, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to reply now to the speeches and representations made so far in the debate on these Votes. Before proceeding, however, I first want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pinelands.

During a row the hon. member for Durban Central and I had last night I think I heard the hon. member for Pinelands telling me in a sarcastic way that I was a saint. Equally enthusiastically I reacted to the hon. member for Pinelands by telling him that he was not a saint. Later the hon. member, on a point of personal explanation, explained what he had actually said. Apparently he had said something quite different. Therefore I want to express my regret for having unnecessarily mussed up the hon. member’s beautiful hair! [Interjections.]

Purdey!

I intend to pay attention first of all to the subject of controversy, i.e. publications control, and to react briefly to everything that has so far been said on the matter. Subsequently I intend to make an announcement in respect of proposed amendments of the Act in this regard. I am going to make an announcement on the proposed amendment of the Act, yet I trust that we shall not hold a Second Reading debate on it after I have made the announcement since there will be ample time for further and fuller discussion when the measure comes before the House in due course.

In the first place the hon. member for Sandton said yesterday: “We must restore the rights of the courts to hear appeals under the Publications Act.” Although I grant a concession in regard to the courts in the announcement I am going to make, I hasten to add unequivocally that the Government has no intention of complying with the representations by the hon. member for Sandton, for the reasons that I am now going to fully motivate with reference to court decisions. The position is that the repealed Publications and Entertainment Act of 1963, in the case of publications and entertainments, made provision for appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the then Publications Control Board. Of course, there were appeals to the courts in terms of that provision, and I want to present hon. members with a few relevant decisions by the courts on this aspect now.

In the case Publications Control Board v. William Heinemann, Ltd. and Others (S.A. Law Reports, 1965 (4) page 137) Judge of Appeal Rumpff declares—on p. 156G—as follows—

In the same case—p. 161G to p. 162G— Judge of Appeal Williamson says the following—

In a later case, SA. Magazine Company (Pty.) Ltd. v. Publications Control Board, (S.A. Law Reports, 1966 (2), p. 148G—Mr. Justice Snyman expresses his misgivings on this kind of appeal. On page 150G to page 151A he says the following—

In the case Lindberg v. Publications Control Board (S.A. Law Reports, 1968 (4), p. 311G) Mr. Justice Ludorf pointed out that he was not in fact sitting as a judge, but as an administrative official. Let us come closer to home, however, and hear what the colleague of the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Johannesburg North had to say on this matter in his evidence before the Commission of Inquiry into the Publications and Entertainment Amendment Bill on 13 August 1973.

It was a minority opinion.

Yes, but that is nonetheless what he said. [Interjections.]

The fact that it was minority evidence, makes it even more ironical. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said the following in this regard—

I quote this in view of the question of whether or not these matters should be referred to a court. But, Sir, I want to quote something else the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. It is something which he said at Stellenbosch during the N. P. van Wyk Louw memorial lecture in March 1976. I quote—

Sir, I want to say immediately that I appreciate what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has done in the cultural sphere in his life. As the passages which I quoted demonstrate, the hon. member’s thoughts were clear on these matters while he was still a judge, but politics has clouded his judgment. Hence his strange proposal that the Act should now be repealed and a panel of literary experts should be temporarily appointed until a new Act can be drawn up. As regards the hon. member’s remarks on the “probable reader”, I just want to say that I regard the matter as sub judice. I am not prepared to comment on that at this stage.

The hon. member for Sandton said—

I was quoting; those were not my words.

Yes, but by that the hon. member implied that that was in fact the position. The point is that several members of the Publications Committee are non-Whites. There are eight Coloureds and eleven Indians. In addition we have Coloured and Indian advisory committees.

Out of how many people?

I said there were 11 Indians and eight Coloureds serving on the committees. In addition there are the statutory advisory committees.

Eleven Indians and eight Coloureds out of how many?

Out of 257.

You have made my point for me!

The hon. member for Sandton also said, “The committees do not represent the community”.

Not fully.

On this list of 257 committee members there are 78 English-speaking persons, giving us a percentage of 30,4%. Then there are 179 Afrikaans-speaking persons giving us a percentage of 69,6%. That statement by the hon. member therefore, is just so many words.

In the third place the hon. member referred to section 47 of the Act, which lays down the norms, and said, “It is a wide definition of what is offensive”. Allow me to say at once that I stand 100% behind the requirements of that section. Those are sound and fair requirements. But as the hon. member, as a jurist, himself knows, it is clear from many decisions of the appeal board that they do apply those requirements of section 47, but that they display tolerance for works having artistic or literary merit according to their own discretion and in an extremely fair way. In view of that, therefore, I do not agree at all with this statement of the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Durban Central has also ventured into the sphere of publications control. It is very clear that he does not know much about this matter. He alleged that censorship was being used for political purposes.

Did I say it or did I quote someone?

No, the hon. member said it himself.

No, I quoted someone.

The hon. member quoted it with acclamation. [Interjections.] Under the Publications Act the controlling bodies—the appeal board, the directorate and the publications committees—are autonomous statutory bodies in whose work no-one—not even the Minister of the Interior—may interfere. However, if the hon. member for Durban Central meant that control of publications posing a threat to the security of the State is so-called political censorship, I hand him over to the wrath of his own patriotic Natal electorate. [Interjections.]

