briefly on a few aspects of the treatment of prisoners.

Usually they are sent to Pretoria, Leeuwkop or Cape Town where the Prisons Department has approximately 21 professional, trained psychologists, three educationists, and 70 social workers. At these centres, they immediately look at the age of such a prisoner, the training which he has received, his background, his aptitudes, his intelligence and his personality, which is very important in this regard. Note is also taken of his physical and mental state. After this thorough, professional analysis these people are placed in a prison centre where they can benefit most by means of further training or by means of the work that they are going to do there. Members of the prisoner’s family often ask the prison authority whether their relatives cannot be detained nearer to their homes. They do not always realize how difficult it is to make this possible. The important thing here is not the convenience of the relative, but rather the best interest of the prisoner, in the light of his rehabilitation. I have said that there are approximately 70 social workers, and it is gratifying to be able to mention that 12 of them belong to population groups other than the White population group. The department is also very happy with the services which these people provide.

I feel it may be a good thing if these other population groups can also provide trained psychologists and educationists who will be able to work amongst their own people who are being detained in prisons. So far, I have referred only to placement of prisoners. I have not yet mentioned the 12 full-time clergymen in the service of the department, who see to it that the approximately 100 000 prisoners who are detained in South African prisons, on an average, can worship and have their spiritual needs tended to on a regular basis.

As far as food and clothing are concerned, the South African prisons department is second to no other in the world. The department is already using many women prisoners to manufacture clothes themselves and they are also being trained as dressmakers so that, when they return to normal life, they can have a profession. The food which the prisoners receive does not simply consist of porridge and mealies which someone has boiled up somewhere. A balanced diet is worked out by professional dieticians in co-operation with the Department of Health. As far as medical services to prisoners are concerned, I just want to bring the following to the hon. members’ attention. When the prisoner enters the prison, he is given a medical examination and when he is sent out, he is given another. I am not referring to prisoners who are patients in hospitals. Which of us today is entitled to professional dietetic services and professional medical services? These people are entitled to a medical examination whenever they complain of an ache or pain. They are also entitled to free hospitalization, free medicines and free specialist services. In the light of this, I do not think anyone is entitled to complain about the treatment which a prisoner receives in the South African prisons.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Waterkloof both dealt with certain aspects of rehabilitation of prisoners and the question of staff employed by the S.A. Prisons Service. I also intend to deal with certain of these aspects. The report tabled in the House by the Commissioner of Prisons indicates the situation in regard to the staff position in the Department of Prisons. From that is evident that there is a considerable turnover in staff and that there is indeed a shortage of trained and experienced staff in certain spheres. It is alarming to see that the number of resignations recorded in the course of the year was, according to the report, 1 801. These people terminated their service with the Prisons Department, and of these 1 024 were White males who resigned from their posts. At the same time, recruitment figures in the report show that there have been 1 600 appointments. This means that while we are faced with an increasing number of prisoners which have to be cared for, a number which the report indicates as a daily average of almost 100 000, we are at the same time not keeping pace with providing additional staff to cope with this increasing number of prisoners. The prisons are to a greater extent giving attention to rehabilitation, but these figures obviously indicate that further efforts will have to be made in regard to rehabilitation. I feel that in addition other steps should perhaps be taken by other departments in regard to matters such as, for instance, crime prevention, which is another important aspect of trying to reduce the number of prisoners who are presently in our prisons.

I have only had a short time to study the position as far as recruitment for the prisons is concerned, but I feel that it is a great pity that more people from the English-speaking section of our community do not come forward and serve in the Department of Prisons. As an English-speaking person I feel sorry that there is not a larger number of people prepared to come forward and render service in the Department of Prisons. I think it would be to the benefit of the recruitment campaign if an attempt were made to obtain more people from the English-speaking section in this country.

I also believe that greater efforts will have to be made in the recruitment of social workers and people who are trained in social work, because the whole essence of rehabilitation revolves to a good extent around social workers.

In the Commissioner’s report it is indicated that there are 77 social workers and 99 auxiliary workers employed by the Department of Prisons. We must realize that a lot of the prisoners are non-Whites, and therefore it is important to try to recruit social workers from the Coloured, Indian and Black communities in South Africa. According to the Commissioner’s report they have succeeded in recruiting one Indian, one Black and four Coloured trained social workers. This indicates that greater efforts will have to be made to try and recruit more of these people to assist the department, particularly in their programme of rehabilitation. The question of training additional social workers is one which also does cause concern amongst welfare agencies in the private sector. Perhaps even greater use will have to be made of social workers who are employed by private welfare organizations to assist the Department of Prisons in their rehabilitation work.

We recently discussed in the House the position of persons who are convicted for dagga and drug abuse. At that time the question of rehabilitation was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I am sure that a degree of rehabilitation does take place in the Department of Prisons, but I should like to mention that in terms of legislation which we passed in 1971, i.e. the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, special provision was made for rehabilitation. Section 36 of that Act deals with the transfer of persons from prison to rehabilitation centres and states—

That is the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions—

1. (a) it is desirable that such person should, before he is returned to the community, receive treatment or training in a rehabilitation centre; and
2. (b) such person is a type of person who will or will probably benefit by the particular kind of treatment and training provided in a rehabilitation centre.

The section then lays down further provisions concerning the retransfer of such a person. However, the point that I am trying to make here is that provision has been made for a person to be transferred to a rehabilitation centre. If there are prisoners who could benefit by more intensive treatment at a rehabilitation centre, he can receive such specialized rehabilitation. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it has been possible to implement those provisions in the Act of 1971 in terms of which those persons who are serving prison sentences may be transferred to such rehabilitation centres to receive specialized treatment.

The other aspect which to an extent affects rehabilitation, is the number of escapes taking place. The Commissioner of Prisons mentions in his report that there has been a decrease in the number of escapes which have occurred during the year ended June 1977. However, there still is a considerable number of escapes. According to the figures in the report, there were over 1 900 escapes. A large number of these people are still at large. If a person has escaped and has been recaptured, it obviously means that the rehabilitation of that prisoner in particular is further complicated and made more difficult. Of the 1 988 escapes recorded in table 11 of the report on page 19, 1 272 escapees were recaptured. However, 716 prisoners are still at large.

The question of escapes causes a good deal of concern amongst the community, particularly when the escaped prisoners are dangerous. If prisons are established in built-up areas not far from residential areas there is a degree of alarm amongst the residents when a dangerous escaped criminal remains at large. I think the question of escapes requires further attention and perhaps further study.

I should also like to mention the establishment of prisons close to residential areas. I do not wish to pursue this matter, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is as far as Robben Island is concerned. We know that statements have been made from time to time as far as the future of the Robben Island Prison is concerned.

I hope the hon. the Minister can give some indication when he replies to this debate as to what the latest position is regarding the closing of the Robben Island Prison and regarding the establishment of additional prison facilities in the Transvaal and perhaps in Natal. It has been proposed that a prison be built at Westville. However, what is important, is that he must inform the Committee about the future of Robben Island, whether any decision has been made in this regard and from what date the prison on Robben Island will cease to exist.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly, to what the hon. member for Houghton has said in regard to study facilities available to prisoners who have been sentenced for offences against the security of the State. I hope she returns to the House soon, because I want to give her some interesting particulars. I am convinced that in this connection, she will find many of the answers to her questions in verdicts delivered by our courts. It should really not be necessary for her to put such a series of questions to the hon. the Minister. In particular, I want to refer her to the case of Hassim and Others v. The Officer Commanding, Robben Island. The court proceedings were published in our law reports, volume 3 of 1973. There, certain principles are dealt with in full. Basically, the hon. member for Houghton also erred in confusing the concept of “rights” with “privileges”. In the case to which I have referred, Mr. Justice Diemont found that there were certain basic rights to which a prisoner was entitled—rights of which he could not be deprived, for example food, clothing and medical treatment. These are facilities which cannot be taken away from him, regardless of his attitude and his conduct in prison. As far as privileges are concerned, Mr. Justice Diemont said the following—

Privileges include the following: Whether they have smoking facilities; whether they may receive visits and if so, how many; sport activities; etc. But it is also true that privileges must be deserved. The granting of privileges must be regarded as the response of the department to a certain mode of behaviour on the part of the prisoner himself. It serves no useful purpose to grant privileges to a person who is not prepared to co-operate. In this connection, I also want to refer to what Mr. Justice Diemont said about privileges and the granting thereof and, in particular, about the right to study—

In terms of our judicature, a wide discretion is therefore vested in the prisons authorities to grant these privileges.

Another matter to which the hon. members on the opposite side—I am referring in particular to the hon. members of the Official Opposition—normally refer, is the question of remission of sentence and of parole, which cannot be granted to prisoners who have been sentenced for crimes against the security of the State. It is true that such prisoners are not granted parole or remission of sentence. Security prisoners do not qualify for that. I just want to refer to a few reasons why they do not qualify for that. Take for example the crime of theft, murder or assault. Such an offence is normally an offence by one person against one other person. The victim is directly involved in the purpose of the offence. For example, he possesses the article which the thief does not possess, and the thief steals it. As against that, in the case of a contravention of security legislation, the offence is always the organized product of a group with a particular ideology, and their offence is not directed against the individual, but indeed—as they allege—against the State. In actual fact, however, their action is directed against anyone who does not belong to their group. They believe that the so-called nobility of their cause justifies them in claiming innocent victims. For that reason, it does not matter to them whether a victim is White or Black. Nor does it not matter to them to what political party the victim belongs. These people are capable of despicable acts such as the placing of a bomb on a Railway station or in other public places, as we have again experienced in the recent past. They do not hesitate to commit acts which result in the death of innocent persons—children and others. Because of the nature and circumstances of such offences, therefore, other considerations may be taken into account when a decision has to be made on the question of remission of sentence or the granting of parole. And, of course, remission of sentence cannot be claimed as a right. It is something which must be deserved. Practical experience indicates—as sometimes appears from court proceedings as well—that prisoners in terms of security legislation purposefully try to continue their subversive activities in prison and to make things as difficult as possible for the prison staff.

In the granting of remission or with release on parole, it is presumed that the prisoner concerned will, in future, refrain from crime. In the case of offenders against security legislation, no grounds have yet been found for such an expectation. I have been informed that on 30 March 1978, there were already nine prisoners on Robben Island who had been sentenced for contraventions of security legislation after they had previously been released from the prison at Robben Island on the expiration of similar sentences in terms of similar legislation. There are good reasons, therefore, why prisoners serving sentences in terms of security legislation do not qualify for release on parole or for remission of sentence.

Mr. Chairman, after the sound speech made by the hon. member for Eshowe on study facilities for prisoners, I want to approach the matter from a different angle.

On 15 February this year, and again this afternoon, the hon. member for Houghton put a question to the hon. the Minister about study facilities for prisoners, and especially for prisoners convicted of offences against the security of the State. The hon. member wanted to know whether any change had recently been made or was being contemplated in regard to study facilities for prisoners convicted of offences against the security of the State and if so, for what reasons. The hon. the Minister answered in the affirmative. That therefore means that there has indeed been a change.

The category of prisoners who have not passed their matriculation examination, will still be allowed to study for it. Henceforth, prisoners in this group who have had successes in prison with post-school subjects, will be allowed to complete their courses. Fresh enrolments by prisoners for post-school studies will, however, only be permitted in highly exceptional cases.

Now one must be very careful to see the changes which have indeed been brought about, in the correct perspective. The whole matter of study facilities for prisoners must be judged in the corrected perspective. Matters must not be wrested out of context. One should also not try by this means to bring the Government and the Department of Prisons into discredit and embarrassment—especially abroad.

Let us first set out the entire matter and analyse it calmly. Studies are an integral part of the rehabilitation policy of the Department of Prisons. Prisoners are encouraged at all times to follow an approved field of study. With few exceptions, it is permissible to follow all fields of study which enjoy national recognition and which are in conformity with the curricula followed at our universities, colleges and schools. Included in this is the departmental reading and writing project for illiterate prisoners. The extent to which it is found, during the period of observation, that illiteracy or low qualifications were causatives factors of crime, plays a determining role in any specific case in deciding on the permissibility or otherwise of a prisoner’s intended studies.

Inevitably the prisoner is dependent upon a correspondence course, and the department must help him administratively. Precisely because the student is a prisoner, the department must, of necessity, act as intercessor between him and the university or college. All possible administrative assistance is given to prisoners in connection with registration and the correspondence which follows in connection with the course. The administrative service which the department renders for the sake of study, must be of such a nature that it serves the broad interests of the general prison population, and to meet the most basic or urgent needs. For this reason priority is given to the training of illiterate prisoners and after that, in sequence or order of preference: scholastic studies and studies for degrees.

In the choice of fields of study and of subjects, prisoners are assisted with expert advice. Use is made of data which are obtained on the basis of diagnostic tests. Approval for studies rests with the Commissioner of Prisons, and every individual case is treated on its merits.

Which courses are not permitted? In view of the fact that the scope of the administrative service for the sake of legal studies and postgraduate studies is absolutely out of all proportion to the need for such studies, no prisoner is allowed to follow such fields of study. These set students such high requirements that they bring about a total disruption of prison procedure and cannot effectively fit in with the prison routine. Apart from that, post-graduate study principally requires independent research which cannot in the nature of things, be carried out in prison. One cannot really deny that individual prisoners are prejudiced by this policy. It is, however, unavoidable. At the same time, one must bear in mind that crime in general has adverse consequences and that the prisoner as the offender cannot be entirely excused for the commission of the crime without condoning the commission of the crime.

It may also be asked—with justification— what concessions are being made to students in prison. When registered students apply for the extension of study-time and this is granted, their lights may remain on longer at night. For every question paper which a student has to answer, he can be exempted from work during the previous day with a view to preparation for the examination.

As regards the change in the policy regarding security prisoners, the decision has been taken with due consideration of prisons regulation 109. This regulation lays down that in a case where the Commissioner is of the opinion that a lack of qualifications is a contributory factor to the fact that the prisoner’s lapse into crime, such a prisoner shall be encouraged to study. This regulation therefore has rehabilitation as its object. But experience demonstrates every day, that with this type of prisoner, there is no question of rehabilitation. Against the background of the type of offence, it is clear that these prisoners do not fall under the provisions of the regulation concerned in order to qualify for such studies.

They abuse their study privileges by using the study material for inflammatory articles, instigation, and smuggling things out of the prison. Fairly recently, such a document somehow found its way to the foreign Press. From an administrative point of view, it requires very many man-hours to check the study material, because the prisoners employ various techniques to smuggle out inflammatory documents which, to the ordinary prison staff, are difficult to read. That is the reply to the questions by the hon. member for Houghton in connection with this.

It will not help.

Please note, this does not mean that it is alleged that the universities are involved in this smuggling. It merely amounts to this, that the prisoner, under the pretext of working on an assignment, sits in his cell and compiles codified documents to be smuggled out. The actual assignment is neatly prepared and submitted for censoring, while the unlawful document is carefully hidden and smuggled out later in spite of the strict preventive measures.

The main argument which the hon. member for Houghton raised for the retention of post-school studies—especially in this prison—is that of intellectual stimulation. But formal post-school studies are not the only means of inducing intellectual stimulation. Good library facilities are at their disposal, and these facilities are constantly being expanded. In the light of the abuse of study concessions, it is difficult to accept her reasons.

Against this background, one must indisputably conclude that the department has a clean record in connection with the study facilities which are made available to prisoners. Does the PFP also agree with this? This conduct and approach on the part of the department can be measured against the highest standards of any country in Western civilization, and the department will pass the test with flying colours. Will the PFP ever concede that?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the Commissioner and his staff for the informative and complete report they have submitted to us. I should like to refer to page 19 of this report and the table “Prisoners admitted during the period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977”. Under head (1) mention is made of awaiting trial prisoners. It is indicated that during this period, 247 517 awaiting trial prisoners were detained in prisons. The figure for the period ended 30 June 1973 was 268 487. In other words, if a comparison is drawn between the two periods, there has in fact been a decrease in the number of awaiting trial prisoners in detention. If, as a legal practitioner, one observes from day to day the number of persons under arrest or in detention at police stations, one realizes what a large number of persons have to appear in our courts every day as persons under arrest. That, however, is not the fault of the Department of Prisons. But one feels nevertheless that it is an aspect which deserves attention. My interest in this matter was stimulated more particularly by the booklet Suid-Afrikaanse Strafstelsel by a certain Mr. Graser. I refer to page 6 and the heading “Die vermindering van verhoorafwagtendes en die bespoediging van verhore”. I quote—

The logical conclusion to be drawn from this, is that during that particular year, there were 184 453 persons who either did not get prison sentences—in other words, their offences were of such a nature that imprisonment was not imposed—or were found not guilty and discharged. It is a vast number of people who are detained in our prisons every year as awaiting trial prisoners. Although there are no comparable figures for the particular year in this connection, this means, in the first place, enormous expenditure for the Department of Prisons to accommodate such a vast number of people who are inmates of our prisons, but who do not, judging from the court verdicts, deserve imprisonment. In the second place, the question arises, and one wants to address an appeal to presiding officers and also to police officials—this is not intended as criticism of the Department of Prisons—to be circumspect in exercising their discretionary powers so as to ensure that persons who are awaiting trial, are not unnecessarily brought to court under arrest or detained in prisons. In this respect, a very large number of manhours are lost.

This, however, is not the subject I want to discuss today. I should like to express a few ideas on the matter of the rehabilitation of prisoners and on what is being done in our prisons for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Rehabilitation is regarded as the latest development in our penal system. This, however, is not altogether correct, because in the past rehabilitation has always been an implicit objective in the matter of imposing punishment. However, this notion developed mainly during the twentieth century, especially as a result of pressure from humanitarian groups. In the past, the emphasis was placed on the safe custody and the elementary physical needs of the prisoner. I want to make bold to say that today, however, the emphasis is on uplifting of prisoners by means of treatment. To be more specific, the expert in the human sciences has been brought to the prison and he endeavours to ascertain the cause of crime; he tries to assist the prisoner.

I just want to refer once more to the book by Graser for a moment. On the very first page of that book reference is made to a paper read by Brig. Dr. J. P. Roux, the head at the time of the Division of Psychological Services of the Department of Prisons, at the National Criminological Symposium on the Prevention of Crime at Unisa in August 1973. He said on that occasion, “In spite of the facilities, staff and programmes, the prison is the last place for treatment and rehabilitation”. He also endorsed the statement by Gen. P. G. Van Aard, the then Deputy Commissioner of Prisons who said, “I agree that the Department of Prisons is the most undesirable place imaginable for rehabilitating a prisoner; one can rehabilitate a prisoner much more easily outside the prison.” These are important words and they impose a very serious and major task on the presiding officers in our courts. We realize that the presiding officers do devote a great deal of attention today to the matter of imposing punishment. I feel, however, that the matter should receive even more attention and that the imposition of imprisonment should be used only as a last resort.

The task of the Department of Prisons in respect of rehabilitation is really handled in all respects by the Specialized Services Division. Once again I wish to thank the department, and especially the Commissioner, for the detailed exposition given in this regard on pages 8, et seq. of the report. The people attracted to the Specialized Services Division devote attention to understanding for the criminal. They try to understand why that person is unable to adjust to the rules laid down by society. Why does he behave in an unacceptable manner? After a penetrating study has been made of the particular prisoner and of all his problems, it is decided what advice to give to him so as to assist him. If he is one of the hardened prisoners who are incorrigible, he is taught to face up to the reality of his imprisonment. To realize the nature of a person’s problem—even as a prisoner—is very important. If one enters a doctor’s consulting room because one is concerned about a feeling of illness, the doctor will tell one what one’s problem is, and one at least has peace of mind when one leaves his room, because one knows what one’s problem is. The effect will be the same for a prisoner if he can ascertain the true nature of his problem. Then he, too, will experience a feeling of relief. The object of prisons, as far as rehabilitation is concerned, is set out in section 2 of the Act concerned. It defines rehabilitation as follows—

To succeed in this aim, the Department of Prisons applies specialized treatment. That is done in three different ways. Firstly, it is done by means of social work. Secondly, it is done by means of psychological services and, thirdly, by means of educational services.