The point has repeatedly been made that there should be absolute tolerance for works of literary merit and that only literary experts should decide on that. In this regard again I want to quote a far better authority than myself in order to prove that it is not desirable to do so. I want to quote the Chief Justice of the time, Mr. Justice L. C. Steyn, in this regard. In 1965 he said the following in the Heineman case—

Since I have now in my view dealt with all the remarks by hon. members who criticized the Bill, I now want to make an announcement on the Publications Amendment Bill. Hon. members need not be afraid. It is not another long announcement!

The Government is aware of the impasse which has developed in regard to publications control in South Africa.

The Government is aware of the concern among the literary people and writers on the provisions of the Act and its functioning with regard to the development of Afrikaans literature in particular.

In this matter I have continued the open-door policy of my predecessor and I have had in-depth talks with several leading literary figures and writers. I have also had talks with other experts, for example theologians and representatives of interested bodies all over the country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the individuals with whom I have discussed the matter, for the responsible way and the fine spirit in which they put their case.

I also received quite a number of representations from interested people and bodies in which some aspect or another was emphasized and/or an amendment to the legislation was called for. Almost everyone whom I have spoken to or who has written to me, agrees that pornographic publications and publications dangerous to the security of the State should be barred from South Africa and should be under legal control.

Responsible writers and literary figures are not demanding the abolition of publications control. They request that in the application of the Publications Act of 1974 greater recognition should be accorded to the literary merits of publications and that literary experts and authors should have a greater say in deciding the fate of publications of literary merit.

My predecessor made it very clear on more than one occasion in and outside this House that if there should be any difficulties in the application of the Publications Act, 1974, he would not hesitate to amend the Act fittingly in order to eliminate those difficulties. I endorse this standpoint wholeheartedly.

It is in the public interests that the present impasse, before it has further consequences, should be resolved as soon as possible. That is why it is intended to introduce amending legislation during the present session to overcome the present problematical situation without detracting from the basic purpose of the Act, i.e. to debar undesirable things from our communications media. The legislation will have the purport, inter alia, that the appeal board on publications will be able to impose certain conditions in respect of the distribution of publications which it does not find undesirable, for example that it may not be made available to persons of a particular age group or that it may not be exhibited or shown in public.

In order to afford literary men and authors and other experts in the fine and performing arts a greater say in decisions on publications of literary value or on works of art, provision will be made for the appointment by the Minister of the Interior of a panel of experts in the field of the arts, language or literature from which the chairman of the appeal board on publications will of his own accord be able to appoint a committee, or from which he will have to appoint a committee on request of an appelant or a petitioner to advise the appeal board on a particular publication or work of art.

Literary men, authors and art experts will therefore have an authoritative say on a co-ordinated basis in the decision-making process before the appeal board.

The appeal board will be authorized to put a legal question, arising from the investigation of a particular case, to the Supreme Court for decision, either of its own accord or at the request of an appellant or petitioner.

It is trusted that by means of these provisions which are intended to be incorporated in the Publications Act, 1974, the present impasse in respect of publications control in South Africa will be broken and that the Publications Act, 1974, will be able to function better by means of the proposed committees of experts and new provisions.

Now I should like to reply briefly to other representations by hon. members who have taken part so far. I am coming to the hon. member for Sandton again. He spoke about race classification. I want to tell the hon. member immediately that that word is not in my dictionary. I talk about the “classification of population groups”. This matter falls into the sphere of activities of the hon. Deputy Minister of the Interior, Mr. le Grange. For that reason I only want to make a few remarks from a point of view of policy and leave it to the hon. Deputy Minister to reply to the hon. member’s representations. While I am talking about the hon. Deputy Minister le Grange, I want to take this opportunity to thank him very much for the loyal and pleasant co-operation that I receive from him.

Section 5(4)(c) of the Act in question leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary to the department to take a decision in certain cases. Obviously I have discussed this whole matter of the classification with the Secretary of my department and with the Deputy Minister, and after an in-depth discussion of the matter, I am satisfied that the necessary compassion is shown in these cases when they are reconsidered under section 5(4)(c).

The hon. member also talked about the “total collapse of the population register and the identity document system”.

As an utensil for elections.

You can have it that way if you like.

*I want to make it clear that I took the House fully into my confidence last night because it is not only to the benefit of the governing party, but certainly to the benefit of the Opposition parties as well if such a system functions properly. But hon. members must not distort the words I spoke here, wrest them out of context and use them for such sweeping and unfounded statements. Bottlenecks did arise as a result of the sudden election we had last year, the fact that thousands of applications had not been properly completed and the flood of applications which we received after we had announced the final target date of 28 February 1978 for the replacement of drivers’ licences. These are basic bottlenecks, therefore, which developed because of unavoidable circumstances, circumstances for which my predecessor and his Secretary as well as I and my Secretary certainly cannot be held responsible. I am sure however, that with the necessary time we are going to be granted until 1982, we shall be able to iron out these bottlenecks in the interests of everyone and I call for the co-operation of all political parties in order to achieve that end.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Rissik and in referring to him I want to thank him first of all for his sound leadership as chairman of the study group on this side of the House on matters concerning the Interior. I thank him too for the friendly words which he addressed to me as well as for his enlightening standpoint on publications control. Furthermore, I want to thank him specifically for the words of appreciation which he extended to Mr. J. L. Pretorius, who has just retired as Director of Publications. I deemed it fit to take Mr. Pretorius out of that section because he is an excellent official and because I need his services specifically to iron out the problems being experienced in connection with the population register.

I want to emphasize that I did not take him away from publications because I had any misgivings about his work as Director of Publications. In his place we have Mr. D. Vosloo, the regional representative of my department in Cape Town. He is a man who is widely accepted in cultural circles and somebody whom I believe will make a great success of this work, as Mr. Pretorius did.

Now I come to the hon. member for Tygervallei, a recognized expert in electoral matters. He asked in a very well-motivated speech that Walvis Bay should be made a separate constituency. The Cabinet obviously considered this matter when it decided to incorporate Walvis Bay into the Namaqualand constituency. I want to assure him, however, that we shall take a good look at this matter again. He must remember to submit his proposals to the next Delimitation Commission.

I think I have replied to all the aspects which the hon. member for Durban Central raised on publications control.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a very interesting speech on the Press and also referred to the high standards which are expected from journalism. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the Newspaper Bill was withdrawn after the First Reading in the House of Assembly last year, after the Press Union at its own request had talks with the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers, after which they promised that the Press would set its own house in order. The Press Code would be brought into line with the code embodied in the legislation and greater powers would also be given to its disciplinary section, the Press Board. As an experienced journalist the hon. member knows what happened and he certainly knows what options are open to him if he finds that there are journalists contravening the provisions of the particular code. Allow me to say something else in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister gave the Press Union one year—which came to an end on 23 March 1978—to set its own house in order. I have recently requested certain reports from the Director of the Press Secretariate of the hon. the Prime Minister and from the Press Union on the work of the Press Board. These reports are now available, and the Cabinet will again take a close look at the whole matter and if necessary, discuss the matter further with the Press Union.

The hon. member for Vryheid gave an enlightening talk on the Indians of Natal. I want to thank him for the kind words he addressed to me. While the hon. member was speaking, I congratulated my colleague here next to me, the hon. Minister for Indian Affairs, on all the compliments paid him as well on treatment of the Indians in Natal. The hon. member referred to the concessions which my predecessor recently granted in connection with the bringing of Indian brides to this country. I want to confirm that this exception pertaining to the admission of Indian wives applies only in cases where it was felt that for humane reasons, concessions could be made without throwing the door wide open. Those cases are among others: (a) Cases which Indian Affairs have on record where the man applied for his wife to be admitted before the implementation of the restrictive provisions of Act 43 of 1953, but which were not disposed of owing to a delay: Provided that neither of the two parties have entered into any other marital relations with any other person; (b) old and known cases where the wife is already of an advanced age and where neither she nor her husband has married or contracted any other relationship; and (c) widows of persons who had been inhabitants of the Republic who were left behind in difficult circumstances and who, at the time of the marriage, were or still are South African citizens.

†I now want to deal with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He apologized to me for not being able to be here. He said that it was the duty of the department to ensure that every voter’s name is on the roll. My reaction to that is that I shall endeavour to ensure that the department fulfils all its statutory obligations in this respect, especially as far as the processing of RV1 cards and other information are concerned. However, the person who is absolutely nonchalant about whether his name appears on a roll or not, certainly lacks responsibility.

As far as his interesting suggestion for obtaining information for the voters’ roll on a decentralized basis is concerned, I think he will agree that this aspect was fully covered by me in my statement at the start of the debate. I may mention that I have already had explorative talks with the United Municipal Executure of South Africa in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton will react to the hon. the Minister’s statement on the Publications Act. I just want to raise another matter of importance. I have only one minute to do so. As hon. members know, our South African flag will be 50 years old on 31 May this year. On that day it will be exactly 50 years ago that the flag was officially inaugurated, and half a century ago that it was hoisted for the first time above this Parliament. It is an historical occasion and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Government has given this any consideration and made any plans to commemorate this great occasion. If not, I think that Parliament, at least, should do something about it and should commemorate the occasion before the conclusion of its activities on 30 May.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is unfortunately not present this afternoon. Last night he referred to the poor condition of the voters’ rolls used last year and talked about “Mulder’s muddle”. I think his remarks in this connection were rather a “Bartlett’s blunder”, because as a politician he ought to have remembered that the previous registration of voters had taken place in 1972 and that the voters’ rolls were therefore already five years old. Nobody told him that he should not register voters in the old, usual way. The changes would only have become effective in July this year. We are sorry that his party did badly in the election, but I really do not think it was necessary for him to attribute the blame for that to the condition of the voters’ rolls. [Interjections.]

Actually I have only half a speaking turn and I should like to devote the rest of my time to the Government Printer, because it …

Fix the “Sappe” first.

… it is a small department and plays an unconspicuous role. It is a department which actually works behind the scenes. There is not even an annual report about this department. In fact, in the annual report of the Department of the Interior, there is not even a reference to the Government Printer. Despite this, the Government Printer this year has a budget of R13,29 million. If one considers that the budget of the Department of Information is only R2 million more than that, I think the Government Printer perhaps has some reason to feel jealous because the Department of Information gets so much publicity and is so often in the limelight, whereas in this connection they have to play a very subordinate role. [Interjections.]