To pay full tribute to these people for the enormous task they are performing in this regard, is impossible in the time at my disposal. However, I should like to refer in brief to the Division of Social Work. In that division prisoners receive, attention on the basis of the principles and techniques of social work, and group work techniques are employed as well as work projects in which individuals are involved. The prisoner must be taught to accept the sentence which has been imposed on him, to utilize it to his best advantage while he is in prison, and to adjust to his sentence. Unless he obtains that measure of peace of mind, this cannot succeed. In this respect, the department is doing wonderful work. Other essential problems to which attention is given, are the problems which the prisoner may experience after his discharge: The adjustments he will have to make, the approach of his family to his problems after his discharge, the problem of finding employment as well as accommodation for him, his conditions of parole, and also regular recommendations by the department to the Prisons Board in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the position of inmates of prisons in South Africa is most certainly one of the most vital factors affecting the international image of this country. There is no doubt that the treatment of prisoners could provide our critics with very useful ammunition, and yet it could, on the other hand, provide our friends and ourselves with the proof that our standards of civilization extend fully, even to those unfortunately people who have been convicted of crimes in this country. Inside this country it is important, in my view, that people’s minds should be at rest about the way prisoners are treated and rehabilitated in the prisons of our country. It is indeed difficult for those involved to maintain normal standards of decency and humanity in the circumstances in which they have to perform their task. I have great sympathy for them when one considers that they have to spend a lifetime in the company of anti-social elements, people who have in some instances almost become part of a subculture of criminal behaviour. Many of the prison staff, by virtue of the fact that they have to live on prison premises, associate themselves in their spare time virtually solely, or to a very large extent, with fellow members of the prison service who have to labour under the same depressing circumstances in this very depressing work environment. If, in spite of these factors, a high standard of the treatment of prisoners can be maintained, it must be a source of satisfaction to every South African. Therefore I consider it most important that the facts and the circumstances of our prison service must be made known. Public knowledge of these matters is not only a positive element in public relations; it also affords the public the opportunity to scrutinize the conduct of a department of which little is known, but which should be the concern of all.

On 25 April of last year a party of journalists was given the opportunity of visiting the Robben Island prison. The effect that this visit had on the status and on the reputation of the prisons service in South Africa was remarkable and I believe that is clear to everybody. I would like to ask, however, as Rapport did on 1 May 1977, thus shortly after the visit: “Waarom nou eers?”

*Why was it necessary to allow rumours about what happens on Robben Island to spread like wild-fire before the obvious solution was applied by taking a group of journalists to Robben Island?

We just have to keep Helen away from there.

The fact that these journalists were not allowed to talk to the prisoners, can perhaps be criticized, but in general the effort was successful and very necessary. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister, in consequence of this highly successful operation, to expose the prison system to a much greater extent to the searchlight of public interest and public opinion. There are provisions in the South African Statute Book which are, in my opinion, of no value in terms of security. As a result of the restrictive nature of certain of the provisions, the impression is, however, created that there is something to hide and that in turn creates unnecessary rumours. Reconsideration simply must be given to these provisions and also to the prevailing attitude that such a visit to a prison should be a highly exceptional event. I again refer hon. members to what Rapport had to say about this on 1 May 1977. I quote—

Then this very important statement follows—

There are many countries that allow journalists and members of the public to visit prisons. Even Israel, which is perhaps in a similar position to ours and, from the point of view of internal security, is in an even worse position than we are, allows such visits. In my opinion the change in attitude should be brought about by means of amendments to the law as well as by means of departmental instructions, so that it can be possible for many more people to visit our prisons that is the case at present. This is a guaranteed way of ensuring that on the one hand credit is given where credit is due and that, on the other hand, incorrect action can be exposed more easily. There are a few black sheep in every department; we accept that, because it is human. When there is excessive secrecy about the activities of any department, every member of that department suffers as a result of the activities of the few staff members who have transgressed.

It could be argued that our prison service may be inconvenienced by the wave of visitors that may result, but I want to express the opinion that that should not be the case at all. In my opinion there will probably be very little difference in the number of visitors visiting prisons in South Africa. The mere fact that visitors are known to be welcome at all times, but within reasonable limits, at South African prisons, will bring reassurance, will prevent unfounded rumours and will contribute to the speedy resolution of problems that do exist. If the hon. the Minister heeds this appeal, I cannot say with certainty that it will make any difference to the position of the prisoners themselves, but I will be prepared to say with complete certainty that it will make a big difference to the status and the reputation of the Prisons Service in South Africa. The Prisons Service even has a high-ranking official in charge of public relations, who liaises with the Press and the public in general. The best form of good public relations and the best advertisement for the workings of a State department can never have the effect which the opportunity for and exposure to public criticism affords such a department. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider following up this successful exercise in respect of Robben Island. The hon. the Minister has to concede that the attitude he displayed in respect of Robben Island was the correct one, and he should adopt that approach with regard to all prisons in South Africa so that visitors are allowed on a larger scale.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point mentioned the visit of a group of journalists to the prison on Robben Island. It is true that this visit resulted in a great deal of positive reporting. But that the reaction which followed this visit, was altogether positive and favourable and that the image that was created was altogether a good one, is very far removed from the truth. Especially when one reads the newsletters of Amnesty International and of other organizations, one sees that not much mention was made of this visit and that all of a sudden, much more emphasis is being placed on conditions at security prisons. Time and again, there is a new search for a stick or a whip with which to beat us, and the hon. member for Green Point should not be too gullible in this regard.

Reference has also been made to conditions in South African prisons. I just want to read out to the Committee one or two paragraphs from an article which appeared in the Washington Post of 13 March 1977. The report is on a visit which a reporter of this paper, a certain Hal Bernton, paid to a prison in Mississippi. Under the heading “Life behind bars in America”, one reads—

For the stark truth is that conditions are intolerable in all too many American prisons. The guards often contribute to the abuse rather than protect the prisoners from it.

Another paragraph reads—

I am quoting this report simply to illustrate to hon. members that these conditions prevail in America, which probably is the model state of the Western World. It is a difficult situation. By saying this, I do not want to condone the allegedly poor conditions in South African prisons. I just want to indicate that this is a problem with which people are struggling throughout the world.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke of the high prison population in South Africa. If one sees the number of prisoners as a percentage of the total population, it is true that we do have a particularly high prison population in South Africa. In the first place this may possibly be attributable to a lower standard of living and possibly to inadequate knowledge, things which go hand in hand with the large Black population of South Africa. Other people, including hon. members of the Official Opposition, want to make out that this is attributable to the strict security legislation which forces people into our prisons.

I do not want to tire hon. members with many details, but I have obtained statistics from year books of the USA and New Zealand, and also from information documents which are available in South Africa. An analysis of these statistics indicates that the non-Whites in South Africa comprise 84% of the total population, whereas they comprise 94% of the prison population. But in the USA, where the Negro group comprises only 11% of the population, they comprise 43% of the prison population. In New Zealand, where the Maoris represent 8,2% of the population, they represent 35% of the prison population. Therefore, on the face of things, it would appear that the Black man in South Africa is more law-abiding than his counterpart in the other countries. However, if one compares the actual population figures in respect of this group with the prison population figures, the situation is somewhat alarming. In the USA, there are approximately 345 Negroes per 100 000 in prison. In New Zealand, 342 per 100 000 Maoris; and in South Africa, 346 per 100 000 non-Whites. These are figures which compare fairly favourably on a few points with one another. As regards the position in respect of Whites, however, what these figures amount to in short is that proportionately South Africa has approximately twice as many Whites in prisons as have the USA and New Zealand. I think this matter requires further study.

I should like to touch on another matter: The question of assaults on prisoners. The general policy is that assaults, no matter how slight, on prisoners may not be tolerated at all. I understand that at present all complaints are referred to the police for investigation.

Even in cases where the police decide not to institute prosecutions, a departmental inquiry is held and further action is taken on the basis of the findings. If it is found that a member of the Prison Service has committed an assault on a prisoner, then, if the assault is of a serious nature, this results in the resignation or, failing that, the discharge of that official. During the period of one year from 1 April 1977 to 31 March 1978, 972 charges of assault were laid. The figure sounds alarmingly high; what it amounts to is virtually one out of 100 prisoners laid a charge. But if one keeps in mind that the same prisoner often lays more than one charge, the picture changes somewhat. Out of the 123 cases in respect of what the police took action, there were only 17 convictions. Out of 298 cases in respect of which departmental inquiries were held, there were 139 convictions, and suitable steps were taken. It appears, therefore, that most of the charges were unfounded.

What is the cause of this? I think the problem today is that the type of prisoner we find in our prisons to an increasing extent is intent on making life as unpleasant and as unbearable as possible for the members of the Prison Service. They are subjected to verbal abuse and foul language and they are provoked and defied and their patience is tried to the utmost. One wonders why every warder does not simply go for the prisoner concerned at the slightest provocation. The answer is to be found in the annual report. I quote from page —

I also refer to page 4 of the report which emphasizes the matter of attitude—

When one looks at the turnover of staff, and specifically at the loss of staff which totalled 200 in the year covered by the report as against 47 in the previous year—especially at a time when there is unemployment, or, in any event, fewer employment opportunities— one comes to a realization of the nature of the problems. On page 3 of the report, reference is also made to the growing demands being made on members as a result of the type of prisoner one has today.

My message to the members of the Prison Service is that all of them are members of a team doing rehabilitation work. This is a service of love. They will be provoked and defied. They will often feel like losing their tempers, but they must remember that they are children of our Lord Jesus and that they should act as His children. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg clearly made a study of the matter in order to discuss it, and his speech was an illuminating one. We all appreciated his speech.

When one considers the prisons and the prison department, the question arises as to whether justice is done to the places of detention and the staff of the department, and whether account is taken of the offences committed and the causes of these crimes, etc. It is a very interesting matter to investigate. It is of course important to bear in mind that the spiritual strength and preparedness of a people, too, is reflected in its prison population.

I want to make a few statements just to remind us of what we are dealing with. In the first instance, there are two basic types of prisoner that one encounters in daily life. There are those who have stumbled and those who are fallen. Those who have stumbled always call to my mind the comparison with a sheep: A sheep falls in the mud. He is not there because he wants to be there. He falls in the mud and he is hauled out again. A pig, however, lies in the mud because he wants to be there. What is wrong, and what is bad, is what he likes to do. One should look at these things, too, in that light. The figures in the report give rise to concern about the large number of short-term detainees in prison. In general, it seems to me that these people are the sheep, those people for whom we ought all to have sympathy. Khalil Gibran said in Die Profeet—

He went on to say—

That, then, is why it is necessary, in the implementation of punishment—because punishment cannot uplift a person—that one idea should always be at the forefront: The facet of rehabilitation, rather than the retribution or revenge facet of punishment. It should therefore be rehabilitation orientated rather than retribution orientated.

I want to congratulate Gen. Du Preez on a fine report, a brief and concise report. It is an illuminating report which contains a number of suggestions. It is with a deep sense of gratitude that one takes cognizance of the work done by the members of the prison service. It is with the same gratitude that one takes cognizance of the work being done by outside bodies, for example the Department of Social Welfare and its staff of social workers, and so on.

However, two matters giving rise to concern are apparent from the report. In the first place, the figures reflect an increase in crime. This is backed by the increase in the prison population. The second major problem is the high staff turnover in the Prison Department. Apart from the fact that there is a shortage of warders, the age level of prison staff is extremely low. Consequently this matter demands the very urgent attention of the hon. the Minister. The position of the warder must be looked at in depth. People do not realize that what warders are in fact working with are—if I may put it in these terms—the failures of the parent, of the school, of the church and of the community. That is what they are working with. The prison staff must be experienced, and they must be trained to do their work.

It is evident from the report that despite the economic climate and growing unemployment, during the year under discussion there was a constant shortage of applicants for employment in the prison service. Moreover, young members of staff do not possess the necessary experience to deal with the more mature and experienced prisoners. Here I have in mind the hardened criminals, the criminals on whom nothing has any effect, the criminals who form gangs, even in prison. I refer for example to the Big Five, to the Twenty-sevens and to the Twenty-eights. These are the people who are entrusted to these inexperienced or immature warders, as one is tempted to call them. I believe that this must be a tremendous task.

Every gang has its own specific aims, for example smuggling, which is something in which homosexuality also plays a major role. Another aim is the undermining of fellow prisoners by way of intimidation and assault, and by sly means they go about intentionally bringing certain fellow prisoners and members of the prison staff into discredit among the authorities. Warders must therefore possess the power of discrimination, which is by no means easy. Furthermore, the prison gangs work underground and often they are not even identified. Then, too, the gangs are also geared to encourage and achieve escapes from prison.

There will have to be an in-depth investigation into the position of the warder. Improved conditions of service will have to be considered. Improved promotion opportunities, too, will have to be considered in order to attract more people to the prison service. The possibility of an opportunity for warders to write an external examination with a view to the acquisition of a diploma or certificate to serve as an incentive should also be looked into. Something drastic will undoubtedly have to be done in order to achieve a greater degree of recognition of the prison staff by the community. In this particular regard the radio and the Press—all communications media, in fact—can be utilized in a major effort to alleviate the situation.

A great deal of attention will also have to be given to detainees. Prevention is better than cure and consequently there will have to be a closer link between the department and other departments or bodies concerned with crime prevention. The community will have to be moved to play its part in the prevention of crime. There will have to be a greater community involvement in the prevention of crime. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting and positive debate. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who took part. There does not seem to be much wrong with this department because I think only three Opposition spokesmen took part in the debate. One can assume that it was because there was nothing really to complain about that more of them did not take part in the debate.

No, it is because we did not have time.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my thanks and appreciation in public to the Commissioner of Prisons and to all the members of staff involved in this major service to our community. I can give the assurance that with a commissioner who grew up in the prison service, I have very few problems in the service. Indeed, the more I deal with these people, the more aware I become of the quality of the warders and those concerned with the prison service.

Looking at the rehabilitation schemes on which the department is engaged, one realizes with what profound insight and knowledge they do this work. Considering the psychologists we use and the research carried out in the field of the human psyche, and our clergymen and their helpers, who have rendered a service to us throughout the year, one can only feel very proud of what is being done in the department. I am very grateful to be able to say that wherever prisons are situated, the communities in question are always highly satisfied with the people who come to their area because they are all studying people. They are all people studying for degrees. Moreover, it is also true that they are all people who are well disciplined. When one considers the few problems we do sometimes experience, one has to concede that relatively speaking they are totally insignificant. I do not know what the situation is in other countries, but I can give you the assurance, particularly when I look at the reports by the international Red Cross, that I am filled with pride when I read the reports.

Recently I have again received reports about detainees detained in terms of section 10. If there are hon. members of the Opposition who would like to take a look at the reports, they are welcome to come and do so. They are free to do so at any time.

Are you now referring to the ones by the Red Cross?

Yes, they are the Red Cross reports.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me whether prisoners detained in connection with offences relating to dagga could be released on parole. The reply is that this can in fact be done. When the new Act comes into operation we shall do this on a larger scale.

She also put questions relating to postgraduate study by detainees on Robben Island. Unfortunately, over the years these people have proved to us that they are not susceptible to rehabilitation. The whole idea behind study is that it should in fact be an effort to rehabilitate. We have found that some of these people abuse the opportunities they have had, the opportunities we have given them. They use the material to send each other all kinds of messages. They obtain study material and can sit there and work, but they sit and write blatant agitation literature to each other, and send it to each other or smuggle it out. In any event, this eventually caused such an untenable situation that we had no choice but to deprive them of this privilege. They therefore have only themselves to blame for this. I do not want to have an argument about this. It is a matter we considered very carefully. From an administrative viewpoint we cannot set aside so many people to go through this mass of work to check whether messages and so on are not perhaps being sent.

But they cannot all have abused this, surely.

We took a decision in this connection because these people were not susceptible to rehabilitation. We found that in most cases, people who were sentenced in terms of the Terrorism Act studied in detention and were later released and later simply went on with their terrorist activities. Some of them are back on the island. They are people who acquired their learning there and abused that learning to carry on with terrorist activities outside. We simply cannot permit this. No country in the world can permit it.

Punish them all for the sins of a few!

That is why their concession was withdrawn. I am now giving the hon. member the official reason for this.

She also spoke about the number of deaths in the prisons. I have now been given the statistics. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East replied to this point of hers in full. She should go and read it in Hansard, because it did not seem to me that she was listening to the hon. member. He expounded the position in great detail. He furnished her at length with all the reasons I could give her now. The death rate among the prison population is 3,71 per thousand, whereas the latest available figure as regards the death rate among the population of the Republic of South Africa, viz. that for 1976, is as follows: Whites, 8,4 per 1 000; Coloureds, 11,4 per 1 000; Asians, 6,6 per 1 000 and Bantu, 12,0 per 1 000. The hon. member for Houghton will therefore see that with reference to the low death rate in prisons her statement is not entirely correct, because she said that there was a high death rate in prisons. That is simply untrue.

I did not say “higher than the figure for the general population”.

She spoke about the disturbing number of deaths in prisons. She also discussed the right of attorneys to speak to prisoners. I should like to provide the hon. member with the figures. Any statements made to the effect that the department does not wish to allow legal representatives to see prisoners at Robben Island, are contradicted by these statistics. In 1976 we permitted 40 lawyers to see these people concerning legal matters, appeals, disciplinary hearings and so on. In 1977 we allowed 55 lawyers there and to date, viz. up to 30 March 1978, 12 lawyers have already been permitted there. It is therefore apparent that these people are given ample opportunity to see lawyers there. I therefore cannot see what the hon. member is complaining about.

The hon. member for Waterkloof made a very fine speech and said very gratifying things about the officials. He explained how the department worked. In this regard he referred to the department’s farms and to various projects. These are things one has to take into account. Much of the food required is provided on the prison farms by the prison service itself. I want to invite hon. members to come and visit such a prison farm and see what is being done about rehabilitation. As soon as a Black prisoner is released after having learnt to work on a prison farm, he is snatched up and appointed as foreman on a farm. The reason is that he has been properly trained in that type of work. Thus we have various projects in progress to train people. Let me give another example. Some of the prisoners are trained in kitchen work, and as waiters, etc. As soon as they are released, those prisoners are snatched up by the hotels. We are almost unable to keep up with the work of rehabilitation.

The hon. member for Pretoria East referred to the social work we perform in our prisons. He, too, showered us with praise, and one is very grateful for that. He pointed out that the diet of prisoners is duly regulated by the department in accordance with international standards. One need only visit a prison to see that the prisoners do not look badly off at all. On the contrary, as far as that is concerned they look very well.

The hon. member for Umbilo pointed out that the resignation rate among officials is very high. I agree with him on that score. I, too, am sorry that more English-speaking people do not enter the prison service, because it is a good service. The work done is social work. We should be very grateful if more English-speaking persons were to take an interest in this very important work. He also referred to the number of social workers and auxiliary workers we have and said that sound rehabilitation work was being done.

He also referred to the number of escapees. The escapes that occur are not from prisons. It is virtually impossible to escape from prison, although this does in fact occur. For the most part, escapes are achieved by prisoners working outside the prisons, on the farms und at places of that nature. The escape rate is indeed high. In any event, we do our utmost with the staff at our disposal to avert this. Unfortunately, we cannot keep all the prisoners within the prisons. We like to take them out of the prisons so that they, too, can live as ordinary people and work on the land. I do not believe there is any better form of rehabilitation than to have a man work with his hands in the soil. We should not like to put a stop to that. With the manpower available to us, however, it is impossible to prevent all the escapes.

Could the position not be improved by providing adequate supervision?

Well, we do not have the staff for that. We do, however, use the dogs. In fact, we do our utmost under the circumstances to try to stop this. I can tell the hon. member that we are succeeding to a large extent. As I have said, we do not want to put all the prisoners inside. We would like to keep them on the farms to aid in their rehabilitation in this way. This is therefore a risk we must take.

The hon. member also asked me what we intend doing with Robben Island when the prisoners there have been moved elsewhere.