In spite of the very important work which the Government Printer does, we are but poorly acquainted with this department and know very little about its activities. Ninety years ago—in 1888—the Government Printing Works of the old South African Republic were established in Pretoria after the Government of the day had bought out De Volkstem. Part of the printing press of that newspaper was then developed into a Government Printer, and the old building used at the time is today preserved as a place of historic interest. At the time of Union in 1910, the printing works became the Government Printer, as we still know it today. With the increase in the population, the work of the Department has increased to such an extent that it can no longer do all the printing work of the State and we find today that the Provincial Administrations, the Railways and the Post Office do their own printing—except in respect of security work such as postal orders, money orders, cheques, postcards and postage stamps. The Post Office, which makes such an impression with the fine postage stamps they distribute and with which they even win international competitions, is actually ploughing with another man’s heifer. It is the Government Printer which prints those fine postage stamps for the Post Office. The Government Printer is a factory which does printing work. They arrange for the private sector to do the work which they cannot do themselves.

During the fiscal year 1976-’77, the Government Printer itself did printing work to the extent of R10,87 million and entrusted Government printing work to the amount of R5,1 million to the private sector. During the past fiscal year, the figures in this connection were R10,8 million and R5,9 million respectively.

The department is very well equipped for its task and that is why it functions so efficiently. The Cape Town office is an ideal link with the local contractors to do and supply our printing work—that of Parliament as well. The staff consists of experts whose work is of outstanding quality. Their documents, which we handle every day during the parliamentary session, attest to this. Their annual production increases every year. If one considers that the quantity of paper they use annually has increased to 6 500 tons during the past fiscal year, one gets some idea of the extent of the work which this department does.

Their staff position should also be considered. In spite of the increase in their activities and the services they render, their staff establishment has decreased. Whereas, they had 1 370 people in their employ in 1970 and 1 155 in 1975, they now have only 1 080 people in their service—in spite of the increase in the work. Their turnover of staff is very small. As far as skilled workers are concerned, there has been virtually no movement of staff during the past few years. This low rate of change of staff is remarkable when one bears in mind that they constantly have to carry out urgent assignments over and above their normal activities. If one considers that the announcement of a general election last year was made at a very unexpected stage and that it entailed a vast amount of work for this department, one wonders how they succeeded in handling this additional unexpected work in addition to their normal working programme. One also wonders how they managed to make their budget balance when those major extra expenses had unexpectedly to be taken into account I understand that another urgent task was the printing of defence bond certificates. What is striking about these defence bond certificates, is precisely the fact that they represent an absolutely faultless achievement on the part of this department.

The use of postcards—that is also something which they print—increased by 65% during last year, namely from 8,2 million in 1976-’77 to 14,8 million in 1977-’78. That is an immense increase. The Government Printer had to keep pace with this. Many of the postcards represent art printing work of a very high quality. Consequently one really has very great appreciation for the work which this department does.

Maps are also printed by them. In conclusion I should just like to ask whether it is not possible that in future we shall again be able to buy maps of our constituencies, as in the past During the past few years, this has not been possible.

Mr. Chairman, in his speech last night the hon. member for Sandton made certain derogatory remarks about what he called “the race classification provisions of the Population Registration Act”—remarks which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. He said—and I quote (Hansard, 17 May 1978)—

Firstly, I want to point out that the Population Registration Act does not provide for, or entail, race classification at all; it merely provides for the classification of the population in terms of membership of different population groups. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but it is the loud laugh which speaks the vacant mind.

Secondly, I must point out that it is not the provisions of the Act which give ammunition to those abroad who wish our country ill, but statements such as those made by the hon. member in his speech last night and similar speeches of other hon. members of his party.

The hon. member for Sandton continued and said—

When an hon. member of this House speaks like that of legislation of this country, the enemies of this country can afford to sit back and relax.

*If it is accepted—as we on this side of the House do—that the South African society is a multinational society and that every nation or national group is entitled to maintain and to protect its identity, then it is logical that nothing will be done by means of legislation or by means of other measures which will jeopardize, or even impede, the maintenance of national identity. In fact, prevailing conditions may even necessitate legislative and other measures for the positive stimulation and promotion of national identity.

But where do hon. members of the Official Opposition stand in respect of multinationality? The hon. member for Yeoville plainly accepts the multinationality of the South African community. In an article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 7 August last year, he stated categorically—

Who argues with that?

I shall tell the hon. member who argues with that.

*During an interview which the Citizen had with the hon. member for Musgrave on 23 November last year, he said, inter alia, the following in reply to the question, “How do you see the future of the Coloureds and of the Indians and of urban and rural Blacks?”—

†Now I say to the hon. member for Yeoville that the hon. member for Musgrave argues with what he said.

You are talking nonsense.

That is an unequivocal denial and a rejection of the fact of multinationality.

On 4 November 1977, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, in an interview with the ABC Radio of the USA, said in reply to the question “What is wrong with American insistence on South Africa having to move faster in the direction of a multiracial community”—

I ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Is a multiracial community the same as a multinational community?

What is the difference between race and nation?

Now he asks me who disagrees with him.