*We surmise that we shall probably be on Robben Island for another five to seven years. Of course, it is not for the Department of Prisons to say what is then to be done with Robben Island. We shall simply have to return the island to the department that will be responsible for it. The Government will have to decide what it wants to do with the island. I know what I should like to see there. There are many millions of sea birds, guinea fowl and other species of bird on Robben Island. There is a vast bird life on Robben Island. Although we battle with water there, they do not have the same problem. A bird gets water where it wants to. I should like to see the houses on Robben Island being left just as they are but restored to serve as a kind of motel. There is a great deal that is of historical value on Robben Island. For example, there is a church there that is more than 100 years old and is still in use. There is also a small mosque built in memory of a person who died in the 17th century. People still come to worship in this little church. All this is very interesting. But I should like to see the existing buildings being developed into a kind of motel so that a limited number of people could go to the island, stay there and take walks on the island. Benches could be provided for that purpose on the island so that elderly people could stroll there in the fresh air or sit and admire the bird life without disturbing the birds. I can give hon. members the assurance that it is an edifying experience to stroll around there and look at the bird life on the island. I think we could develop Robben Island into one of the finest sea-bird parks in the world, and that is what I should like to do with the island. The hon. member for Eshowe discussed privileges as a form of rehabilitation. He also discussed study. For the rest, he made a very illuminating speech. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East also discussed the study facilities and dealt with them very comprehensively. I want to suggest that the hon. member for Houghton read his speech because it is very illuminating. The hon. member for Roodepoort also made a very good speech. He referred to specialized treatment of prisoners. He also spoke about prisoners awaiting trial. He is quite right: The figure is extremely high. In the other two departments—the Department of Justice and Police—we are doing our utmost to reduce the number of prisoners awaiting trial, for example by disposing of court cases as soon as possible so that those charged with offences do not have to wait so long in prison. We also adopt various other methods to reduce these numbers because they are far too high. Prisoners awaiting trial are being kept in prisons too long.

The hon. member must not forget that when a prisoner awaiting trial leaves a prison and returns, he is counted afresh. The hon. member should not therefore forget that the figures he quoted are duplicated because if a prisoner awaiting trial leaves the prison, he is booked out, and when he returns he is booked in again as a new prisoner, although he may have been in the prison the previous day. This of course boosts the figures to an unrealistic level. The hon. member also referred to the three actions: Social work, psychological services and educational services. I want to assure hon. members that they can come and get more details about these aspects of our prison service from me. I shall furnish them with those details with pleasure.

The hon. member for Green Point discussed the journalists who went to Robben Island. We try to take as many journalists to such institutions as we can handle. There were 21 similar visits in the year covered by the previous report. This is of course disruptive. Another problem is that the prisoners themselves, particularly those on Robben Island, do not like it. They adopt the standpoint that they are not circus animals to be stared at. As far as the prison itself is concerned, I welcome visits as far as possible. I have with me letters written by prominent people abroad, inter alia, from New Zealand, Australia and the Netherlands, who speak with the highest praise of the prisons they have visited. Prisons are also visited by judges, and I have a pile of letters of appreciation written to me by judges praising the service, the discipline of the warders and the high quality of the whole administration. I regard such letters as a major compliment. However, I agree with the hon. member, and where possible I shall try to arrange more visits. Furthermore, when Opposition members want to visit a prison, and do not simply want to dash off to Robben Island to speak to Mr. Mandela, I am quite prepared to arrange for them to do so; I shall do so with pleasure. They can come and look at as many prisoners as they wish to, and I want to suggest in particular that they visit one of the big prison farms where horses, game and cattle are kept and where farming activities are carried on on the land. It is a wonderful experience, and I address an open invitation to them in this regard.

And we shall accept it.

The hon. member for Randburg made a very good speech and furnished very interesting statistics in regard to other countries, and hon. members would do well to take another look at his Hansard. I find it illuminating that as far as Black people are concerned, our prison population compares very well pro rata with that overseas. I was also amazed to hear that the number of Whites in our prisons is far higher than that of Whites in other countries. The hon. member also referred to assaults on the prisoners and added that the majority of charges were unfounded. In my opinion the hon. member made a very illuminating speech. The hon. member for Hercules also made a very interesting speech. He referred to gangs such as “The Big Five” and others. The trouble with gangs in prison is that one simply cannot put a stop to them. How are we to guard prisoners in such a way that they are unable to form gangs? It simply happens, and the existence of the gangs is kept a deadly secret. I could take up hours of the time of this House by explaining how assaults by these gangs take place, and hon. members will be amazed to hear what instruments are used for assault in prisons, and the places where these instruments are concealed. It is sometimes impossible to find them. The “Big Five” gang are the people who co-operate with the prison authorities. The “26’s”, 27’s and 28’s” are the homosexual group, the assault group and the intimidation group, respectively. These groups all live and exist within the prison population and I do not believe we shall ever succeed entirely in eliminating this phenomenon. We do our utmost, but it seems to be simply impossible. One will never solve this out completely by implementing discipline in the prison. They do not manage this overseas, either.

The hon. member for Hercules also referred to the high staff turnover in the Department of Prisons, and indicated that crime was on the increase, and pointed out that our staff was inadequate to deal with the situation. We shall give special attention to recruiting. We are doing our utmost in this regard. In my opinion this is a fine service in which to serve and there are 100% housing benefits and a number of other benefits as well. I can definitely recommend the service. However, it is a difficult service; let us not deny that. The hon. member made a very fine contribution by pointing out these problems to us.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider instituting some form of technical training on Robben Island to replace the academic studies that have now been abandoned and, in the second place, is he considering doing away with the difference in food, clothing, etc. between the different racial groups?

Yes, we shall try to provide technical training there. The hon. member for Houghton is probably aware of the workshop we already have there and the fact that people work there every day. A sound workshop has developed there and the people do their work there. As far as the hon. member’s other question is concerned, I just want to say that it is very difficult to do this because in spite of the fact that they say that their eating habits are not different, their eating habits are in fact different. It is a well-known fact that the eating habits of Italians differ from those of Greeks; those of the Greeks from those of the French, those of the French from those of the Germans; those of the Germans from those of the English, etc. Therefore their objections are largely based on the fact that ideologically speaking, they do not want any difference between White, Black and Brown. However, the struggle being waged there is an ideological one. The moment one really gives a prisoner other food, he begins to long for the curry, for example, to which he is accustomed. But we are reducing the differences on Robben Island. Of course, it is also a question of cost. Our budget is also compiled in accordance with the eating patterns of people, and I do not know what cost it would entail if we were to switch overnight. Where possible, and in cases where we are quite sure that the people mean it when they say that they all want the same kind of food, we try to provide the same food. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that we are giving attention to the matter.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 33.—“Public Service Commission”:

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I want to make two announcements at this stage. As already announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance on 10 April 1978, Mr. W. G. Schickerling has been appointed Auditor-General with effect from 1 July 1978. This means, therefore, that Mr. Schickerling will be resigning as a member of the Public Service Commission as from that date. Mr. William Godfrey Schickerling, formerly Secretary for Inland Revenue, was appointed a member of the Public Service Commission with effect from 1 May 1976. Although he has been a member of the commission for just over two years, it can be stated that he has made an active contribution to the achievements of the commission in recent times. He has assisted in laying a firm foundation on which we can build and which holds great promise for the future. I wish Mr. Schickerling every success in his new and very important post of Auditor-General and I want to convey to him my sincere gratitude for his excellent service as a member of the Public Service Commission. I notice that Mr. Schickerling was born at Jagersfontein. In case you do not know it, Mr. Chairman, Jagersfontein is in the Free State! The outgoing Auditor-General happens to come from the Free State too. I just want to state that, in order of importance, the Free State produces good rugby players, good Civil Servants and good politicians … [Interjections.] … and from there they go to other provinces so that Pretoria and Stellenbosch can brag with them eventually.

†I further want to state that Mr. Ellis, the present Secretary for Immigration, has been appointed as a member of the Public Service Commission with effect from 1 July 1978 in the place of Mr. W. G. Schickerling. Mr. Ellis is well acquainted with his new sphere of work as he had previously served in the office of the Public Service Commission on two occasions. However, he has now been appointed to the higher rank of member of the Public Service Commission and I look forward to a further period of continued, sound co-operation with him in his new office.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that the Vote of the Public Service Commission has come under this Committee’s scrutiny in its own right. I think we all welcome the opportunity of devoting specific attention to the affairs of the commission and I hope the debate will prove of value in the public eye and to the commissioners themselves.

Firstly, I should like to say a word about the latest annual report of the commission. This is a weighty document and incorporates a wealth of detail. The report is frank and open in so far as weaknesses are concerned, and in my opinion it pens a clear picture of the activities of the commission. I should like to say that I believe that the compilers of this report are to be complimented on its presentation.

In the few minutes allowed me I can only touch on some of the aspects which I regard as important. In 1974-’75 the staff position in the Public Service plummeted to crisis proportions. Vacancy percentages climbed through the roof. All departments were hit hard, and their efficiency was in many ways radically affected, for instance—by the lack of trained lawyers in the Department of Justice right down to the dearth of extension officers in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. However, in recent months, as jobs have become scarcer and as business has become tighter, the flow back to the Public Service has quickened. This is reflected in nearly all the reports which have been submitted to us so far. It is reflected in the Commission’s own report. During this time the Public Service Commission has not been inactive. Salary structures, allowances, staggered hours and overtime pay have all, within the framework of financial possibility, come under the scrutiny of the commission, have received constant attention and have been subject to regular review. Educational study facilities, bursaries and scholarships have all been made available on an increasing scale. Recruiting has been intensified by means of publicity campaigns, Press articles, films, exhibitions, lectures, publications and numerous other methods. I believe that within the parameters of what has been politically allowable and financially possible the commission has gone a long way to do what could be expected of it.

And yet all is not well. This is clearly stated in the commission’s report. I want to quote from page 33 of the report under the heading “General staff position”—

Losses amongst bursary holders remain high. Resignations, although the number has dropped, are still biting deep into the middle management of the Public Service. Recruitment of qualified staff has and is not coming up to expectations. In short, the Public Service remains vulnerable to the private sector at a time when it should in fact be stronger than ever. There is no final solution to this problem. I believe that in every free country the Public Service of that country is hard put to compete with private enterprise, both in remuneration and in motivated productivity. However, I should like to make four positive suggestions, some of which are drawn from the commission’s report. I believe that if these suggestions are implemented, we would go a fair distance, both in the short-and the long-term, to alleviate the strain.

Firstly, the Government should accept the recommendations of the Public Service Joint Advisory Council that in the determination of commencing salaries, due account must always be taken of higher qualifications. The operative word is “always”. In other words, it should be made especially attractive for outside persons already possessing qualifications to consider the Public Service as a career.

Secondly, the Government should seriously investigate the proposition that the salary of a head of a department be raised on a differentiated basis, thus opening the way to differentiation in departmental structures in certain cases. It would be invidious of me to single out individual departments, and I do not intend doing so. However, I am sure it is clear to the hon. the Minister that departments which demand unique expertise should merit individual attention.

Thirdly, I believe that South Africa is singularly fortunate in its human resources. Policy-makers should realize that the White group cannot continue indefinitely to carry the burden of providing virtually all the diversified skills required to staff a service which is geared to the needs of 25 million people. A great effort must be made now to eliminate completely the salary gap, starting at the professional level, e.g. doctors, etc. This must be done not only percentagewise, but also in real cash terms. Coupled with this, the educational programme for Blacks, for Coloureds and for Indians should be stepped up dramatically. Simultaneously opportunities for advancement to new levels must be opened up. I realize that the first three suggestions that I have made have financial implications, but they do involve implications with which we as legislators will have to grapple if we are to give the commission the means to fulfil their function.

I have a final suggestion to make, i.e. that less work should be referred to the Public Service. Its workload should be reduced, not increased. At a time when the economy is lagging, at a time when it is not at top level, at a time when two homelands have in the past two years taken independence, at a time when departments are being streamlined and are being combined, it has nonetheless been found necessary to increase the Public Service establishment by over 10 000 posts in the same period, i.e. the two-year period. The march towards an even more vast and complex bureaucracy continues to gather pace. With every new piece of legislation which is presented to Parliament provision is made— we see it in every document that comes before us—for a new directorate, a new council, a new inspectorate, a new board of control, a new set of people to administer legislation, and so on. We think of censorship and publications control, agricultural services, environmental measures which we debated earlier this year, social welfare, fund-raising and even tourism which have all added to the welter of work which is required to be performed by the Public Service and which continually adds to the yoke of its over-extended, over-taxed corps of officials. Somewhere along the line this has got to stop. The Public Service Commission cannot influence it. It is a matter for the hon. the Minister and for the Cabinet. In seeking to over-control in every sphere, in seeking to over-legislate for every walk of life, the Government is perpetuating and aggravating a crisis of efficiency, a crisis of productivity and a crisis of staffing which no commission, no matter how resourceful, can overcome.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the speakers on this side I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister in expressing a word of gratitude to Mr. Schickerling for the work done by him on the commission, and, furthermore, in wishing him everything of the best in the new position to which he has been appointed. We know he will use his talents as well in that position. It is also a pleasure for me to welcome Mr. Ellis as a member of the commission. We want to express the hope that he will make his services available to the commission and the very important work it is doing for a very long period of time to good effect. At this stage I just want to mention, too, that we intend saying a few words more later on during the discussion of the Interior Vote about the hon. the Minister who is handling the Interior and the Public Service Commission Votes for the first time. On that occasion I shall also extend a word of welcome to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the NP.

I want to deal briefly with two aspects, firstly, with the merit principle as recognized by the Public Service Commission, and next with the co-ordinating role played by the Public Service Commission in our body politic. The merit principle dates back to the previous century when problems were being experienced in the Indian Colonial Public Service and when too much party-political interference was taking place in the circumstances of that time. The Northcote Travellian Commission was appointed at the time to investigate the matter and the Commission came to the conclusion that the situation called for an impartial body, independent of the normal Public Service set-up, to see to the staffing of the Public Service. Even at that time the principle was confirmed that the best man had to be appointed to each particular post, regard being had, of course, to the demands of each post. From those circumstances the then Civil Service Commission was borne. As the British Empire grew this point of view was extended to its colonies. Consequently we witnessed the revival of that particular principle at that time also in the Cape and in Natal. When the Union of South Africa came into existence in 1910, we obtained a full-fledged Public Service Commission from the fact that this principle had been accepted in the Cape and Natal. The first report of the Public Service Commission was published in 1912.

Subsequently there were two independent commissions, the Graham Commission of 1921 and the Centlivres Commission of the ‘forties which actually reaffirmed that a central staff institution was absolutely essential. So many people so readily criticize either the Public Service or the Public Service Commission. I have found that, the less people know about a particular institution or body, the louder and more superficial is their criticism of that institution or body. That is exactly why I wanted to touch on these few matters. The principle of merit is the only one which can really assure us an effective Public Service. Therefore the Public Service Commission is the instrument created by the House of Assembly to give effect to Government resolutions in the most efficient way. When we take a look at the reports of the Public Service Commission, we find that the commission has never hesitated to oppose the Government of the day when it disagreed with that Government. Over the past 65 years, the Public Service Commission has become versed in the wide spectrum of personnel administration, something which is absolutely essential for the effective functioning of a modern Public Service. For that reason the Public Service Commission is preeminently suited to render certain specialized services aimed at efficient performance. It provides centralized control of the organization of the Public Service and gives advice on working procedures and methods. The control the Public Service Commission has procedures and methods. The control the Public Service Commission has as regards the determination of establishments enables it to recruit staff on behalf of the whole of the Public Service.

The second important aspect to which I want to refer, is the co-ordinating role the Public Service Commission plays in the field of personnel administration in the government sector as a whole. In this regard I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister last year when he opened the congress of the Public Servants’ Association. At the end of this speech he said—

He went on to say—

For that reason I want to associate myself with the co-ordinating role played by the Public Service Commission—in this way I am also associating myself with the hon. the Prime Minister—by saying that there are approximately 200 000 officials in the Public Service today. If one wants to widen this field by including the whole of the personnel corps of all other public sectors as well, there are most probably more than a million people associated with our State machinery. What I want to advocate and state as my point of view today is that we must get away from the idea of wanting to take away certain bodies from the Public Service Commission. In my opinion we should rather strengthen the Public Service Commission in its task. This, however, is a matter on which the Public Service Commission itself is able to take decisions and make recommendations more easily. It is the task of the commission to tell the Government and this House what we can do to assist them with regard to a variety of facets not only to reaffirm the role of the commission, but also to strengthen that role in order to promote their cause.

I want to conclude by saying that I as a Pretorian, as one who lives in a city with many Public Servants, believe that we do not always realize the value and the role of the Public Service and Public Servants in perpetuating good order in Southern Africa. I want to appeal to those people who condemn our Public Servants and our State machinery, and with them the Public Service Commission, so readily, so lightly and so superficially, to be very careful when they come up with this kind of criticism. I personally have great appreciation, not only for the stability created for us by the Public Service, but also for the role played by Public Servants in the broader community life of our country. To give the hon. member for Sandton some food for thought—he is in my opinion little more than a novice when it comes to this kind of thing—I want to tell him that I believe a responsible member ought to reveal insight of a more profound nature into the role and the place of the State machinery. He ought to show much deeper understanding of the problems we are struggling with in South Africa. I notice, Sir, that you are giving me a quick look. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in a moment I shall associate myself to some extent with the remarks made by the hon. member for Rissik, but first of all I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fine annual report of the Public Service Commission which I have in hand and which all hon. members have already received. I believe I may say without any fear of contradiction this afternoon that what we find in this report, is just as fine and neat as the Public Service itself, in fact, as fine and neat as the appearance of the report itself. It is a heart-felt need of mine to congratulate the commission, not only on the work, but also on the fine way in which they have presented that information and have reported on the work of the last year.

If the hon. member for Sandton would have taken the trouble to read the whole report he would, in my opinion, probably not have made the “but” part of his speech. He started off beautifully and I would have been able to associate myself with him as regards the words of gratitude and praise he addressed to the commission. Then, however, he reached the “but” part of his speech. It is very clear to me that he definitely did not take cognizance of everything there is in the report.

When reading through the annual report for a second time one clearly becomes deeply impressed by the mighty State machine: 167 357 posts on the establishment at the end of 1977, an increase of 30 474 on 1972. That is the increase after five years. When one reads this report, one realizes clearly that very special work is being done by the Public Service Commission and the Public Service as a whole.

If it is true that it is the responsibility of the Government to project the image of the country all over the world, it is equally true that the Public Service as such works hand in hand with the Government in projecting that image. Therefore the Government as well as the Public Service has a special responsibility and the one cannot do without the other. Because it is so true that the Public Service has this responsibility, I believe the officials, too, have taken cognizance of, are taking cognizance of and will take cognizance of the fact that this places them in the limelight at all times, not only as far as the outside world is concerned—and some parts of the outside world are somewhat hostile—but also in respect of the people and the country they serve. Unfortunately there is also the odd local bit of hostility, and at times not enough appreciation for the special work that is being done either.

Unfortunately we quite often hear the criticism, too, that the Public Service as such should be last in line when it comes to benefits for its officials, but, on the other hand, as regards service, punctuality, precision, expertise, etc., it should be not only in the lead, but, in fact, quite a few paces ahead of the rest. I think the Public Service and all its officials deserve more praise and gratitude for the special task they perform for a country. Here I am not referring to South Africa only, but since we are discussing our own Public Service, I am mentioning this specifically. I think they deserve it because these people are prepared to do everything for every person in this country regardless of his job or profession. Their services are in the interests of the country and people they serve.

Reading through this report I once again came under the impression that the acceptance of this responsibility by the Public Service Commission and the Public Service as such—this responsibility resting upon the Public Service—is a undeniable truth. I noticed it in this report. What is more, I believe that everything possible is being done not only to maintain the efficiency on all possible levels, but to promote and develop it as well. In order to motivate what I have just said, I want to refer to one particular aspect which is also embodied in this report.

I am referring to the training programme. In spite of a shortage of training staff, the Public Service Commission nevertheless succeeded in offering courses, seminars and lectures to no fewer than 18 677 officials over the past 20 years. In addition, 32 departments have their own training officials who are engaged in training programmes every day so as to enable the department to function more efficiently. I just want to bring a few schemes to the attention of hon. members.

We know there is still a serious shortage of staff with legal qualifications. However, provision is made for officials to study full-time while they are being paid their full salaries. This is handled mainly by the Department of Justice and the Department of Plural Relations. Up to 31 December 1976, 447 persons who had undergone legal training, qualified. Unfortunately, however, only 230 of those people joined the service. That gives us a loss of 26,2%. I shall make a few remarks about that a little later on. There is also the opportunity to do part-time study, and the tutorial fees are paid for the officials from public money while they are engaged in part-time study. During the year covered by the report, i.e. 1976-’77, 272 bursaries for full-time and part-time study in law were awarded. 945 bursary holders are still engaged in their legal studies. Next I want to direct attention to training of a clerical and administrative nature. For this kind of training, too, the tutorial fees for part-time study or for study on a correspondence basis are paid from public money. There are various schemes in respect of technical training and 42 fields of technical study. People are enabled to attend the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. In-service training courses are also offered with the practical situation in mind. They receive their full salaries while doing their training and tutorial fees are also paid from public money. In addition it is important that we take cognizance of the fact that research is also receiving attention. At the behest of the head of the department different people are being afforded the opportunity to engage themselves in research which will ultimately benefit the work which they have to do. At the moment there are 63 of them doing such research. This essential expenditure is also financed from public money.

Then we come to the extremely important aspect of the Public Service bursary scheme. Last year the sum for the duration of a fulltime course, amounted to R1 000 per year. I believe that is still the case. In this regard I should like to request the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that tutorial fees at all universities have been increased, to consider increasing the Public Service bursary of R1 000 to R1 200 or R1 300. I am aware of the fact that finance is always a problem. I am convinced, however, that if we could increase these bursaries it would serve a very useful purpose. R300 per year is also paid for part-time study at a South African university.

Since 1956, when this bursary scheme was introduced, up to 30 June 1977, 11 132 bursaries have been awarded. 5 297 people have completed their studies, but only 4 338 or 81,9% of them have joined the Public Service. I wish to express my serious concern about our having lost 19,1% of these people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if there is a better Public Service than our own in the world, I should like to see it. Therefore, if I discuss two points, I do not intend to criticize. I just want to raise a few ideas. One relates to the merit system—the hon. member for Rissik referred to the background of the merit system. Subsequently I should like to say a few words about the retirement age in the Public Service.

I do not want to sketch the background of the merit system. I merely want to explain its practical application. Officials are evaluated according to certain characteristics. The five most important ones are responsibility, insight, human relations, organizational ability and productivity. Under those headings, marks are awarded which indicate whether a certain official’s performance in this respect is poor, rather poor, satisfactory, noticeably better than satisfactory, much better than satisfactory, or exceptional. In addition to these characteristics, between 20 and 30 other characteristics are listed in the manual. When an official is rated in terms of the merit system, therefore, there could be between 100 and 150 characteristics to be taken into account. How is it implemented in actual practice? In practice the official is expected to keep a file of all his achievements which can be submitted for perusal to the reporting official. The reporting official is supposed to be at least two ranks the senior of such an official. After the reporting official has completed the evaluation on quite a bulky document, it is referred to a regional merit committee where the evaluation is discussed again. It is the duty of the central merit committee to control and confirm the findings of the regional merit committee. Another body which is involved in merit assessment, and which functions on a departmental basis, is the advisory staff committee.

From an outline of the functions of the various committees, it is clear that the system aims at subjecting officials to a thorough merit assessment. I believe this system to be a measure that has greatly contributed to increasing the efficiency and capability of the officials. Because of one’s concern for our Public Service, however, one feels at all times that one wants to keep our Civil Service the best one there is.

I want to ask a few questions in this regard. Firstly, I want to know whether these means—and I do not want to allege that it is the case—have not in many respects become the end for many officials. It is possible that the process of merit assessment has perhaps gone a little too far and I feel that one could reconsider the matter. Coupled with that is the question of costs. The people serving on the central merit committee have to travel from one region to another and one asks oneself whether too much of the officials’ time is not taken up in this way. These people have to fly on their visits to other regions in order to ensure that the standard of merit assessment will be more or less the same.

Looking at this merit system, one also asks oneself: Is the professional officer in the Public Service not perhaps being prejudiced in relation to the official with an aptitude for administration? I can recall cases where five professional officers were submitted to merit assessment, while other professional officers knew how efficiently they did their work.

One of the five who was not so efficient and so knowledgeable in the professional sphere, but who concentrated more on the administrative field, was rated higher than the others. This kind of thing causes ill-feeling among the other professional offices who have perhaps been placed in a lower category. It has in fact led to resignations. I am just asking that we should think about it. As an example I can recall the case of a very capable soil chemist. Are the human relations of such an official all that important? This is one of the questions I am asking. Furthermore, I want to ask whether some administrative officials are not perhaps doing things in the Public Service which bring about a lot of red tape simply because such officials must have something which they can mention in their merit report.

Finally I come to the question of the true leader, the director or the boss. I like a boss. I like somebody who raps me over the knuckles when I do not do my work correctly. I like someone who pays attention to me. In short, I like to have a boss. Yet it seems to me as if a new thing is cropping up here and there. It seems to me as if the boss no longer wants to act as a boss figure, but that he prefers to create a monstrosity which has blown over from America. This is known as “management”. He returns to the officials under his control and tells them that “management” says this and “management” says that, and that man, perhaps because he is not such a good leader, hides behind the word “management”.

As far as the age of retirement is concerned, I wish to quote a short passage from the Public Servant briefly. The passage was written by Mr. Spandau and he has the following to say about the age of retirement—

I quote this fragment—the report is much longer than that—to show that a fixed retirement age may not be desirable. In this regard I immediately subscribe to a motivation given by one of the branches of the Public Servants’ Association for a younger retirement age. They state the following—

A further motivation is—

In other words, the authorities should have the right of an option as regards employment after a particular age, and this age should be fixed at 60.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate Mr. Schickerling on his appointment as Auditor-General and also to add the congratulations of my party. I should like to proceed with my speech by quoting from page 2 of the annual report of the Public Service Commission—

I think that everybody will agree that these are fine and very noble sentiments. It is common knowledge that the NRP and its predecessor, the UP, had on occasions criticized the impartiality of the Public Service Commission, especially in Natal in regard to certain appointments of top civil servants. This is a matter, however, that I should not like to raise today. The matter which I wish to raise today concerns the part which is contributed to the Public Service Commission with regard to the series of scandals that took place in the Department of Information. At the outset I should like to say that I am extremely unhappy about this state of affairs. I in fact owe it to myself to say that I am convinced that the Public Service Commission’s name has been used as a very convenient cover in order to cover up an effective “assassination” of a senior civil servant with an impeccable service record. I am, of course, referring to the enforced retirement of Mr. Waldeck. I use the words “enforced retirement” because it is the only interpretation that I can give in view of Mr. Waldecks’s own statements to the Press. I make bold to say that, but for the fact that Dr. Deneys Rhoodie was caught trying to leave Jan Smuts Airport without declaring his overseas purchases to the Customs officials, both he and Mr. Waldeck would still have been employed by the Department of Information and awaiting the outcome of the investigation of the Public Service Commission into the evaluation of the functions of that department and its general reconstruction. When one analyses the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Information on 3 May 1978, it becomes clear that the Public Service Commission acted as a hatchet man in this regard. What I want to know is why the commission allowed itself to be placed in such a position. As a result of this it is my opinion that—contrary to what is stated on page 2 of the report—there can be doubt about the commission’s impartiality and ability to ensure that fairness and justice will prevail.

*I just want to mention certain aspects in this connection. I want to quote from the statement of the hon. the Minister of Information on 3 May 1978 on the restructuring of the Department of Information. He said, inter alia (Hansard, 3 May 1978, col. 6223)—

The Minister stated further that the Public Service Commission would commence the investigation at once and that it would last several months. Then we come to the bombshell—

The Minister went on to announce the regrading of certain posts and the creation of a new post. This led to the retirement of the said two officials. To rub salt into the wound—and I hold this against the Public Service Commission—the statement concludes with the following words—

If this is the considered opinion of the Public Service Commission, I hold it against them, because there are questions in this connection which have to be answered. On what were these sudden interim changes based? On 21 April we debated this matter and I know that the Select Committee recommended that an investigation be conducted into the management and financial control of the department. In the course of this debate it was said that an inspector had conducted an investigation at the request of the Department of Information. The hon. the Minister of Information said the following (Hansard, 21 April 1978, col. 5334)—

This change—which I regard as a drastic one—was effected before the in-depth investigation which still had to be approved by the Cabinet, took place. All that could have happened, was an investigation in the light of the Select Committee’s recommendation and the statement of the hon. Minister in that regard on 21 April. I am of the opinion that it was felt that Dr. Deneys Rhoodie, after his unorthodox escapades at Jan Smuts Airport, could no longer remain in his post. Up to that stage the Public Service Commission quite happily allowed things to be done in its name and with its approval, and as a result of that a situation has arisen where one finds it difficult to believe that the Commission is still maintaining its objectives, i.e. to be impartial and to see to it that justice prevails.

†I should also like to raise some other urgent matters with the hon. the Minister. Chaos, confusion and great inconvenience have been caused in all provinces in respect of the salaries of teachers in promotion posts. We find that some people have to pay back up to R450 and R500. I cannot believe that the administrative departments of three provinces could have made the same mistake. All of this came about because of an ambiguous circular or statement which was forwarded to the provinces. As a result of this, as I have mentioned, teachers have to pay money back. The department in the Cape Province also did not pay these teachers the correct amounts. They interpreted the circular in such a way that they started paying teachers too little. The view of the NRP is once again clearly that teachers should be separated from the Public Service Commission. However, I do not want to discuss that particular problem. I want to ask the department to take greater care when it issues instructions.

*I want to refer to another aspect as well. In Rapport of 14 May 1978 a report was published under the heading “Skuiwergat kan Staat duisende kos”. I quote—

The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development and his predecessor made certain promises. I quote again—

As a result of this such a person would have to retire with a golden handshake as though his post had been abolished in consequence of this reorganization. I believe that this is an aspect which the Public Service Commission should investigate. I do not have further particulars at my disposal. I think that this will result in an untenable situation, apart from the promises that were made. One has to judge such a situation on its merits. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the remarks which the hon. member for Sandton made about what he called the “vast bureaucracy in South Africa”. It is true that the mere idea of a bureaucracy, i.e. officialdom, expanding out of proportion in any capitalist, free enterprise country, is a source of concern. I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that we on this side of the House, believing as we do in a system of free enterprise and a free capitalist system, are also concerned about any possibility of too great an increase in the size of the Government machine, which can also be called the bureaucracy. If we look at the growth of officialdom from 1973 to 1977 in a few facets of the economy, most of us are concerned in many respects about the growth of our government machine, corporations and various other governing bodies. In the period 1972 to 1977, the number of people employed by the central Government increased by 21,7%; by the provincial authorities, 17,1%; by the Post Office, 18,4%; by public corporations, 45,2%; and by miscellaneous statutory bodies, approximately 25%, in comparison with a staff increase of 12,2% in the private sector.

Since we are talking about the central Government machine as such, I should like to pay tribute on this occasion to the Public Service Commission in their efforts to streamline the Government machine as much as possible with a view to conserving manpower and leaving as much of the Government’s work as possible in the hands of the private sector.

I want to refer to one element which I should like to underline emphatically by way of a question to the hon. the Minister. I think it is vitally important in a complex South Africa, with its diversity of nations and a large number of people at a stage of relative under-development, that every one of us, and therefore the public servant in particular, should himself in the role of an economic entity. This means that every civil servant, no matter what part he may play in the Government machine, must adopt as his philosophy of life the fact that he should be part of a system in which he and his department generate, rather than batten on, Government money and time. I think that if we apply this slogan for the Government machine to ourselves, viz. to generate instead of battening, we shall have come a long way. Time will not allow me to quote practical examples, but I am totally convinced that there are many people employed by our Government machine who do not quite realize how our economic system works. On one occasion I had the dubious pleasure of sitting in a Government office talking to a man about some matters concerning the business world. The remarks he made then, were to the effect that the people in the business world—the industrialists and the traders—had been making too much money, too long and too easily. I received the impression that this specific person, who is in a fairly senior position, adopts the premise that the money is minted at the South African Mint and goes directly to the Reserve Bank and from there is given to him.

I think it is vitally important for us to tell every public servant and every individual in South Africa that we are all part of a system in which we must help our economy to grow and develop, in which each one of us must help to make a contribution towards making the economy run more smoothly, quickly and better, so that we can have more industries and business enterprises that can make money from which the Government can receive more tax. The Government, in turn, can use that tax to make the economy grow further and more strongly to the salvation and advantage of all of us in South Africa.

I am absolutely convinced that if there is one place in the world where any form of bureaucracy, i.e. any form of oversized Government machine, will be catastrophic, it will be in this same complex Southern Africa, here where we are struggling and battling to make a mass of people part of a free capitalist system. I am convinced that the people in our Government machine can play a tremendously important role in this process of making our economy develop more rapidly, better and more quickly.

I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible in training our corps of officials, to emphasize the fact strongly that every official in the Public Service, no matter which department he works in, should follow a basic, elementary orientation course, or an in-depth course in economy for those who want to do so, as part of their orientation and training, so that he can know precisely what is going on. If we look at the tremendous amount of money, viz. R9 621 million, which was voted for Government expenditure in our budget this year, it is necessary for everyone who deals with the expenditure of that money, to know how vital it is for every cent of that money to be well spent.

There is something else, too, which I should like to ask of the hon. the Minister, something which is absolutely essential and to which the hon. member for Sandton has also referred: Beginning with the Government machine, can we not finally and irrevocably get rid of the concept of the wage gap? If there is one concept in South Africa which arouses feeling amongst the Black people, it is this one. If there is one concept in South Africa which we must put into perspective, it is the wage gap, because if we were to equalise all wages, it would lead to the final and irrevocable collapse of this country.

I should like to pay tribute to the Public Service Commission for being the pioneers in many respects by making an effort to bring the starting salary of the Blacks as close as possible to the scales of the Whites by means of key scales, and from then on to pay people according to the work they do. I want to ask that we should eliminate the words “wage gap” entirely from our governmental terminology, and that in contrast to the concept of wage gap, we should adopt the concept of equal pay for equal work, regardless of race of colour. None of us in this country is at all concerned about a Black or Coloured official, or a technical or professional man, receiving the same salary for the same work.

I am deeply concerned about something else, viz. our high standard of living and I say this with great respect, because it applies to our Government machine too. If we take an honest, sober look at South Africa’s economy and the future we must admit that in many respects, we as Whites, as well as officials concerned with the Government machine, are maintaining a salary and standard of living which our economy will not be able to afford forever. Now I have this big problem. Whilst, due to historical and other reasons—unfortunately time does not allow me to go into them extensively—we can show precisely why we have reached this situation, we are now trying to equate masses of Black and Coloured people, as far as wages are concerned, with Whites, whose services were previously in demand and who were paid very high salaries. After all, economically speaking, this is relatively unattainable. I know this is an emotional matter, a matter which one could debate for a long time. It is not a matter which can be thrashed out fully within a few minutes. As far as the wage gap is concerned, I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister specifically to do everything possible—beginning with the Public Service—to get rid of the concept of the wage gap entirely and to do the right thing by every person, every Public Servant, according to his working contribution. However, this can only be implemented in so far as it is within the financial capacity of the State.

The image of the Public Service is often discussed, and in conclusion I should like to express one idea about it. I think that one of the reasons why we experience so many problems in our Public Service, is the fact that on the lower levels we are struggling to attract suitable people to the Public Service and to keep them there. With the new dispensation in regard to salary structures, I think that in many respects we have found a solution, viz. by paying high salaries to the employees at the higher levels and in this way also being able to hold out attractive possibilities for the future to the younger people who join the Public Service. I think it is very important to staff the Public Service with outstanding, young and competent people from the lower echelons upwards. In that respect I believe the new dispensation, with higher salaries for the top people, is something which affords an excellent opportunity, excellent possibilities to our young people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in recent weeks the Public Service Administration has been placed squarely in the limelight during the debate on the Department of Information in this House. That debate has been disposed of and we do not want to say any more about it tonight. In the light of that I feel it is nevertheless as well that we should exchange a few ideas about the Public Service in general.

My question is whether we should not take another look at the whole set-up. We have heard about rules and regulations which have a restrictive effect on the activities of the Department of Information. This is the subject of an investigation at the moment. However, should there be restrictive factors present in the Department of Information, hindrances which prevent the streamlining of the activities of that department, we can ask whether this does not apply to other departments too, departments which are as much in the front line as is the Department of Information. If these allegations are true, if the investigation proves that rules and regulations hampered the Department of Information in its activities, we ask: What, then, about the other Government departments?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Public Service Commission to take an urgent look at this matter, to see whether there is not any deadwood which should be cut out. No special investigation is required for this. It can be done in the ordinary, ongoing process of investigation by the Public Service Commission. Why am I asking this? We are heading for a storm. We must see to it that our Government machine as a whole—every facet of it—is well-oiled and fully streamlined and prepared, with a view to the greater demands which will be made of us in the future.

South Africa is involved in a struggle for survival. Many of our departments and our officials are in the midst of this struggle. It is they who have to implement Government decisions which may sometimes be very difficult and demanding. It is they who will be singed by the fire first, and who are going to have to face increasing demands. More and more they will be pushed into the firing line for South Africa. Many of them are already far beyond our borders, where they have to endure the buffeting for South Africa’s sake. In difficult, uncertain times such as those we are experiencing now, a strong, disciplined Public Service is an important factor with which to afford a country stability and preparedness. We are very fortunate in having such a public service and such officials that we can trust in times like these, and on whom we can depend in all respects. Our hon. Prime Minister put it very well on one occasion when he spoke about our Public Service. I just want to quote one paragraph of what he said—

This is what the Prime Minister said about our officials. In the light of this I want to ask the people of South Africa this evening: Stop your jokes about the Public Service and the Public Servants. Stop making disparaging remarks and vague generalizations. Stop the accusations about bureaucracy and red tape. Do not slander people who cannot defend themselves. These allegations are for the most part untrue and undeserved. They undermine and they hurt. They harm the image of a very important and very fine service. They deter able people who may have intended joining that service. It is true that it has become an international sport to criticize the so-called bureaucracy and to mock red tape. The American author, Kroeger, says the following about Public Servants—

This is a very unfriendly, warped image of Public Servants, and of course we do not agree with it, because it is not nearly so bad here.

Of course, not all the people in our Public Service are angels, but in the modern Public Service of South Africa, our officials are no longer the old bunglers, as they are sometimes represented. These people are set high entrance qualifications. That is why South Africa can boast of a top cadre in its Public Service of which 86% have post-Matric qualifications, while many have post-graduate qualifications. A modern Government is one of the most complicated organizational activities in which one can become involved. The expert Frederick Malek has the following to say about Government—

That is why one needs well qualified, knowledgeable people in one’s Public Service. South Africa is lucky to have such people in its service.

Public administration becomes more complicated by the day, and nowhere is it more complicated than here in South Africa with its delicate race structure. Very often the success of a policy depends on the way in which it is implemented. It is here that the Public Servant plays such an important and key role. That is why we should only have the very best officials, people of good discretion who have a feeling for good human relations.