During the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, however, the hon. member for Bryanston replied to my question, “Who is going to be invited to such a national convention?” by way of an interjection, “the elected leaders of all the nations”. Therefore he evidently accepts the fact—as does the hon. member for Yeoville—of the multinationality of the S.A. society.

The membership of every individual of a particular nation or national group is inherent in the policy of multinationality and separate development. For administrative and other purposes, it is therefore essential that there should be clarity and certainty about the nation to which every individual belongs. Of course, any denial of the fact of multinationality in South Africa includes also the rejection of the need to classify individuals as members of particular nations. Without a Population Registration Act and without the classification of all inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa as members of particular nations or national groups, it would not have been possible, however, to maintain the identity of the separate nations and national groups and to implement the policy of multinationality and separate development. Accidentally, it would not even have been possible to convene a national convention in accordance with the views of the hon. member for Bryanston or to implement the PFP’s stated—and I stress “stated”—federation policy.

It is true that the classification of people as members of particular nations or national groups, affects their rights and powers in several spheres in a relatively drastic way. But when hon. members of the Opposition express criticism about the classification provisions in the Population Registration Act— as the hon. member for Bryanston did yesterday evening—they must say at the same time whether they are opposed to all measures which will collapse without the Population Registration Act. Then they must also tell us whether or not they are in favour of integrated schools. Do they want to promote mixed residential areas and put an end to influx control over Black people?

We have answered that question a hundred times already!

Do they want to put an end to influx control over Black people—something which was accepted when the old UP was still in power? Is the maintenance of national identity, and in particular the maintenance of White identity, of no value to them? Do they expect the Whites of this country deliberately to accept a political system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary state, and by so doing, to head inevitably in the direction of Black majority rule? If that is what they desire, they must say so plainly and not try to promote it in a veiled manner by means of attacks on the Population Registration Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay that I have always understood that a population group means exactly the same thing as a race. If this Committee can believe that membership of a population group is not equivalent to membership of a race, then I suppose that this Committee can believe the hon. the Minister of Finance, who says that all restaurants are open and that we are moving towards a merit society. We can then believe anything! [Interjections.]

The Population Registration Act is a cruel measure which causes heartache to thousands of South Africans and which is there only to preserve the racial exclusivity of a society. It cannot be condoned in any civilized society, and we reject it completely. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No! I should like to react now to the announcement made by the hon. the Minister. Almost any change in the system of publications control is to be welcomed. The present method of implementation of publications control has brought the NP Government into conflict with almost every element of South African society. I regret, however, that the announced amendments do not, in my view and in the view of my party, go nearly far enough. The hon. the Minister will find, for instance, that to attempt to limit the sale of literature to certain age groups will prove to be unenforceable. Furthermore, the creation of yet another advisory panel of experts, provision for which already exists in the existing legislation, is only of peripheral consequence. Far deeper insight into the patent faults of the legislation is required, and seems to be lacking. It seems that the Minister and this party will have to agree to differ, because we continue to believe that the one thing that must be done and that is most important, is to restore the right of an author or an aggrieved person to appeal to an independent court. Secondly, we believe that committees should be revamped to reflect more accurately the diversity of South African society. It is not just a question of language which is involved here. Finally, the inordinately wide and all-embracing definition of that which is undesirable, we believe should be narrowed. We regret that the hon. the Minister disagrees with us, but only when these nettles are grasped will confidence in the legislation begin to be restored.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with another aspect falling under the Department of the Interior, namely the question of citizenship. During the period 1961 to 1977 South Africa attracted 614 498 immigrants, an average of 36 147 persons per year. During that same period, excluding resumptions of South African nationality, some 53 000 new citizens were inducted, i.e. an average of only 3 125 per year.

For years the Government has spoken of the necessity of having a population which treasures an undivided loyalty to South Africa. In days gone by sections of the English-speaking community were accused, sometimes with justification, of harbouring dual loyalty. Today practically all English-speaking South Africans have their irrevocable roots in our country. We all welcome immigrants into our society. We say that the benefits of our society are open to immigrants. We would like them to share the responsibilities and the problems which we have in our country. However, according to the figures which were revealed in the May 1970 census, there were at that time 277 934 White immigrants living permanently in South Africa who were not citizens of this country. This figure has today swelled to over 400 000 people. It is quite obvious that the Government is trying to repair the position. This is evident from the bringing before Parliament a few months ago of the S.A. Citizenship Amendment Bill. That the Government has done precious little, however, to implement its policy over the past 17 years, is equally clear. The very duality of loyalties which is so abhorrent to members, has been allowed to flourish! Although the retention rate of immigrants in South Africa as permanent residents is as high as 80%, less than 9% of all settlers are encouraged to, or in fact take out South African citizenship. Perhaps in years gone by the reasons why nothing was done were party-political, but is this still the case? In past years, for purely party-political reasons and party-political gain, I believe the Government ignored this aspect of the development of South Africa, and in doing so, I believe it has failed South Africa as a whole. None of us believe in compulsion. None of us believe in threats or sanctions. We do not need unwilling citizens; I think that is clear. What we do need, is a programme, a planned, developed, publicized and implemented programme to encourage settlers, not just the under 25’s, to commit themselves to South Africa by becoming South African citizens. The procedures and documentation should be streamlined. The word should go out, and until this is done, all the gibes of dual loyalties are, I believe, hollow to the ear. Let it not be said that we want the hands and not the citizens.

But, Sir, let me say one other thing. The responsibility does not lie only with the Government It lies also with the people concerned. I say that immigrants in South Africa are welcome in our midst We need them. We need their skills, their expertise, their creative ability, their children and their presence. They are playing a vital role in the present and future development of South Africa. In return for this, our country offers a home, satisfactory employment, income, remuneration and a significant role in the progress of our country. Is it therefore unfair to ask these people, who have settled in our country, to share with us the responsibilities as well? I think not. Is it unfair to ask these people to commit themselves to the country of their children’s birth, if not their own? Is it unfair to invite them to embark upon a common destiny with all of us who have made this new and happy home possible for them? Or do our permanent visitors wish only, as parasites, to share the fruits of our society, but none of the responsibilities or problems? Such persons do themselves and South Africa a disservice. Their place is here. Ninety per cent of these people will not, in their lifetimes, leave this country. They, too, have a real stake in the prosperity and the stability of the Republic, as also in the defence of our country. The good things that happen here will happen to them and they will also share the bad times with us. Surely the time has come for both the Government and the thousands of people concerned to take a fresh look at the whole question of citizenship with a view to building, together, a stronger and more united South Africa.

Now I should like to deal with a point made last night by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, a point which I do not think should go unchallenged. He stated the following—

What he is saying is that journalists are not a part of Press freedom in their right as individuals but because they are employees of Saan, Argus, Perskor or Nasionale Pers. What he is saying is that the freedom of the Press rests with the Press barons. It does not.

That is an idiotic interpretation.

The freedom of the Press is not what is stated in that hon. member’s speech. The freedom of the Press pertains to the right of the individual to an expression of opinion. The Press is only the guardian of the freedom of the individual to express an opinion. The Press in itself is not free because it is an institution, a body of powerful people. The Press is free because it reflects a free society. That is why the Press is free.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly never thought we would ever experience the day in this House when an experienced and intelligent student of constitutional law would tell us that he could see no difference between the concepts “race” and “nation”. I honestly did not think that was possible. But the hon. member for Sandton is not the only person who has said that The hon. member for Yeoville also said he saw no difference between the concepts “race” and “nation”. Is this not the basic difference between the political philosophy on this side of the House and the political philosophy of the Official Opposition? They do not see the difference, and for that reason they have objections, inter alia, to the Population Registration Act. But we do see the difference, and for that reason we have, amongst others, the Population Registration Act in the Statute Book. I do not think the time is now opportune to go into that in detail.

In consequence of the remaries by the hon. member for Sandton about the number factor in our annual report, I just want to state that he need not read anything in that with regard to the application of section 5(4)(c). This decline in numbers is solely ascribable to the smaller number of applicants for a different classification. It is not a matter of section 5(4)(c) being applied callously or of us not wanting to exercise our discretion as far as possible. In connection with the question of appeals in terms of section 11(4), I should also just like to refer the hon. member to page 10 of the annual report. It is indicated there that this discretion is indeed exercised with the greatest openness—by the appeal board as well. The hon. member will also note that during the past two years, there were no appeals in the Supreme Court. The hon. member can therefore accept my assurance that it is only a decline in the number of applications which is reflected in the annual report. I think that all of us who, during the past few years—and especially during the past year—have had to deal with the classification of our population groups, will agree that we are doing our best to apply section 5(4)(c) with as much compassion as possible, as the hon. the Minister has stated.

I am also grateful for the contribution which the hon. member for Mossel Bay made in connection with this matter. I think that this hon. member placed his finger on several of the vulnerable spots in the attitude of the Official Opposition. That, too, is why the debate became considerably more lively when the hon. member spoke about that. Even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout seemed upset: To think that the hon. member for Yeoville did not even know the difference between race and nation! In any case, I leave him to his fellow party members.

As regards the second part of the speech by the hon. member for Sandton, I just want to tell him that for the most part it concerned the Immigration Vote. [Interjections.] I do not want to enter into a dispute with the hon. member now. He did discuss citizenship, but his approach to the problem was such that what he said, was to a great extent relevant to the debate on the Immigration Vote. Later this afternoon, when I discuss the Immigration Vote on behalf of the hon. the Minister, I shall reply fully to the hon. member and, in the process, quote extremely interesting statistics in connection with the questions which he put and the concern he expressed.

I fully agree with a part of the standpoint which he has adopted. But, as I have said, I shall reply fully on that question in the discussions on the Immigration Vote. I hope he will agree that let it stand over until then.

Will you put it on record if I cannot be here?

Yes, I will definitely put it on record. I have prepared myself on this aspect and I will put it on record in Hansard.

*I also want to thank the hon. member for False Bay for his kind words about the Government Printer. It is indeed a very important department and does good work. I should like to endorse what the hon. member has said in this connection and supply a few more interesting details—details which do not normally come to our attention, inter alia, because there is no annual report in which these facts can be highlighted for the information of the hon. members. The hon. member referred to the special effort which the Government Printer had to make for the election. It was a snap election, and the Government Printer had to make an almost superhuman effort to do everything in that connection in good time. In 14 working days, 165 voters’ rolls were printed, for which 44 tons of paper were used. On top of that, 5 400 000 ballot papers were printed for Parliament and the provincial council. That was done in 5½ days, and in that period the Government Printer devoted 5 600 man-hours to this task.