Now I come to a final point. There is one stick with which the Public Service is always being beaten, and that stick is red tape, official cumbersomeness—call it what you will. It is said that red tape is a needless drag which slows down the tempo of the Public Service unnecessarily. The Public Service does move more slowly than the private sector, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Government machine as a public institution is much more exposed to criticism and for that reason it must act much more circumspectly because the action of an official can influence the lives of many people, because he may cause embarrassment for the Government of the day and because he may even implicate his country. That is why officials must be so much more careful in their actions and decisions. They must take all the necessary precautions to ensure that the policy and rules are applied correctly and well. This sometimes requires the wisdom of Solomon. It also requires a great deal of tact and knowledge, and one needs bright people for that. This inevitably results in important decisions on policy not being taken over-hastily. It is said that it is the red tape which is causing the delay in the Public Service. This conscientiousness will indeed delay the pace of the Public Service. However, it is the only correct, safe way which can be followed in the Public Service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, when he made his party’s only contribution to this otherwise positive debate, the hon. member for Sandton once again sounded rather a low-keyed, negative note.

Oh, come on!

It was when he accused us on this side of the House of not doing enough to employ the non-Whites, too, in the Public Service. I agree, we as White people definitely cannot do all the work for all the people in South Africa, but he must just look at the facts. Let us look at page 46 of the report of the Public Service Commission. Under the heading “General B”, 378 Whites were taken into employment in the year covered by the report while 1 244 non-Whites were employed during the same period. As far as the “Education” division is concerned, 46 fewer Whites were taken into employment in the year under review, while 2 761 more non-Whites were employed. One must just see matters in perspective.

The hon. member for Durban Central actually sounded the only really discordant note in a very positive debate this afternoon. It is a great pity that he tried to question the objectivity and impartiality of the Public Service Commission here. He linked this to the action of the Public Service Commission as regards Dr. D. O. Rhoodie and Mr. Waldeck of the Department of Information. He said that if Dr. Rhoodie had not got into trouble at Jan Smuts, Mr. Waldeck would have still been in the Public Service. I think the hon. member made an irresponsible statement. [Interjections.] He definitely does not have the information about what happened there. However, what is more, he is dragging the Public Commission into this in order to accuse the Public Service Commission of not acting impartially in this regard. I think that insinuation was irresponsible and we reject it with the contempt it deserves. For the past few weeks the hon. member’s party, the NRP, have been loudly insisting, morning, noon and night, that action must be taken about the Department of Information. However, now that the Public Service Commission has acted, the hon. member accused the same commission this afternoon of not acting impartially. I think this is a disgraceful insinuation which the hon. member has made.

I want to associate myself, however, with the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North and the hon. member for Innesdal, who tried to put the difficult work of our Public Servants and Public Service in the right perspective. It is a fact that a Government is just as good as its Public Service. The Government can rule only so well as its Public Service implements its decisions and laws amongst the general public to whom they apply. As was rightly said, South Africa has always been privileged to have officials of outstanding calibre. This is the case at the moment too. There are men and women in the Public Service whom we can never properly repay for what they are doing for South Africa and its people. Under the most difficult circumstances imaginable, they apply one criterion only, viz. service to South Africa and its people. The criterion of these officials has always been and still is that in all circumstances they will act in the best interests of South Africa.

However, let us be quite honest about this matter. As in every profession, there are also certain people employed by the State, be it only one per cent, who do not do justice to the work of the other 99% and often undo the good work. This, however, applies to any profession in South Africa. It is true that there are officials who do not always do their best and their duty. Often this also occurs in the private sector. We also see it in the PFP sitting opposite us. Not one of us condones it. We disapprove of it very strongly. I want to tell those few officials straight out that they are there to serve South Africa with all the means at their disposal. Under all circumstances and at all times they must try to render a service to South Africa and its people. Those who think they are doing the public a favour, that the public cannot do without them, are doing South Africa and its people a disservice. They are also doing our continued existence a disservice. Those people are detracting from the confidence in South Africa and its future which is required.

What is more, I believe that our officials today, more than ever before, hold the key to the creation of good human relations. Everyone in the country, White and non-White, comes into contact at some stage with people employed by the State. It is inevitable that each of us will come into contact with public servants. The question is: What impression does the public servant make on one? What image does that person have of our Public Service afterwards? This is a consideration of the greatest importance. I want to ask the Public Service Commission— since they offer training courses to the officials—please to ensure that specific attention be given to this matter. We on this side of the House tell that 1%, the troublesome ones, the small group of stick-in-the-muds in our Public Service: You must pull up your socks and serve South Africa and all its people. At the same time we also want to tell the 99%: Thank you very much; we appreciate your sacrifice in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members must excuse me if I do not begin to reply seriatim to all the questions and speeches at this stage. This is the first time that we are dealing with the Public Service Commission Vote separately and, since it is such a historic occasion, I want to do it the honour of first making a few general remarks relating specifically to the Public Service and the Public Service Commission. That, too, I should like to do after the adjournment for supper. Consequently, Sir, until you give the merciful word that we may adjourn for supper …

Move the adjournment.

No, I have something important which I can deal with in the meantime. I want to discuss the narrowing of the wage gap. It is a topical matter and various hon. members have referred to it. Let me set out once again the principles which the Government has laid down. I quote them word for word—

1. (a) The Cabinet recognizes the principle of equal pay for equal work in all cases where qualifications, work and productivity norms are equal.
2. (b) The narrowing of the wage gap must start with the highest posts.
3. (c) The salary gap will be narrowed from time to time as circumstances permit.
4. (d) The Cabinet is not prepared to lay down a timetable for the elimination of the wage gap.
5. (e) The salary ratio pattern must be on a notch-for-notch basis.

Together with the principles which I have set out here, I, as the Minister liaising, under delegation with the Public Service Commission, can give the assurance that these matters enjoy the serious and constant attention of the Public Service Commission and the Government. To tell the truth, at this stage the Public Service Commission is once again on the point of submitting an extensive and well thought-out memorandum to the Cabinet. This is proof that the Cabinet does not merely prescribe principles and do nothing more about them. There has been progress, because as from 1 July 1976 salary improvements have been granted at the following rates with a view to narrowing the wage gap: Whites, 10%, Coloureds and Indians, 15% and Blacks, 20%. Another fact is that whereas the key salary scales for Whites and non-Whites were previously uniform as from the salary notch of R4 830, since 1 January 1978, they are uniform as from the notch of R2 850 per annum. Another fact is that as from 1 January 1978, all teaching staff, regardless of colour, will be placed on the same key scale. The revised structure has also meant that the average ratio between the salary scales of White, Coloured and Indian teaching staff on the one hand and Black, Nama and indigenous teaching staff on the other, has improved in comparison with the position as on 1 July 1974, from 79,1% to 85,1% and from 57,7% to 76,1%, respectively. I shall not have time to motivate this matter fully. In the few moments left to me, I want to concede that there are problems relating to this matter and that we must face those problems realistically. One of them is that if the wage gap is narrowed without a concomitant narrowing of the productivity gap, the narrowing of the wage gap will definitely be of an inflationary nature, and this could be dangerous for our economy, and if it is dangerous for our economy, the first people who will suffer, will be the Blacks and the Coloureds.

Another dangerous consequence if we narrow the wage gap without the necessary circumspection, is that we will attract sorely-needed Blacks from the homelands, and this will be very disadvantageous to homeland development.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am able to announce at this stage that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration will be amalgamated on 1 July 1978. By that time, the plans for the organization of the new department will have been completed. The position of Secretary for Immigration is being abolished with effect from 1 July 1978. I should like to assure the present occupants of positions in the two departments that this amalgamation will not prejudice their position in the Public Service. The Secretary for Immigration has already begun to abolish vacant posts, i.e. posts which need not be filled. There are approximately 75 such posts. If more posts have to disappear, every attempt will be made to find other positions in the Public Service for the people who held those posts.

What is to become of the Secretary?

Before the House adjourned for lunch, I announced that the Secretary was becoming a member of the Public Service Commission.

Before replying to the questions asked and the representations made by individual members, I should like to make a few remarks about the Public Service Commission and the Public Service as such, because this is an historic event in the sense that it is the first time that this Vote is being discussed separately. Indeed, we owe it to the thousands of men and women who play a key role in our country’s administration to devote a discussion to their needs and to express our special thanks and appreciation to them.

In terms of the recent change in the control system, the Public Service Commission is now liaising directly with the hon. the Prime Minister on the Government level. As someone who began my own professional career in the Public Service, it will be a great honour to me henceforth to liaise directly with the Public Service Commission in terms of the powers delegated to me by the hon. the Prime Minister. I also want to allege, without fear of contradiction, that the Public Service Commission in its restructured form inspires confidence and enjoys credibility in the eyes of the Government, of Parliament and of the officials, no matter what the hon. member for Durban Central said. I shall come to the hon. member for Durban Central later on in my speech. The Public Service and the Public Service Commission are not political bodies, and we owe it to them to be objective in debating their affairs and to have only one end in view, i.e. to achieve greater efficiency. What is the Public Service? The Public Service consists of many elements, but in the final analysis it consists of people, a large group of people from all levels of the population. Their tasks range from the most humble to the most complicated and their ranks include the manual labourer and the sophisticated scientist. All have one common objective, i.e. to promote the welfare and security of the State.

†A Public Service appointment has acquired a special nature. On the one hand the public servant is treated fairly and consistently, he is protected against victimization and knows that he is protected by an impartial body of high prestige, the Public Service Commission. On the other hand he must observe a strict code of conduct and can, in case of deviation, face severe disciplinary action. Extensive programmes of personnel evaluation which are applied in the service, make it highly uncomfortable for the indolent and the incompetent. It is pure columny to say that the service shelters the lazy and the incompetent.

The administration of a large public personnel inevitably presents many problems. In the first place it is a formidable task to hold public employment to reasonable levels in the face of constant demands for new services under circumstances of great institutional diversity. In the second place there is the problem of staff availability. We need the same categories of specialized personnel as any sophisticated society, but on the other hand our source of supply is severely restricted. Thirdly, there is the problem of education and training. The commission tries to cope with this problem in part by laying great stress on education, training and bursary grants. Fourthly, there is the great challenge of personnel structuring. The present structures dates from 1920 and is no longer satisfactory. A new structure is being developed at present. Fifthly, there is the obvious problem of co-ordination. In the public sector there are numerous separate personnel systems, each enjoying a measure of autonomy. To obviate disparities demands great skill and diplomacy in efforts to co-ordinate.

*The commission has many functions, but they can be divided into three categories: planning, control and the provision of specific services. As a planning institution, the commission plans the functioning of the whole Public Service system. The commission is also a controlling institution, but its function in this respect is performed in co-operation with many other bodies, such as the executive, Parliament and the Auditor-General. The commission is primarily responsible for laying down the precepts according to which the Public Service is administered and it remains in contact with Government departments, by means of its inspectorate, for example. It plays an important part in the grading of posts, and also in filling the more senior posts. The commission also fulfils the important role of co-ordinator of conditions of service within a substantial part of the public sector. As a service organization, the commission advises the Government on a wide range of matters, such as the general organization of top management, structures and establishments of departments, and the promotion of productivity.

It is gratifying to be able to say that the commission is having more and more contact with the private sector. In this connection I want to pay a special tribute to the chairman of the commission, Dr. Rautenbach, and the other members of the commission for the trouble they take to establish these contacts. The result is that some of our foremost business leaders have great praise for the Public Service.

I now want to come to some criticisms of the Public Service and especially the charge that the Public Service is becoming too big. If one excludes the Services, the teaching staff and the workers at the lower level, one arrives at a nucleus of 73 000 workers who are engaged in implementing the laws and the work programmes approved by Parliament. This nucleus of only 73 000 represents about 5% to 6% of the total number of people employed in the public sector in this country. The Public Service Commission exercises constant control over the utilization of staff. Virtually every division has work study sections. At the moment there are 215 productivity schemes being implemented in 30 departments. In terms of this scheme, the production of 9 000 officials is measured in detail every day.

A great deal is said about the 5-day working week. In this connection, we must not forget that in a 5-day working week, officials actually work one hour a week longer than in a six-day working week, quite apart from the fact that there are many senior members of staff who do not really have regular hours of work and often work day and night.

Then there is the continual plea for certain parts of the Public Service to be withdrawn from the Public Service Commission. My feelings about this matter are very serious. I want to emphasize very strongly today that the commission is not a casual, isolated institution. The commission is an institution of Parliament; it gets its mandate from Parliament and it is accountable to Parliament. Any proposal that the commission’s role be restricted renders parliamentary control more difficult and less effective. I conclude this part of my speech by saying that the Public Service Commission and the officials deserve our sincere congratulations on their imaginative, hard and loyal work over the past year.

I now want to deal in the proper sequence with the speeches made by hon. members, who conducted a very interesting debate. I want to express my sincere thanks for this to speakers on both sides of the House. In the first place, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton, the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition on this matter. I appreciate the fact that he spoke very highly of the Public Service. He made four specific proposals and I want to reply to them briefly.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few introductory remarks. The Government and the Public Service Commission are fully aware of the chronic shortage of qualified staff. It will become increasingly important to strive for the optimum utilization of available staff. Jobs as such will have to be redesigned and restructured to ensure that no task is assigned to a specialist which could conceivably be performed by an official with lower qualifications. To attract higher qualified staff to the service and to retain them, it will probably also be necessary to introduce a greater measure of differentiation in the conditions of service of certain groups of public servants. The Public Service Commission is at present engaged on a thorough restructuring of the Public Service personnel to provide a better base for dealing with our peculiar staffing problems.

Secondly the hon. member talked about differentiated salaries for heads of departments. Looked at purely in terms of size, there are obviously great differences between the various Government departments. However, size is not the sole criterion in this case. Each department has been assigned a major and essential function of the State. It is difficult to say with surety that one function is more important than another. On this basis there is an assumed functional equality between departments and it has been considered appropriate to give heads of departments the same grading.

*As regards the question of narrowing the wage gap, I replied to this in full just before we adjourned for dinner. In doing so, I also replied to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Innesdal.

The hon. member for Sandton also spoke about the limitation or expansion of the Public Service.

About the work of the Public Service.

I think the hon. member for Rissik has replied to this effectively. I also replied to it effectively, I think, in the short introductory speech which I made. As far as the hon. member for Rissik is concerned, I am glad that he made the remarks which he did make.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will react to the point I made at the end of my speech where I asked that the Cabinet should pay attention to the amount of new work constantly being thrown at the Public Service by way of legislation which comes before us day after day?

It is difficult to answer that question, for the simple reason that society, through its representatives, asks for the legislation. Parliament passes the legislation, and the Public Service is of course an instrument of Parliament and has to implement the legislation as efficiently as possible. This is all I can say to that. I am glad, too, that the hon. member for Rissik supported me so strongly in connection with breaking away from central control as far as the Public Service is concerned.

As regards the hon. member for Virginia, he also made a very interesting speech and he made a very valid and important statement in connection with an increase in the value of bursaries, which now stands at R1 000. It has simply not been possible, in the economic climate which has prevailed over the past few years, to increase the bursaries. I have specifically asked the Public Service Commission to give attention to this matter again, and if the Treasury is able to help us in any way, we should like to advocate an increase in the value of bursaries. As regards the loss of people to whom bursaries were granted, I must say that when we find the answer to the loss of Public Service Staff in general, we shall also find the answer to the loss of people who received bursaries. We are constantly working in that direction by improving conditions of service and wage and salary structures.

As regards the hon. member for South Coast, who specifically discussed the merit system and asked whether we were not attaching too much importance to merit, the answer is that in the pursuit of efficiency, no substitute has yet been found for merit. However, we are working on methods which will simplify and expedite the merit system. As far as the cost of the merit system is concerned, an in-depth investigation has been conducted, and in co-operation with all departments it has appeared that the cost of the merit system is not high in relation to the important results which are obtained. As regards his question whether professional officers are not being discriminated against, the departments are satisfied that the system is absolutely fair in respect of professional officers. We cannot single out an individual case to prove that the system is not working well. The hon. member also said that some administrative officers go in for too much red tape with a view to merit increases. It is undoubtedly true that some members of staff are more merit-conscious than others and work with an eye on merit. However, an investigation of the system has shown that they are the exceptions. The hon. member also asked whether we would not look into a uniform retirement age. Although the statutory retirement age is 65 years, this does not mean that everyone will be allowed to stay on until that age. However, it is in the country’s interests that the services of competent workers be retained as long as possible.

Now we come to the one jarring note in this debate: the hon. member for Durban Central. I now want to put a straightforward question to this hon. member. At the beginning of his speech he insinuated—an insinuation which he left hanging in the air—that the Public Service Commission had been prejudiced in making certain recommendations. I take it that these are recommendations with regard to Natal. I now challenge the hon. member across the floor of the House to say which case he is referring to. [Interjections.]

In the past? [Interjections.]

During the lifetime of the present restructured Public Service Commission.

The hon. the Minister can go and read my speech. I said that in the past, the Public Service Commission … [Interjections.]

How far back in the past? A hundred years ago, ten years ago, or when? [Interjections.]

What about the Stander case?

The Stander Case was a case I do not even want to discuss. It has nothing to do with the present Public Service Commission. [Interjections.]

And what about the difficulties there were in connection with Hosking? [Interjections.]

Very well. The hon. member has referred to the Hosking case. As far as this case is concerned, I want to say quite frankly—I say this with all the authority available to me—that the Executive of Natal presented a certain nomination package. That nomination was recommended by the Public Service Commission and was accepted in its entirety by the Government. [Interjections.] I also want to tell the hon. member that if I had not been a Speaker of this hon. House in the past, I would have said something unparliamentary to him in connection with this allegation. [Interjections.]

Admirable restraint!

No, Tarzan! The muscle man! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands called me a saint. I am not a saint.

Almost! [Interjections.]

However, I must say that I have a great deal of experience of saints, such as the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] He should please remove file halo from his head in this House. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. member for Durban Central also saw fit to squeeze the last drop of juice from the lemon as far as the Department of Information is concerned. He referred specifically to Mr. Waldeck and insinuated that the Waldeck case created doubts about the impartiality of the Public Service Commission. This is an allegation which I hurl back at him and reject with the same contempt as the allegations he made with regard to the cases under the earlier Public Service Commission.

The position with regard to this matter is that the Secretary to the Public Service Commission, at the request of the Secretary for Information, paid a visit to the Department of Information on 16 February 1978 and discussed the problems relating to administrative and financial control. It was then agreed that the top structure of the department had to be inspected. Accordingly, on 27 February 1978, the Secretary for Information wrote a memo formally requesting an inspection. On 29 March, the Chief Public Service Inspector discussed the matter with the Secretary. This was the earliest date on which the Secretary for Information was available. The Chief Public Service Inspector, Mr. G. B. S. van Zyl, then undertook the inspection himself. He was assisted by a Public Service inspector, Mr. J. Vermaak, who had on a previous occasion conducted a full inspection of the organization and establishment of the department. The inspection began on 5 April 1978. Immediately after the debate in the House of Assembly on the First Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on 21 April 1978—that same evening—the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary to the Public Service Commission discussed the way in which the resolution of this House could be implemented. In other words, this matter has a long history. It was precipitated by the report of the Select Committee and by the debate in this House, but it has a long history. Because of all the circumstances, the Public Service Commission then wrote the following, amongst other things, to the Secretary for Information on 3 May 1978—

This, Mr. Chairman, was done in consequence of an investigation which began long before the debate in Parliament. The steps which were recommended were considered to be the best under the circumstances. Now I cannot see what grounds the hon. member for Durban Central has for alleging that we have a case here of sudden, malicious and deliberate discrimination against one specific official.

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister spoke of the long series of events which led up to this recommendation. We accept that. In that case, would the hon. the Minister tell us how long the Government has been aware of irregularities in that particular department?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s question is not at all relevant here. I am now dealing with a specific charge made by the hon. member for Durban Central. I shall not allow myself to be drawn into a general debate on that department. It is not my sphere.

It is a simple question.

I have merely dealt with the question of a specific official, and in spite of all the hue and cry about this matter I am not prepared to say anything further about it.