Let me quote another fine example with regard to the bonus bonds. That scheme was announced in May last year. After that, the details had to be worked out and tested; matters such as format, security aspects, a numerical system which would make it possible to identify the certificates electronically and to have the election and drawing of lots done by computer, and other specifications. It was also decided to use special paper with a watermark. In this connection, the Government Printer, with great initiative, persuaded a local paper mill to manufacture the necessary paper. That paper mill also made a special effort in this connection. That was done because imported paper of the quality required, would have been much more expensive and would, in any case, not have been delivered in time. In connection with this item alone, the Government Printer saved us R125 000 by the initiative displayed. Because it has particularly good contact with foreign printing works and persons in this industry, the Government Printer had a numbering machine made in England within a few weeks. Working around the clock for a period of 60 days, eight million bonus bond certificates in seven different denominations were printed faultlessly. I want to refer to yet another fine example. The hon. member has spoken about our fine postage stamps, and I think that is something we can really be proud of, because our stamps are among the finest in the world. That applies not only to the design, but also to the wonderful use of colours. During 1977, 33 new denominations were printed. Together with reprints, a total of 120 different denominations were printed, consisting of stamps for the RSA, for South West Africa, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. I should also like to quote an interesting example of the very thorough business methods applied by the Government Printer, and the excellent management applied there, by referring to the saving effected in connection with cigarette excise stamps. From 1930 to 1976, the Government Printer printed one million cigarette excise stamps every year at the instance of the Department of Customs and Excise. These stamps, in the form of pasting strips reflecting the excise tax, were sold to tobacco companies as a means of collecting excise tax. On the recommendation of the Government Printer, these excise stamps were dispensed with and cigarette companies were given the task of placing an emblem on every cigarette box during the manufacturing process to indicate that excise tax had been paid. The tobacco companies then submit an audited statement monthly of the quantity of cigarettes manufactured, and pay excise tax accordingly. This change effected an annual saving of R260 000 in printing costs and, together with a saving of R40 000 in administration costs, the total saving which the Government Printer effected for our country in this way, is approximately R300 000. It is a great pleasure to me, Mr. Chairman, to inform you and the Committee of these things, because we are dealing here with purposeful methods whereby to render the best possible service to our country by the application of sound business methods.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers and I should also like to express my thanks to Mr. Fourie, the retired Secretary for the Interior. I wish him a long and happy period of rest. I also want to congratulate Advocate Booyens on his promotion. It did not come as a surprise. We expected it. I wish him everything of the best and success and God’s richest blessings. We are convinced that he will make a great success of this position. We sincerely welcome him.

I have listened to the debate. There is one matter which has not been raised, and for that reason I should like to devote a few moments to it today. It concerns the control of aliens— in connection with which this department performs a very essential function. Because we live in a land of sunshine, wealth and very friendly people, it is understandable that people from all over the world come to the RSA at one time or another and for one reason or another. They come here as tourists, undergraduate or post-graduate students, for financial reasons, to find a home here, and even for obscure purposes. I shall return to the latter in a moment.

It is expected of the Department of the Interior to exercise control over aliens or visitors from abroad. That is indeed done, and I should like to pay tribute this afternoon to the Department of the Interior for keeping a record of every alien visitor by means of a computer. For purposes of proper control, certain detailed and correct information is demanded. The question now arises: What type of information is required? I should like to place the nature of this information on record in the House today. It is expected that we should be supplied with the full name, place and date of birth of such a person. We also require the nationality of such a person, and the place and date of his arrival in the Republic. We also require the reason why he or she should be allowed here, the period of validity of the temporary residence permit, and the date and place of departure.

Taking all this into account, it is evident that the Department of the Interior does its work thoroughly. But from time to time and from legislation to legislation in which certain rights and powers are conferred on our Ministers, the Opposition states that they oppose this. The Department of the Interior is an efficient department which ensures that its activities keep moving, and for that reason I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister who is at the head of this department.

In the light of what I have said, I should like to raise the question: Are our measures stringent enough to permit the right people to enter our country? I am putting the question specifically to the hon. the Minister, and I am now going to motivate that question. I have here a report under large, bold letters: “US bid to grab our atom secrets” which appeared in The Sunday Tribune of 14 May. It reads further “American spies seek our uranium secrets.” These people entered our country because the Department of the Interior admitted them. That is why I have put this question to the hon. the Minister. I should like to read another quotation from the report—

This appeared just before Loginov was arrested here. I further want to quote a very important statement—

Hon. members must now listen carefully to the following clause—

In the light of this, hon. members will perhaps understand why I am requesting that we should, if possible, apply more stringent measures in the admission of foreign visitors to our country.