The hon. member for Durban Central also spoke of the information document which had been sent to departments of education. I regard the hon. member as a specialist in the field of education. [Interjections.] He referred to the misinterpretation of circulars in connection with teachers’ salaries, as a result of which certain teachers had to make refunds of salaries. The hon. member blames the Public Service Commission for this. I now want to give hon. members the facts. The Public Service Commission sent a circular in connection with teachers’ salaries to all the heads of the State departments concerned for the information of 18 departments of education, excluding homelands. Except in the case of the provinces, this circular was duplicated word for word and circulated without any problems whatsoever. In the case of the provincial departments of education, circulars were sent out by those authorities themselves and there was a misinterpretation in three cases. I leave it to hon. members to decide for themselves who can be blamed for misinterpretations. In any event, when the Public Service Commission learnt about the misinterpretations in a roundabout way, it immediately contacted the education departments by telephone in order to rectify the matter.

Now I come to the hon. member for Innesdal. He offered this interesting slogan: “Every Public Servant must generate and not prevaricate.” I think this is a fine appeal to the Public Service, although I think they are already complying with it to a large extent. He also asked a question about orientation courses at the beginning of the careers of public servants. Almost every department already has a training division whose task it is, amongst other things, to provide in-service to all new members.

I greatly appreciate what the hon. member for Bloemfontein North said about the necessity for a strong Public Service with a view to preparedness in these difficult times. He put me in his debt by pointing out in such a striking way that we must not ridicule the bureaucracy unnecessarily.

I am glad that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg also helped me to put the hon. member for Durban Central in his place. He asked that special attention, by means of training facilities, should be given to human relationships. I want to assure him that this is a subject which is specifically included in all the training courses of the Public Service Commission.

I think I have now replied fairly fully to all the questions put to me. I want to thank hon. members once again for their participation in the debate. The appreciation and praise which were expressed for the Public Service Commission and the Public Service as such in this debate are not only a source of great satisfaction to me, but an incentive and an inspiration for the Public Service as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, may I on a point of personal explanation, before the Vote is put, say that the hon. the Minister referred earlier to me having called him a “saint”. I want to explain that I would never dream of calling the hon. the Minister a saint.

That is not a point of explanation.

Yes, it is a point of personal explanation. What I intended to convey was that his resistance to the temptation of using an unparliamentary term was “admirable restraint”. I repeat that.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Interior”, and Vote No. 34.—“Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, allow me, by way of introduction to the debate, to make a few statements.

Since we are now about to discuss the Interior Vote, you must allow me in the first place, Sir, to express my gratitude and pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr. Mulder. I received from him a well cared for department.

Except in respect of censorship!

In spite of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said, Dr. Mulder will be known as an excellent Minister of the Interior. I am proud to take over such a well cared for department from a man of his calibre.

Because the department underwent a change of Minister at an awkward time and there was simultaneously a change of departmental heads, you must allow me to say something about the retired departmental head and the departmental head who succeeded him. I am referring in the first place to Mr. J. L. F. Fourie, the former Secretary.

Mr. Fourie was born in Clocolan on 21 January 1918—once again, in the Free State! He began his Public Service career on 26 September 1936 in the former Department of Native Affairs, in Kokstad. After various transfers and promotions in this department, during which time he also held the office of Bantu Affairs Commissioner, he was transferred to the Public Service Commission Inspectorate as from 11 March 1958, where he progressed to the highest position in that cadre, that of Chief Public Service Inspector.

He was transferred to the Department of the Interior as Deputy Secretary with effect from 1 May 1968, with the special commission to build up from scratch the comprehensive new centralized and mechanized system of population registration and identification, included in which was the issuing of the new identification document. He concentrated mainly on this aspect of the department’s activities until 1 June 1972 when he was appointed Secretary for the Interior.

Mr. Fourie never lost his interest in work study and by applying work study techniques he ensured that the establishment was expanded by only 33%, despite the fact that the volume of work had more than doubled. At the same time he made it his special task to ensure a better dispensation for the staff and saw to it that the managerial and controlling posts increased by more than 105%.

Under his guidance a start was also made with the computerization of the admission and residence of the foreigners who lived in the Republic of South Africa. In addition to this he took the initiative—in fact he worked out a system—in computerizing the department’s central registration index, a system which is today probably the only one of its kind in the Public Service. The system is a considerable improvement on the traditional card system, and because a strict alphabetical list is fed through and printed out by the computer, numerous duplicate files are identifiable, something which was not possible under the old system. A saving on time and staff is effected in this way, and efficiency is considerably promoted.

He was regarded as an expert in the field of staff administration, in the department as well as in the Public Service in general.

While he was in the service of the former Department of Native Affairs he sat for and successfully passed the Senior Public Service Law examination. In addition to that he was conversant with two Bantu languages, i.e. Sotho and Xhosa. The practical application of his legal knowledge in his former sphere of activities, viz. that of magistrate, came in very handy in his evaluation of matters in the Department of the Interior. His knowledge of the Bantu languages led to his being able to improve the relations between the Whites and the non-Whites in the department considerably during his visits to border posts. He was married on 3 April 1943, and one daughter and one son were born of the marriage. On 1 February 1978, on attaining the age of 60 years, he retired from the service of the State. I want to conclude by conveying to him my sincere thanks on behalf of myself and the Government for his years of loyal service and for the fact that he was such an excellent official.

It is also my privilege to welcome Mr. Booyens as the new Secretary. He was born on 2 February 1920 in the Ladybrand district and went to school at Ficksburg, where he matriculated. On 20 April 1938 he entered the service as clerical assistant, grade II at the Government Printing Works, Pretoria, and on 20 April 1978 he had consequently completed 40 years’ service in the Public Service. For the period 9 September 1946 to 6 May 1953 he was employed in the then office of Census and Statistics before being transferred, with effect from 7 May 1953, to the head office of the Department of the Interior. After taking up his duties there he was employed in various divisions and was, inter alia, involved in legal and parliamentary matters, elections, citizenship, passports, population registration and aliens control. For a time he was solely in charge of all the line functions of the department. During 1962 he represented the department before the Select Committee on the Undesirable Publications Bill and the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. Of his own accord, and after he had been in the service of the then division of Births, Marriages and Deaths for only a few weeks, he presented a carefully worked out scheme for the incorporation of this division in the then population register, a scheme which was subsequently accepted by Minister Dönges and which brought about a saving of approximately R58 000 in salaries alone. Pending this incorporation he introduced a reclassification and regrouping of duties in order to promote efficiency. Apart from this he is considered to be a specialist in the field of electoral matters. He either made a major contribution, or compiled or initiated laws, or gave legal advice, or proved his organizational ability in respect of these few examples—

1. (a) the consolidation of the electoral laws;
2. (b) legislation for consideration by the Government to effect drastic, amendments to the Electoral Law Act, which resulted in voters being allowed, under certain circumstances, to cast their votes by way of a special ballot paper;
3. (c) the Referendum Act, 1960;
4. (d) the Electoral Law Act to make provision for South African citizens to retain their franchise in independent Black States;
5. (e) the arrangements for and the comprehensive organization on short notice of the general election of 1977, as well as many previous general elections and by-elections.

Mr. Booyens is in possession of the B.A. LL.B. degree, and was promoted to departmental head on 1 February 1978. On 30 November 1948 he married Miss Bobby Smidt. Two sons were born of the marriage.

In conclusion I can say that Mr. Booyens and I have come a long way together, and that I can state without hesitation that I am very indebted to my predecessor for appointing Mr. Booyens as departmental head.

I am sorry that I have to make another statement now, but I regard this statement as necessary because hon. members who are interested in the electoral laws have probably received an indication that we want to do something in regard to our computerization and the population register. I should therefore like to make a statement in connection with the compilation of the population register and the issuing of identity documents.

In the annual report of the Department of the Interior for the calendar year 1977 certain projections were made in respect of the inclusion of parliamentary voters in the population register and the replacement of drivers’ licences with standard licences in identity documents, projections which, early in the new year, proved to be over-optimistic. There are several reasons why these projections cannot be realized.

In the nature of things, the departmental annual report has to be compiled in October of each year because it has to be translated and printed for tabling in Parliament early in the new year. This entails that the results for the end of the calendar year in question have to be projected, in October of that year, for inclusion in the annual report, on what has been achieved by that date.

The Select Committee on the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, recommended in its report which was tabled on 25 June 1976 in the House of Assembly—

1. (a) that when the inclusion of White South African citizens of 18 years and older in the population register has been completed, consideration may be given to—

1. (i) abolishing the periodic general registration of voters; and
2. (ii) compiling voters’ lists exclusively from the population register; and

1. (b) that the next general registration of voters be postponed for not more than 12 months if a reasonably complete inclusion of the above-mentioned persons in the population register can be achieved within that period.

This recommendation of the Select Committee was accepted by the Government, and on the basis of this recommendation, the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1977, was passed during the 1977 session of Parliament, in terms of which the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, was amended to provide, inter alia, that no person shall, with effect from 1 July 1978, be entitled to be registered or to remain registered as a voter, or to vote, unless an identity document has been issued to him in terms of the Population Registration Act, 1950, because it was assumed at that stage that the next general election would not take place before April 1979. The general registration of voters which had to take place not later than 24 July 1977, was also postponed for 12 months, because it was the intention that the voters’ lists for the general election during 1979 would then be compiled from the population register if the public would apply for identity documents in such numbers that reasonably complete lists would be possible.

After the said Amendment Act was passed, the department made the necessary arrangements to issue identity documents on application before 1 July 1978 to all White South African citizens of 18 years and older, i.e. persons who would otherwise be entitled to registration as voters for the election of members of the House of Assembly and provincial councils but who at that stage were not yet in possession of such documents.

The general election, which was brought forward and held on 30 November 1977, necessitated the employment of additional staff and the utilization of the computer for the preparation of voters’ lists and other activities associated with the holding of elections. This of necessity led to a delay in the compilation of the population register and the issuing of identity documents.

As a result of the earlier general election, there is now, from an election point of view, no urgent necessity to issue identity documents to all the voters before 1 July 1978.

However, it will still be necessary for voters to notify the department promptly of their change of address for the purposes of the compilation of voters’ lists, so that their names may be included in the voters’ lists for the electoral divisions and polling districts in which they are now resident. In this connection the friendly co-operation of political parties is requested. In this way it will be possible to keep the voters’ lists constantly up to date.

†After the target date for the replacement of existing driver’s licences with standard licences that are included in the identity documents of the persons concerned, was postponed on a few occasions, the public was warned that the final target date would be 28 February 1978 and that all persons who after that date were not in possession of an identity document with a standard driver’s licence therein, would again have to apply for a driver’s licence and would again have to undergo the normal test.

This announcement by the provincial authorities resulted in a wave of applications for identity documents being submitted. During the four months October 1977 to January 1978 the applications for identity documents received monthly were respectively: 83 000, 97 000, 129 000 and 122 000. It was clear that the Department of the Interior could not handle this volume with the existing personnel and funds, notwithstanding that the normal day personnel of 276 units and the services of approximately 300 officials of the Department of the Interior and other State departments were continually applied on the project after normal office hours and notwithstanding that incentive bonuses were also paid. It was under these circumstances that the above-mentioned target date was once again, during January 1978, postponed to 31 July 1978.

In the meantime it also came to light that driver’s licences are being forged and that it would be necessary to investigate methods to combat this forgery. The investigation and recommendations that may be made, may possibly affect the incorporation of driver’s licences in identity documents. To give hon. members an idea of the large volume of work that must be done before it can be stated with any reasonable degree of certainty that, firstly, as far as possible all White South African citizens of 18 years and older—i.e. potential parliamentary voters—are included in the population register at their present residential addresses; and, secondly, that as far as possible all existing driver’s licences have been replaced with standard licences in the identity documents of the bearers, let me give particulars of the volume of work on hand—

1. (i) 119 000 applications for identity documents received must still be opened.
2. (ii) 226 000 applications are under inquiry because the applications were not fully completed and/or because applicants omitted to submit to necessary supporting documents. At least 50 000 of these inquiries are in respect of potential voters.
3. (iii) 280 000 applications are in different stages of preparation.
4. (iv) The addresses of approximately 250 000 voters already included in the population register are out of date.
5. (v) 19 000 notices of change of address are reported monthly by bearers of identity documents. Approximately 80% of these notices are in respect of parliamentary voters. In addition to this approximately 13 000 change of address notices are received monthly in respect of the compilation of voters’ rolls, either direct from voters or through political parties.

Although 4 732 030 persons—Whites, Coloureds and Indians—have already been included in the population register and have been provided with identity documents, approximately another 2 477 000 persons have not yet applied for identity documents. As against this, the department could, with the existing funds and optimum utilization of the day as well as the after hours personnel and the existing computer facilities and available accommodation, only issue 6 000 identity documents daily. In addition to this, it was also not physically possible to keep up this optimum effort for a too long period. The officials are being prejudiced and the quality of the work must inevitably suffer in these circumstances.

Because the computer is the basic instrument for the compilation and maintenance of the population register and voters’ lists, and because it is a complicated electro-magnetic installation which must be continually maintained by technicians with parts obtainable only from overseas, the computer is in the nature of things very sensitive to the trade boycott with which South Africa are threatened from time to time.

A further uncertain factor is the availability of funds in future, especially for the remuneration of overtime workers.

The question of priorities in the present economic circumstances must necessarily in the interest of the country continually receive attention. It was even necessary to reduce and slow down services of a relatively high priority, as, for example, the compilation of the population register.

These uncertain factors could cause further serious delays in the compilation of the population register and the issue of identity documents and therefore also in the compilation of voters’ lists from the population register and the replacement of driver’s licences with standard licences in identity documents.

*It is in view of these circumstances that the department has been compelled to slow down the compilation of the population register and that it cannot keep to the target date, 30 June 1978, in respect of the inclusion of voters in the population register, and to the new target date, 30 July 1978, in respect of the replacement of existing drivers’ licences with standard licences in identity documents.

The Government has consequently decided to postpone the target date for the inclusion of voters in the population register to 30 June 1982. The department will be able to use the intervening time—

1. (a) to endeavour, as far as possible, to include all South African citizens—18 years and older—in the population register and provide them with identity documents; and
2. (b) to urge persons to whom identity documents have already been issued to notify the department of their changes of address, in order, by so doing, to bring and to keep the addresses of voters included in the population register up to date.

When the stage has been reached where all voters who have applied for identity documents have been included in the population register, the department will be able, after consultation with political and other bodies, to give attention to and make recommendations in respect of—

1. (a) whether, in the compilation of voters’ lists, only the particulars received for the population register should be relied upon, or whether that information, particularly changes of address, should be supplemented by means of other methods, for example by periodic general surveys of voters per post or by means of visits to their residential addresses; and/or
2. (b) a system where provision is made for being notified of changes of address on a local government level; and
3. (c) the possibility of compiling voters’ lists on a street basis.

The provincial authorities also decided, after the circumstances had been explained to them, to postpone the target date for the replacement of drivers’ licences with standard licences in identity documents to 30 June 1982. This affords provincial authorities the opportunity to dispose of the envisaged investigation into the forging of drivers’ licences and the prevention of this practice.

I can report that certain steps have already been taken, with the limited available funds and staff, to complete the above-mentioned volume of work as rapidly as possible and to eliminate the backlog which has arisen owing to the aforementioned unavoidable circumstances.

With effect from 1 April 1978 a new functional branch was established in the department with the co-operation of the Public Service Commission, and the population register was placed under the direct control of a Deputy Secretary, a person with many years of experience and training in public administration.

The work study division of the department has been instructed to institute a thorough investigation of the existing methods and procedures adopted in the compilation of the population register and the issuing of identity documents and to make recommendations on ways in which the activities can be planned and expedited. Provisional recommendations of the said work study division have already been implemented.

After the final report and recommendations of the Chief Work Study Officer have been received and considered and the progress thus far made has been determined, consideration will be given to whether an investigation by the inspectorate of the Public Service Commission is called for.

To enable the department to eliminate the said backlog and because persons who do not yet have identity documents now have sufficient time to acquire identity documents in due course, the public is kindly requested to exercise patience. Their identity documents will be issued to them soon, or their inquiries will soon be replied to. Persons who have not yet applied for an identity document are kindly requested, except in urgent cases, provisionally to keep their applications in abeyance until next year, and then submit them. It is estimated that the backlog ought to have been eliminated by then.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that when I report on this matter again next year, I shall be able to present this House with a better picture.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister concerning the Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Fourie, who retired recently. I am sure we all wish him well and a long and happy retirement. I do not wish to react at this point of time in any depth to the very long and tedious-to-listen-to statement which the hon. the Minister has just made, except to say that it seems to me that it evidences a sorry tale of woe. I also believe it evidences what is almost a complete collapse in the efforts to introduce the identity document as an election utensil. It spells trouble for the smooth running of elections in future and I hope that far greater efforts will be made in the future than have been made in the past to put this matter on a proper footing.

The work of this department covers such fields as population registration, race classification, identification, citizenship, aliens control, passports, publications and censorship and numerous other ancillary matters. The ramifications of the policy and the quality of service of this department stretch into the home of every South African. They affect every visitor to this country. I believe that it is a most important department.

I wish to make the protest that it seems to me quite ludicrous that the time-squeeze on debate is such that the entire contribution of the Official Opposition is limited to a paltry 30 minutes as against a projected 130 minutes for the Government in this debate. The hon. the Minister has already spoken for half an hour and if he were in opposition he would have used up the entire Opposition time in the debate on this department. The hon. the Minister furthermore has unlimited time. Sometimes I wonder why the Government deems it necessary to have a debate at all. It seems so darned futile.

Having got that matter off my chest and having complained as an ordinary member— and I do not blame the hon. the Minister for this at all—let me just deal with one or two matters relating to the department. Firstly, I would like to welcome the new Minister and the new Secretary for the department, Mr. Booyens. Like the fairy godmother, I would like to make a wish for the hon. the Minister. I would like to wish that this hon. Minister be bestowed with certain qualities.

Disappearance.

I would wish him to be bestowed with qualities that are vital to the task of handling the work of this department. I would like to wish upon the hon. the Minister the following: In regard to race classification cases I wish him compassion and understanding. Concerning electoral matters, I wish the hon. the Minister a spirit of democracy and vigilance for the rights of minorities. In regard to the campaign to recruit citizens, I wish him drive and imaginative action.

With reference to publications and censorship, I wish him enlightenment, tolerance and appreciation of the other man’s point of view. To Mr. Booyens, in wishing him well in his office, we offer our and seek his co-operation in the years that lie ahead.

Race classification provisions of the Population Registration Act continue to cause hardship to thousands of South Africans, while at the same time those provisions give ammunition to those abroad who wish our country ill. This Act, more than most other legislation, which reflects the inflexible, the hard face of narrow racial exclusivity, the face which the world loves to hate, the face which renders it almost impossible for the task of reconciliation between the races within the Republic to be brought about, is still causing concern. There is one leavening feature in this Act, and that is contained in section 5(4)(c), which enables the Secretary in his discretion to alter the classification of a person with the consent of that person. My concern is that it appears that this provision is not used very often at present and is in fact used sparingly and at a diminishing rate. In 1975 there were 175 such cases that arose. In 1976, 136 persons succeeded in having their applications granted. In 1977 the Secretary used his discretion in only 98 cases. This section represents an escape hatch for those confronted with trauma, for those confronted with heartache, and I would like to urge that the discretion of the Secretary, in the years that lie ahead—now that we have a new Secretary—be invoked more often, more liberally and in a spirit of compassion.

I have five minutes left to speak in this major debate and I would like to mention now just one other matter. That is the question of publications control. The hon. the Minister must forgive me, in the short time I have, if I do not motivate fully what I want to say. It is impossible to motivate. It is or should be common cause that this Act, in its execution, has failed abysmally in South Africa. The hon. the Minister cannot dispute that the Publications Act has brought the authorities into conflict with the vast majority of South Africa’s creative writers, in conflict with the majority of film distributors, into conflict with the playwrights of South Africa, with the theatre managements and with the silent majority, I submit, of all South Africans. Let me quote just a few critics. This is what Jan Rabie has to say—

Listen to what Pieter Gildenhuys has to say—

The owner of Luxurama has this to say—

Meaning the Coloureds—

The managing director of Ster Kinekor comments as follows—

I do not even have time to quote Etienne Leroux, Adam Small, Jaap Steyn of Rapport, André Brink, Jack Cope, Guy Butler and others. We warned four years ago, when it came before Parliament, that this legislation would end up in a mess. That is exactly what has happened. The then Minister of the Interior, Dr. Mulder, who is now in another portfolio, would not listen. He pushed it through in spite of vehement opposition. Several major reforms are required urgently.

Firstly, we should restore the right of an independent, free court to hear appeals. That is the first thing. There should not only be a review, such as in the case of Magersfontein! O, Magersfontein!, which is presently being heard. This restoration of the right of the courts to hear appeals is cardinal to confidence in this system being at least partially restored.

Secondly, the Government should revamp the committees on a far more representative basis and on a far less restrictive basis. In 1974 it was stated as the intention that the people, “die volk”, themselves should decide on matters of publications control.

It was decided that they would decide through the committees. Yet, the appointments on those committees do not reflect “die volk” at all. They are hopelessly one-sided. They are uniracial in most cases. Their composition nowhere near reflects the fabric of South African society.

Thirdly, it is time that we remove the weakness in the Act, that the Minister and the directorate should have the right to interfere in decisions taken. Now, I used the word “interfere”, but the hon. the Minister will, no doubt, dispute the use of that word. I can find no reference in the report of last year to any case in which an instruction to review by the Minister or an appeal by the directorate has not been agreed to by the appeal board. They have been obeyed almost slavishly by the appeal board. Furthermore, the system has given rise to the emergence of bodies of professional moaners, of Mother Grundies who seem to exercise vast influence while enjoying little public support.

Fourthly, and finally, I believe it is time to deal with one of the main problems of the Act, and that is the inordinately wide definition of that which is deemed to be offensive. The legislation is lagging leagues behind public opinion, but on this aspect my hon. colleague from Johannesburg North will speak more fully. In brief, a major restructuring of the legislation is long overdue. If the deadlock which prevails between the Government and the Afrikaans writers is to be broken, such a restructuring of the Act is in fact essential. If literature and creative works in South Africa are not to descend to that which is permanently mediocre, this Minister must start soon to repair the damage done in the field of publications by his predecessor.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the hon. member for Sandton, I should like to deal with a few other matters. In the first place, I want to identify myself with the hon. the Minister’s appreciation for the work done by the previous Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Fourie. The meticulous care, thoroughness and precision with which he did his work were admired by all. I also want to join the hon. the Minister in expressing a word of sincere thanks to the previous Minister, Dr. Connie Mulder, who was the political head of this particular department for quite a number of years. We now have a new Secretary and a new Minister. Mr. T. J. Booyens is not a stranger to those of us who have been dealing with the Department of the Interior for a number of years. We have come to know him over a long period, and we are glad that a man such us he has been appointed to this important position. He is a man of great integrity and a hard worker, and a very obliging person at all times. I am convinced that he will serve us very well for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, since you come from the Free State yourself, and the hon. the Minister is the leader of the party in the Free State, I want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister as a person who comes from beyond the Vaal River. We are very grateful for the fact that a man with the qualities and talents of the hon. the Minister has now become the leader of this department. In the very short time that the hon. the Minister has been at the head of the department, he has thoroughly acquainted himself with the functions of his department. His statement this evening testifies to this, as does the insight and penetration he has already shown into the functions of the department. The hon. the Minister took the Latin word humilitas as the motto of his own family arms. It is typical of the hon. the Minister to take such a word for his motto. When one looks at the meaning of that word, one finds in it strength, balance, modesty and vision. I am glad that a man with such a motto on his family arms can be the leader of this department. We trust that he will occupy this position for many years.

The hon. member for Sandton quarrelled with us for five minutes because he did not have enough time for discussing this department. I said in the previous debate that the hon. member for Sandton could take the word novus for the motto on his family arms, because he really is a newcomer. I do not think he will ever have the ability—unless he dissociates himself from the principles of his party—to make any contribution which will really be of any importance to the Republic of South Africa. He took us to task for five minutes because he did not have enough time in which to speak.

The hon. member should go to his Chief Whip; he should go to the Leader of the House and say that he wants three or four hours for this discussion. We do not mind. We shall discuss these matters in detail with the hon. member and his party. I have heard that the great patriot of Johannesburg North is also going to enter this debate at a later stage. I am very grateful to hear this, because that great patriot is usually silent in this House. Actually, he is not conspicuous for his patriotism; he is conspicuous for his silence. Therefore I am very glad that that hon. member is going to enter the debate and tell us what his principles are now.

At least I do not copy from other people!

The hon. member for Santon spoke of race classification and of the Publications Control Board. I know this is the heart of the activities of this department in South Africa today. However, these are matters which we have been debating for a very long time, and the debate will continue in South Africa as long as we have people like the hon. member. We shall sometimes discuss the subject in this debate as well. To speak for five minutes and then to say that he does not have any time is not an acceptable argument. If one has ten minutes, one has to use them well. The problem with that hon. member is that his speeches are quantitative and not qualitative.

The Department of the Interior is a department which does not go about its business in a sensational way. It is not a department which one reads about in the newspapers every day. In many of its activities, the department reminds me of the man in the scrum. He is a man who works hard in that scrum to get the ball out and he is not much in the public eye. However, what is very important is that this department is in fact a department—here I agree with the hon. member for Sandton—which affects the lives of many people. It is a department which regulates and which has to look after various aspects of their lives. If one does not do this, one cannot maintain order in a modern society. I am just referring to aspects such as visas, passports, citizenship, voters’ rolls, travel documents, the population register and the race classification which the hon. member spoke about. Now I just want to tell the hon. members something by the way. The good qualities of the hon. the Minister, on the basis of which he wished him everything of the best, are not qualities which are exclusive to the hon. the Minister. They also contribute to the excellent spirit in which this department and the NP have handled this matter in the course of many years. We shall have more to say about race classification.

Because I live in Pretoria, I often go to the Civitas Building to see the officials at their work there. I want to express my personal appreciation here tonight for the friendliness, warmth and conscientiousness with which junior officials—often young ladies—work with the public there every day. There are many people who come from Mediterranean countries and do not speak Afrikaans and English very well. Very often they have difficulty in expressing themselves, and I have often been astonished to see the patience and courteousness with which these people are addressed. One greatly appreciates this.

I want to say a few words about the control of publications, but before I come to that, I also want to express a word of thanks tonight towards Mr. J. C. Pretorius, who will henceforth do his work in a different capacity in the department. Mr. Pretorius, too, has watched conscientiously over this very difficult task, the control of publications, and I appreciate this. I trust that his future career in the department will be a very pleasant one.

I come now to the hon. member for Sandton. There is an annual report by the Publications Appeal Board and by the Directorate of Publications. I want to concede that man is not simply a physico-biological or a cultural being. He is also a being who must consider the meaning and morals of his life and circumstances. In other words, this living being has an added dimension which makes it very difficult for any Government, even for a PFP Government, to control the moral, the ethical and the aesthetic aspects so that a general feeling of equilibrium may be achieved in society. I concede that this is one of the most difficult things to do.

I hope that I shall have another opportunity to talk about this tomorrow. However, the hon. member does not seem to have read the report of the directorate. I want to refer him to page 21 of the report. I want to read to him what it says under the heading “Students’ magazines”. I should like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the great patriot, to reply to this when he enters the debate. I quote—

I want to put a question to the great patriots on that side of the House, the Van der Merwes, the Myburghs and the rest of them. They condemn the control of publications categorically and in this way they are supported by all the leftist pink writers one finds in their newspapers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to be able to speak after the hon. member for Rissik in such a peaceful atmosphere. If I have a minute left at the end of my speech, I shall take the hon. member for Sandton to task on a few aspects. At this late hour, I should like to request the Government to consider the desirability of allocating a constituency of its own to Walvis Bay under the new constitutional dispensation, in accordance with the provision made for the six constituencies of South West Africa in section 40(1)(b) of the Constitution.

How many voters are there?

I shall come to that. I want to submit that the incorporation of the electorate of Walvis Bay into the constituency of Namaqualand, as is the case at the moment, will cause a tremendous disruption of the borders, character and composition of constituencies in our province at the next delimitation of constituencies. The present number of registered voters in Walvis Bay is approximately 3 000, although the figure in the consolidated voters’ roll of April 1977 showed a number of 3 202. Available figures indicate that the total White population of Walvis Bay numbers about 12 000 souls. It is claimed that an intensive registration campaign, also among members of the Defence Force who are permanently stationed at Walvis Bay and who have not formally been registered there on a large scale, will mean that at least 4 500 voters can be registered at Walvis Bay. For the purposes of my argument, I shall put this figure at 3 000 this evening.

During the latest delimitations in 1974, the provincial mean quota for the Cape Province was something like 12 371. Because constituencies with an area of more than 25 000 km² may, as special constituencies, be deloaded to a maximum of 30% below this average, Namaqualand, which has an area of 101 146 km², has been deloaded by 28,4%, which leaves it with an electorate numbering 9 294. If the 3 000 voters of Walvis Bay are added to this number, as has in fact been done, it means that the deloading of Namaqualand, in spite of its enormous area, now stands at 4,9%. In the process, while the deloading has been reduced, the area has grown to 102 246 km². In order to bring the constituency of Namaqualand within the limits of a special constituency again during a subsequent delimitation, if the Walvis Bay electorate remains within the constituency of Namaqualand, this constituency will have to give up approximately 3 000 voters. However, the geography of Namaqualand is such that its northern part is a desert area in which no voters can be given up except for voters of a specific party. To the west, the constituency borders on the sea, and with few exceptions, no voters can be given up in that direction either. To the east, there is a sparsely populated area. Therefore the constituency will have to give up 3 000 voters in the south to be able to absorb the voters from Walvis Bay. In order to give up those 3 000 voters, approximately 16 electoral districts will have to be excluded from the constituency of Namaqualand. The constituency which will receive these electoral districts is Piketberg. This will mean that the constituency of Piketberg will extend up to the commonage of Springbok, at the heart of Namaqualand. The constituency of Piketberg will in turn have to lose voters to the constituency of Moorreesburg, and perhaps to the constituency of Ceres as well, and this will assure such proportions that the town of Piketberg will be in danger of being removed from the constituency of Piketberg. I could go on spelling out the whole pattern in this way until we reach the Cape Peninsula in one direction and Kimberley in the other.

Does Walvis Bay form part of the Green Point constituency?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought not to occupy himself with such trifles. He is just being a nuisance; that is all. Apart from the disruptive effect which Walvis Bay will have on other constituencies, there is no liaison whatsoever between these two areas. Under the present dispensation, the Cape Province has in its great wisdom chosen a Senator for Walvis Bay. I simply do not know how a representative for Namaqualand could single-handedly represent such a vast area and Walvis Bay into the bargain. Walvis Bay is an isolated and closed area with unique problems. I know that it could easily be argued—in fact, it was done at the very outset, before I had put my case—that there are not enough voters to justify a separate constituency. However, the geography and the peculiar circumstances of the area justify the consideration of such a step.

I remember that in the British system, provision is made for a special constituency with fewer than 2 000 voters. The fewer than 2 000 voters of such a constituency can be compared with the 20 000 voters who comprise the larger and more concentrated urban constituencies. If the hon. the Minister would adopt an accommodating attitude in this connection, I feel that the onus would rest on the inhabitants of Walvis Bay to give an indication of the number of voters they can in fact register there before the new dispensation comes into effect.

Apart from the alternative of a constituency of their own, there is a further possibility which can be considered, of course, although I do not think it belongs in this debate. Because it would mean an almost impossible situation in practice, I do not want to discuss its merits. The alternative is to include Walvis Bay under the constituency of Green Point, as the islands are included under Green Point. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees, we could even arrange for this area to be incorporated into the constituency of Sea Point. However, what would be the position in practice? It would mean that the representative of Green Point, or of Sea Point, if Walvis Bay were to be incorporated into that constituency, would be based in Walvis Bay, and this would have a detrimental effect on the urban voters of Green Point or Sea Point, because such a representative would obviously be a member of the NP. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I can see that the hon. member for Green Point, who has a rather dark complexion, has turned somewhat pale. I realize that the hon. the Minister cannot make any definite promise in this connection. All I am asking him tonight, therefore, is to bring this matter to the attention of the Cabinet once again so that it may again receive careful attention.

The hon. member for Sandton has got into the habit of moaning every year at the beginning of this debate about the limited time he has for discussing this Vote. He, of all people, ought to know better, because he was an Assistant Whip under the old dispensation, before he was demoted.

You are always squeezing us.

The hon. member knows that a specific time is allocated to the Opposition in total, so it depends in his own party how much time they allocate to this Vote. If their Whips want to give so little attention to it or if they attach so little importance to it that they want to devote only 10 minutes to Interior, he must not allege in this House that it is a farce to try to argue here; he should rather discuss that aspect with the man sitting in front of him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei discussed the problem with regard to Walvis Bay here. I shall not go into it further, because I am eager to bring other matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In the first place I want to associate myself with those who wished Mr. Fourie and Mr. Booyens everything of the best for the future. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister made this comprehensive statement on the voters’ roll and the population register. The situation, as we went through it briefly here, gives rise to concern at this stage, especially as far as the administrative side is concerned. In my opinion it is really not a good advertisement for the people who were responsible for this in the past. One of my colleagues will discuss this in greater detail later. Nor do I believe that the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development would like the population register as such to be regarded as a monument to him.

Recently there has been much speculation about the new broom in the Department of the Interior in the person of the new hon. Minister, and about what he will do as far as censorship is concerned. One speculation in particular was whether he will replace “kragdadige Connie” in such a way that he becomes known as “redelike Alwyn”.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to say that a Minister is “skandalig”? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Durban Central say?

I said “kragdadige Connie” and “redelike Alwyn”.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say at the outset that it seems to me that the hon. the Minister will, in fact, be able to do this. Like other hon. members I also listened to the interview on the question of censorship on television. One got the impression that when the hon. the Minister spoke to the Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde, he approached the question of censorship and its implementation with a more open mind. His reaction so far— actually it was only a plea—was that we should give him the opportunity to become more familiar with the matter. I personally regard it as a gratifying attitude which the hon. the Minister adopted, because I share the general concern in the country about the application of censorship. If there is one aspect that stands out clearly and about which one should be concerned, it is that this Government cannot afford to alienate itself from today’s writers. It has been clear for quite a while that the cream of the Afrikaans writers in particular have dissociated themselves completely from the Government as far as censorship is concerned. During the past years it also became clear that they persist in their attitude. As a member of the Opposition I should have been delighted, if I regarded it from a purely political point of view, at the confrontation which exists at this stage between the writers and the Government. However, I am not glad about it, but concerned about the potential harm such a confrontation can do to the growth and development of literature in South Africa. To me it is very clear that for the writer, especially the distinguished Afrikaans writer, the important point is not politics, but in fact the threat they feel the present system of censorship constitutes to their literary creative powers. I must add that although they do not attack the censorship system for political reasons, there is a growing conviction among them that censorship is, in fact, being used against them for political reasons, especially against those who are critical of the Government. On Saturday we found this sentiment being endorsed once again by a writer such as Jan Rabie. I quote from a report in the Weekend Argus—

[Interjections.]

Do you believe him?

The hon. members opposite must not shrug this argument off as not important.

We are not asking you for your opinion.

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the House that the Government is ignoring at its peril the attitudes and beliefs displayed here by an important writer such as Jan Rabie. I am not prepared to accept that these Afrikaans writers have all of a sudden become tools of subversive organizations or that they are just agents of permissiveness. I shall concede that on occasions outrageous statements are being made against either decisions of a publications committee or findings of the appeal board, but even this should be seen in its true perspective. Some of these statements have their origin clearly in the frustration which is caused by what they, the writers, regard as the unreasonableness of the existing legislation.

If one could single out a particular aspect which acts as a source of frustration and which through the years has had the cumulative effect that even responsible writers believe that their creativity is being restricted, one finds it on page 2 of the 1977 report of the Publications Appeal Board. With reference to what should be taken into regard in gauging society’s views on public morals, the appeal board indicates 14 factors which should be kept in mind. One of the factors listed is that the probable reader may not be taken into consideration. Mr. Chairman, in all serious works of art and literature the author has a probable reader in mind. The country’s art and literature will stagnate if, as a result of the existing system, our writers are being forced to aim at the median man—at “Mr. Average”. The sad state of affairs is that the existing legislation has been so drafted that those who are responsible for the execution and application of the Act, have come to the conclusion that the legislators had in mind that the median man should be the standard of acceptability and tolerance.

I can appreciate the frustration which manifests itself, for instance in Jan Rabie’s statement when he says, in the article to which I have referred—

The unreasonableness of existing legislation has created an ideal climate where people can easily say: “So what!” They can just as well be totally irresponsible, because whatever they do is interpreted as being objectionable, if not subversive.

The hon. the Minister has a responsibility in this respect. It is now 15 years that we have the original Act. Through the years matters have deteriorated. Now is the time that something positive must be done to regain the confidence and co-operation, and not the confrontation, of the writers of the day. One cannot have a system of censorship or any type of control unless one has the co-operation of the people affected by it.

Mr. Chairman, the picture the hon. member for Durban Central has presented of Afrikaans writers who are in conflict with their society, their Government and the party which is in power, is certainly a very exaggerated one. I want to point out that intellectuals in every society at some stage or another, particularly in critical times like this when important choices have to be made and mores are being challenged, will inevitably question and be in conflict with the society. This is not something unusual or something which is unique to South Africa; it is in fact a universal phenomenon. If Afrikaans writers did not question certain aspects of society and if they did not raise important questions, it would be a very sad phenomenon. [Interjections.] However, what I want to point out to my hon. friends over there, who are making this barrage of interjections, is one of the failings within my own community. I speak as an English-speaking South African. [Interjections.] Do those hon. gentlemen question the fact that I am speaking as an English-speaking South African? Do they question that?

In the Sunday Times of last week there appeared an article by a well-known English-speaking writer, Mr. Jack Cope, who expressed what was billed as an English-speaking South African’s point of view of the 30-year period the NP has been in power. What fascinated me as an English-speaking South African about that article expressing an English-speaking point of view, was the fact that every single critical quotation he used, came from an Afrikaans intellectual or writer. I thought how ironical and paradoxical it was that an English-speaking point of view had to be based on Afrikaans critics of the NP. That is an irony which intelligent members over there, who are suddenly very quiet, must appreciate.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I, and I believe other hon. members on this side of the House, appreciate the way he has handled the question of publication control. We appreciate the fact that immediately on his appointment he recognized that the question of publications control and literary standards in our society was a fundamental and controversial issue. He invited the writers to come and see him and he discussed the issues with them. I believe that he will yet demonstrate that he is capable of meeting their objectives while at the same time ensuring that the necessary standards which every society recognizes in these matters, do apply in our society. I did not know that the motto on the family crest of the hon. the Minister is humilitas, but I believe he will bring that to bear upon other areas of Government policy as well, and that he will use that high sense of sensitivity in, for example, population classification. He will bring what is probably the highest expression of civilized feeling to bear in those matters, whatever hon. members over there may say.

In the debate on the Interior Vote it is traditional to speak on the question of the Press. I want to speak very briefly about the Press. It is a fact that the Press is always controversial. In difficult times or when there is a controversial issue, people tend to say “Blame it on the Press”. Similarly the Press never lets an opportunity slip by to argue its case and to make some or other statement expounding the importance of the freedom of the Press. Thus, for example, when Mr. Harold Evans, editor of the London Sunday Times visited this country at the invitation of the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery and delivered a speech extolling the Press and stressing the importance of the Press, The Cape Times in an editorial “A Forum for Reason”, which appeared on 28 March 1978, stressed the importance of the freedom of the Press and stressed the importance of its own role as a newspaper which enjoys the independence and the freedom of the Press in South Africa. It is our attitude on this side of the House that freedom of the Press is important, that it is vitally important to any society which wishes to survive. The fact is that newspapers, simply in terms of their function, touch the very nerve ends of society. They know what is going on and they reflect it. This is vital to any society. The fact is that our Press in South Africa is a free Press. It enjoys freedom of the Press. There should be no argument about this. And this is a rare and exceptional freedom on the continent of Africa.

What happened to The World? [Interjections.]

Despite the banning of The World it is a free Press and freedom of Press is enjoyed in South Africa. There are a few points, however, that one wishes to stress. In the first place, freedom of Press or Press freedom is not an individual freedom; it is an institutional freedom. It is like academic freedom, a freedom which attaches to universities and which, therefore, the individual scholar benefits from. So Press freedom is an institutional freedom which attaches to the Press as a whole. It does not mean some particular freedom which individual journalists enjoy simply because they are journalists. They enjoy that freedom because they are associated with an important institution. This is a very sobering thought because we, particularly we as politicians, recognize the profound importance of the Press. We recognize the enormous influence, the enormous power of the Press. We as politicians, every single one of us, has had reason in his political career to complain about a particular report. We know the importance and the power of the Press. It is an influence and a power which reflects itself not just in politics; it reflects itself in commerce, in the arts and in a variety of ways for the simple reason that the Press is still the main conduit of information to the masses.

But it is also important, because the Press in its organization has become an extremely powerful factor by virtue of the enormous concentration of capital which it involves.

None of us here who wished to set up a newspaper could do so because it requires a great deal of money to establish a newspaper. That is the second reason why the Press is so important.

Now, what one wants to get across to individual journalists is that there are certain standards which we expect of this free Press. We expect, first of all, a scrupulous regard for honesty. In the second place, we expect fairness. We expect that the alternative point of view, the other man’s point of view, will always be put on particular issues. In the third place, we expect accountability, accountability of either the editor or individual journalist. In this regard I wish to refer to an undesirable phenomenon which is increasingly prevalent in our newspapers, viz. the anonymous column. Anonymous columns have figured in journalism, in the USA and in Britain and also in South Africa. One thinks in this regard of the column “Dawie”, which has in fact been an issue-orientated column and which has played a major role in the development of political issues—but the fact is that this is not journalism of the “hit and run” kind which public figures are being increasingly subjected to in anonymous columns today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton maintained that he needed more time. However, in the time he had at his disposal he said very little one could really listen to. I formed the impression that if he had still less time he would have done far better. [Interjections.]

Permit me, too, to add my good wishes to those expressed by hon. members towards the hon. the Minister. To me as a new member he is an impressive man. I also want to convey my good wishes to the Secretary for the Interior. I can attest to the fact that the Government officials in Natal are dedicated and hard-working people. The Government officials with whom I have dealt here in Cape Town also impressed me and my impressions of them indeed confirmed what other hon. members have said here this evening.

The matter I want to discuss this evening concerns the three people who find themselves in this joint homeland of ours. They are the Whites, the Coloureds and another people, a proud people, a prosperous and separate people with an identity of their own, viz. the Indians. In order to illustrate my statement I just want to look back on the history of the Indian people in South Africa for a moment.

Towards the end of the previous century and early in this century, a small number of Indians came to South Africa as penniless labourers. To the extent that they began to flourish in South Africa, more and more of them streamed out of India. On request, some of their women and children were also brought here at a later stage. In 1914 a concession was made to them in regard to the women and children. I also just want to point out that in the seven years between 1946 and 1953, 6 829 Indians came to South Africa. In those seven years only a thousand left the country again.

It is now history that we launched a five-year repatriation scheme, a scheme which, however, was only successful initially. Later it was doomed to failure, due to the fact that the first Indians who returned to India were able to compare conditions in the country of their birth with those here in South Africa. That of course signalled the end of the repatriation effort.

Looking at the census figures for 1911 we note that 63% of the Indian population was male in that year, as against 37% who were female. It was as a result of this that the then Government made the concession that some of those Indians’ wives and children could come to South Africa. Consequently, by 1951 the male/female ratio among Indians was more or less equal. In order to indicate in what large numbers Indians were still coming to South Africa by the middle of this century, I could mention that in 1951, 715 Indians came to South Africa, whereas only 92 left the country in the same year. These 92 left the country at State expense, costing the State £5 931, and in 1952, 549 entered the country whereas only 51 left, costing £3 402.

At that stage the policy was repatriation, as I have already said, in co-operation with India. As I have mentioned it was not successful. There were loopholes, and these people tried everything to get into South Africa. In 1953, Act No. 43 was piloted through Parliament, an Act which resulted in the prohibition of Indian immigration. During this period, at the insistence of the Indians, exceptions were again made due to humanitarian considerations. These exceptions were made recently. I just want to state very clearly that the Government’s policy in this respect is not that the door be opened for an influx of Indians into this country. It was not a question of thousands of people being involved. It was only a matter of approximately 100 families or 250 individuals who were considered. In 1953, 1 200 Indians came to South Africa and of that number, 500 were women. The concession to which I have just referred applied to the cases in 1953. These were persons who were already advanced in years, and it only applied to the wives and children of these people. There were no men with children involved here. These were men who had been married for many years. It did not apply to new marriages. In some cases there may have been widows of persons left behind in India in difficult circumstances. These applications are considered on merit. Some are allowed and others refused. They are not people who have just been married. It is a case of limited concessions. It is understandable that in comparison with India, South Africa is Canaan to these people. The Government’s present policy is to allow no more. In 1953 there were approximately 0,25 million Indians in South Africa. Now there are approximately 1 million.

We accepted them as a people in South Africa and we afforded them opportunities here. These people have made fantastic progress in the economic sphere, particularly over the past 30 years. We do not begrudge it them. We are proud of their contribution. These people could easily have lost their identity over this period because at the outset, as I have mentioned, there was an imbalance between the number of men and women. However, this shows once again that the Government was correct in its policy of separate peoples, because the Indians have never integrated. The Government is in earnest in wishing to further their interests. The new constitutional dispensation places them on the road to political progress. Doors will be opened to them.

I want to make an appeal to the Indian people this evening to accept this new constitutional dispensation in their own interests, for the advancement of their own people. It is an honest effort on the part of the Government to ensure peaceful co-existence, self-determination and good relations. It affords them opportunities for deliberation and it confers on them joint responsibility. It affords them the opportunity to co-operate. I therefore urge them to take the hand we are extending to them.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to suggest that we should, in this debate, distinguish between two major groups of what is unacceptable, offensive or undesirable and which should therefore be subject to some form of censure. The one group is what I want to call commercial pornography which exploits the licentiousness and other less noble proclivities of people in order to make a profit. At the opposite remove from that line are those works, especially works of literature, which may lay claim to be, or which, in fact, are works of art. I think, in all humility, that these two groups should be kept entirely separate from each other.

There is another matter to which I want to refer at the outset. Although I associate myself with the congratulations and good wishes conveyed from both sides of the House this afternoon to the Minister on his assumption of this office, I want to add that the hon. the Minister will, in any event, have to accept a certain degree of responsibility for what his predecessor has done.

I now want to deal with the degree of indifference and callousness which in my opinion has been displayed by the predecessor of the present hon. the Minister and which should be strongly deplored by all right-minded and honourable people. Six months ago, in the middle of November 1977, the appeal board came to the conclusion, according to its interpretation of the Publications Act, that a particular Afrikaans novel should be banned.

Which one?

I am referring to Magersfontein! o, Magersfontein! by Etienne Leroux. [Interjections.]

One moment, please. I do not interrupt hon. members and I should also like to have a fair chance to say what I have to say. [Interjections.]

Order!

This work has been banned. What happened after the appeal board made this decision, is well known. The hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Durban Central have already pointed out that this led to a storm of protest, mainly in the Afrikaans-language Press. This was accompanied by the sharpest possible criticism of the Government, of the poor appeal board, of the Publications Act, etc. I cannot discuss the pros and cons of the particular case. The appeal board attached a certain meaning to the Act. It said, inter alia, that the probable reader should not be taken into account. We have to accept that the finding of the appeal board is correct until such time that another court—the Supreme Court before which the case is being heard at the moment—gives another finding.

What is your point?

That the public of South Africa, the men and women of literature, the artists, the authors, revolted against the finding of the appeal board. Three professors, i.e. a professor at the University of Cape Town and departmental head, a professor at the University of Port Elizabeth and a professor at the University of Potchefstroom, Prof. Theuns Cloete, who were closely associated with the implementation of the Publications Act from its inception in 1963, resigned and said that they did not want to have anything further to do with publications control. That is not the worst. The harshest and worst part of it all …

He did not say that.

He resigned as a member of the committee.

He did not say that he did not want to have anything further to do with it.

The harshest part of the whole case was that Anna M. Louw, authoress of Kroniek van Perdepoort could not, as a result of her connection with the Publications Board, gain admission to the Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde. In other words, she put her duty to the body of control higher than her duty to the Afrikaner writers. She, too, disassociated herself from the Publications Board after the finding with regard to Magersfontein! O, Magersfontein! In the meantime a court action was commenced to review this finding of the appeal board. According to the Press it will cost the publishers who took this case on review to the Supreme Court more than R10 000. This is merely to review the case, because there is no appeal since the previous Minister of the Interior abolished the right of appeal by means of the 1974 legislation.

He did, however, establish an appeal board which you supported in your evidence.

Yes, I supported it but on condition that the average man should not be used as the norm for the testing of works of art. [Interjections.] I said that works of art should be treated on a different basis to pornography and I want to repeat it here tonight. The former Minister of the Interior said on 18 January this year, after all these things had happened, that he did not intend to do anything to change the matter and that he was not going to initiate any steps to improve the position.

It leaves him cold.

He did not say that it left him cold, but his words were more or less to that effect. That callousness is a matter for which the present hon. the Minister of the Interior will also have to accept joint responsibility. The least that the hon. the Minister can do is to request this Parliament immediately to introduce an interim measure in order to exempt novelists, playwrights and poets from the present provisions and to enable a panel of literary experts to evaluate the work until there is time—next year or whenever—to re-examine the whole matter carefully and to establish a pure, new dispensation for the purpose of protecting works of art against irregular and unwise decisions.

Mr. Chairman, while listening to the speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North I considered writing a book entitled “Koffiefontein, O, Koffiefontein!” [Interjections.]

What do you know about that?

Order!

I should very much like to tell the hon. member what I know about Koffiefontein. If we have the time I should very much like to take the hon. member back to his Koffiefontein days. I should very much like to take him back along the path he has followed from the time he was in Koffiefontein until today …

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member owes you a debt of thanks because you are protecting him. I find it surprising that the hon. member only takes certain opportunities of taking part in the debates in this House. It is surprising, for example, that the hon. member still consistently refuses to take part in any debate in which the hon. the Prime Minister speaks. I should very much have liked the hon. member to have discussed the aspects raised this evening in the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote.

There was no time for that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg North handles these matters very gingerly. Let us take a look at the things the hon. member has said. I am very grateful that the hon. member broke his silence to speak to us this evening. I said to the hon. member in the course of my speech earlier this evening that when we, the NP, discuss the control of publications we are fully aware of the major problems experienced by the Government in passing a law in this connection …

You do not even belong to the NP; you belong to the HNP. [Interjections.]

I can understand why the hon. member for Yeoville is so sensitive; he feels uneasy where he is because he is really a Nationalist, and understands what the cultural heritage is.

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

No. Since the hon. member for Johannesburg North has no experience of government, I just want to inform him how difficult it is to place a piece of legislation in the Statute Book relating to what is ethical and aesthetic; but if it is one’s task to govern, one cannot escape that task. Not one of us on this side of the House, nor any previous Minister, has ever maintained that it is easy to deal with these matters. What is important in this connection, however, is that I want the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Pinelands—after all, he was a clergyman, just as I was—to tell us, since they are supposedly the alternative Government, whether they would permit pornography in South Africa if they were to govern.

No.

Therefore they will not permit it. What I should now like to hear from those hon. members is how they are going to define this and put it into legislation. They must state clearly here what they regard as pornography, what they regard as morally subversive of our society and what norms they would lay down in the legislation. It is very easy for them to criticize us in this connection. I shall also refer to the authors later in my speech. That is only one aspect of this matter. The other leg on which the legislation stands is the question of State security. Why did the hon. member for Johannesburg North say nothing about State security? After all, we quoted from the legislation relating to the distribution of certain documents among students, and I want to know why those hon. members are silent when it comes to this.

Because he comes from the Afrikaner cultural milieu, the hon. member must realize that some of our authors and poets experience difficulties with the legislation. We understand that, but who has taken more trouble than the NP and the hon. the Minister sitting there—I myself have experience of this—to speak to authors and poets of stature, people with decency who are proud of what they write? [Interjections.]

Name one of them!

The hon. member for Johannesburg North hides behind the decent authors who want to see meaning and orderliness in South Africa. Why does that hon. member not talk about those authors and poets who are so leftist, so red and so pink that one cannot go near them? These people want to do away with our norms.

Name them!

I need not mention their names. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens stated very clearly this evening that in any community one has authors and poets who may not be very talented but who nevertheless want to exploit the political situation for their own personal gain. The hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to ride on these people’s backs. He in fact supports the standpoint of the leftist authors, but in this House he holds out to us the sound and sober authors as those people whom the hon. member supposedly supports. Let these authors and poets stand up and say that they support the PFP’s policy after the hon. member has explained it to them. [Interjections.] We shall not allow ourselves to be misled by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. That hon. member thinks that there is a confrontation in progress between the NP and the authors of South Africa.

But that is true.

There is no confrontation. On the contrary, there is a continuous and penetrating dialogue in progress. [Interjections.] We are by no means seeking confrontation. There are quite probably more people on this side of the House who read and think about literature in a meaningful and critical way than the hon. members opposite realize. The NP’s history has shown that in the course of time, not only the public at large but also authors and poets whom those hon. members apparently want to keep away from us, will realize what the NP is engaged in doing. We shall not fall for that and seek confrontation with our authors and poets.

I want to tell the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Pinelands that we also cannot allow the authors of prose, poems and drama to be the sole arbiters of what is good, right and reasonable. The hon. members of the Opposition simply cast aside the standpoints of womens’ organizations and churches. That is something else that we cannot allow. How can the hon. members— the hon. member for Pinelands was a clergyman—simply cast aside, by means of their arguments and standpoints, the moral norms laid down in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible? When one governs and wishes to serve the interests of the entire community with a diversity of peoples as one has in South Africa, then as the Government, one has to be balanced and fair, one has to seek those norms and at least lay down in legislation that which is able to uphold the moral norms of the people.

What did Ben Schoeman say about the Old Testament?

The only way in which the hon. members of the Opposition conduct politics in South Africa— they have shown it again in this debate—is to exaggerate certain minor points by means of their Press, to hyperbolize them.

What does Harry say about the New Testament?

I am convinced that the NP’s reasonable standpoint regarding control, to keep pornography out of our society and ensure State security, is the right one. Even if we have to change our legislation every year we shall eventually place on the Statute Book a law which will satisfy both the balanced, sober and peace-loving author and poet, and the entire community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have been accustomed, especially earlier this week, to what has been termed the “Jimmy and Helen Show”. This is the second time that the hon. member for Rissik has followed the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I think we are seeing a new show developing, i.e. the “Daan and Kowie Show”. [Interjections.] I do not intend following the hon. member on the subject of the Publications Board and pornography. The hon. member for Durban Central clearly stated my party’s views in this respect earlier in the debate.

I rather want to refer to another section of this department already referred to by the hon. the Minister, namely the section which is responsible for the parliamentary and provincial voters’ rolls. The hon. the Minister saw fit to read out a very long statement on the population register and its effect on the voters’ roll. To our way of thinking this is indicative of the tremendous muddle that exists in this particular section of the Department of the Interior. I should like to say that every hon. member of this House will accept the constitutional right of our citizens to the vote. I think we also accept that it is the duty of the citizen to exercise this right when an election is called. However, having said that, I believe we should also accept that it is the duty of the State to do everything possible to ensure that the citizen is correctly registered as a voter in his constituency when an election is called. It is the duty of this department to ensure that the voters’ rolls are kept up to date. Only by doing this will the voter be assured of being able to exercise his right as a citizen of the country when an election is called. I believe the last general election in November last year clearly indicated that this was not the case. At the outset I should like to say that I realize that this department now has a new Minister who is not personally responsible for this particular muddle. However, it must be said that this department has failed miserably in respect of ensuring that the voters’ rolls are kept up to date. I do not know whether it is as a result of the conflicting interests between the population register and the voters’ roll, but the facts show that the voters’ rolls were in a hopeless state. During this last election there were some constituencies, especially in the urban areas, in which as many as 40% of the voters were not at the address at which they were registered in the voters’ roll. Many of them could not be found at all in spite of an extensive tracing campaign which was conducted by all parties concerned. This meant that these citizens were not able to vote in the last election.

Whose fault is that?

The hon. member asks whose fault it is. It has been said that it is “Mulder’s muddle”. A further result of this problem is the immensity of the task of tracing missing voters and then, having found them, of arranging their special and postal votes. This task was tremendous and the cost of this exercise, expressed not only in cash, but also in human endeavour and effort, was considerable. I do not believe there is a single hon. member in this House who will deny that it has cost the country an awful lot of money. There were also those voters who were left off the roll entirely. How many people have we seen on election day who have come to vote only to find out that they were not on the roll? The question has been asked whose responsibility it is to see that people are correctly registered as voters. Some say, as the hon. the Minister said earlier on in this debate, that political parties should assist in the registration of people. If it were not for political parties, the voters’ roll would have been in an even worse state than it is today.

We were told not to register people.

That is correct, too. We were told not to register because the population register would be ready by July. [Interjections.] I am one of the first to agree that it is in the interests of parties to assist in the registration of voters. However, we believe the principle is basically wrong. In the first instance it is the duty of the voter to see to it that he is registered in his constituency. However, he has his difficulties, to which I shall refer later on.

However, we believe that it is the State’s responsibility and this particular department’s responsibility to ensure that the enrolment of a citizen as a voter is as simple as possible, as easy as possible and as convenient as possible. This is not so at the present time. What is the position at the present time? Every six years there is a general registration of voters. What does a general registration cost the country? Every single voter has to be interviewed individually and has to fill out a form. This is a costly exercise. Within six months of this exercise being completed, the voters’ roll is again out of date. Within a year or so it would certainly be almost totally out of date if it were not for the efforts of the individual parties. During this interim period, between these general registrations, it is either the voter himself who stumbles into a registration office and asks for a RV1 form or it is the parties themselves who see to it that the people are actually on the roll.

When the population register, which we are told is going to be the future voters’ roll, is introduced, exactly the same problem is going to arise with the book of life. How many people are going to remember that every time they change their address that they have to fill in that little sheet of paper and send it off to the authorities? [Interjections.] How many people will be able to find their identification books and how many of them are going to be lost in the near future? People are still going to have to be reminded that they have to register as voters and they are still going to have to be told how to go about it. Therefore we believe that the procedure has to be facilitated. For that reason I should now like to make a few suggestions, because this department, after having spent hundreds of thousands of rands, is creating a new system which is going to be as bad and as difficult as it was in the past. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not periodically, possibly once a year, give publicity to the need for voters to register. This could be done through the post office by means of posters, in the same way the post office is used for many other posters advertising certain Government programmes. Use could also be made of short TV programmes or there could be information programmes on TV during a particular publicity period. With the co-operation of the post office, or with the co-operation of Escom, circulars supplied by the department could be sent out with accounts, reminding citizens that it is their duty to register as voters when they become of age or when they change their address. These circulars could also inform them how and where to register as voters.

Secondly, in addition to this publicity, which I believe will make voters aware of the need to register and to report changes of address, we do believe that there is a great need for making the actual registration or change of address a lot easier and more readily available than it is today. In this connection we should like to suggest that at the information desk at every post office there should be a sign which reads “voter registration”. At that counter RV1 forms should be readily available and the person in attendance should know how to assist the person who is completing his RV1 form. We should also like to suggest that in every case of an application for a telephone or an electricity connection, in the event of a person changing his address and moving to a new home, the applicant should automatically be supplied with a RV1 form which enables him immediately to be registered in that particular area. RV1 forms should also be made available in schools and universities to ensure that when young people turn 18 they will automatically register as voters. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.