I should also like to say a few words about working permits. Various permits are issued by the Department of the Interior. For example, one gets a temporary residence permit, a work permit and a study permit. A foreign visitor to South Africa may apply for a work permit only if a temporary residence permit has already been granted to him. One now encounters people who come here—I say this in all responsibility—and apply for a temporary residence permit. As soon as he had obtained this temporary residence permit, he goes and seeks work without applying for a work permit. Since we are saddled with this problem, I should like to suggest that we inform these people in connection with this matter. If a person is granted permission to come and work in the country, he must comply with the conditions of such a permit. One of the conditions is that such a person must confine himself to classifications of work as approved, and he must state the name of his employer. All it amounts to is that such a person applies for a permit and at the same time submits a letter in which a certain employer states that he will employ the applicant in a certain position. If that happens, such a person has to remain with that employer and do the work assigned to him.

I should like to make a further request. In the granting of work permits, the overriding consideration is whether the work or task cannot be performed by a settled inhabitant of the Republic. But one now encounters the problem that work is reserved for certain foreign visitors. My request to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned with this, is that where a vacancy arises, the position should be filled by a settled inhabitant of the Republic if he is available and has the necessary qualifications.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will pardon me for not reacting to his speech, because I want to react at once to the reply the hon. the Minister gave to my speech on censorship. The hon. the Minister alleged, inter alia, that I had supposedly said that steps were being taken against certain authors for political reasons. For the sake of the record I want to quote what I said (Hansard, 17 May 1978)—

That is amongst the authors—

Do you agree with them?

The hon. the Minister must please give me a chance. Then I quoted from a report in the Weekend Argus in which the author Jan Rabie said, “What they really mean is, don’t write against the Government”. I went on to say that the Government should take note of this attitude and that the hon. the Minister should obtain the co-operation of the authors and should not alienate them. On these grounds the hon. the Minister now insinuates that I am trying to protect subversive authors. In the light of what I have said here, I think the idiom he used against me is an insinuation which I reject with contempt.

Then why did you quote Mr. Rabie’s statement?

The hon. the Minister should read my speech. The whole speech was devoted to proving that the Government should seek not confrontation, but co-operation.

What is your point of view?

I put my point of view clearly in the speech. At this stage I want to say that the activities of the department in fact afford one a glimpse of the inner workings of our society as it is controlled or regimented in practice by the implementation of the NP’s policy and political philosophy. The salient aspect of the activities of the department which distinguishes it totally from similar departments in other countries, is that one of its major tasks is race classification. Appropriately enough, under the very first heading, “Activities”, in the department’s annual report, one finds mention of population registration and identification. Without such population identification or race classification the system of apartheid in South Africa and everything it involves, cannot function.

In the performance of its other duties such as passport control, awarding of citizenship, etc., the department is concerned with matters that determine people’s destinies administratively and otherwise. As MP’s we are all aware of cases where the refusal of, for instance, the extension of a residence permit or the refusal of citizenship has contributed to anxiety and despair. But there is nothing comparable to the anxiety and despair experienced by a person who finds that he has become the victim of a race classification guillotine.

†I should therefore like to say a few words about race classification. Let me say at the outset that I am not going to raise individual cases today, neither am I going to make any particular accusations that the officials and the hon. the Deputy Minister who are handling these cases are not doing their job properly. I know they are always at great pains to explain to us how sympathetic they are with heart-break cases. This I accept. However, they should also accept and realize that all the assurances in the world that the officials and the hon. the Minister are dealing with great sympathy and tact with these heartbreak cases, are of no compensation when a person suddenly finds that because of a particular classification, he becomes a have-not in the country of his birth, or because of the failure to be reclassified he will continue to remain a have-not where he works and lives. I want to refer to a particular, practical example. Let me concentrate on the situation of the Black man in the western Cape. I want to look at what he stands to gain if he should be classified as a Coloured. I also want to look at the example of a Coloured who is classified Bantu. This Coloured immediately joins the ranks of the have-nots in respect of employment, preferences and basic rights, e.g. the right of home-ownership. The anxiety, anguish and frustration caused by such an action, can never be minimized, least of all by a declaration that the Act will be applied sympathetically.

On page 8 of the department’s report there is a list of classifications altered in terms of section 5(4)(c). There are altogether 15 different categories, or permutations. The list starts with the classification of Cape Coloured to White and ends with the classification of Malay to White. As far as the Bantu in the western Cape is concerned, there has, judging from the figures in the report, in the past not been a great demand by Bantu to be reclassified as Coloureds. According to these statistics, only one application in 1976 and one in 1977 were received from Bantu to be reclassified as Cape Coloureds. In view of the discriminatory and inhuman announcement concerning Black labour in the western Cape one can reasonably expect an increase in this particular category. I hope—this is why I have raised this point—that the necessary compassion will be shown to these people by the department and especially by the Secretary, who deals with classification.

What is the exact point you want us to consider?

I want to point out that the tremendous changes which come about in the situation in the western Cape will cause the department to be inundated with applications by people who are classified Black and want to be reclassified as Coloured. Considering the fact that these people will become have-nots in this situation in the western Cape, I want to appeal for compassion to be shown. The vast and strict race classification in South Africa under the Government goes hand in hand with this type of discrimination. This is why we in the NRP believe that a system of registration should replace the present race classification.

Until 1950 South Africa coped well enough without having to humiliate and subject its citizens to a harsh system of race classification. Everyone of us were born and brought up under the previous system.

*In conclusion, I just want to refer again to the announcement made about the amalgamation of the Departments of Immigration and the Interior. As we have said already, we welcome this with open arms. In this regard I just want to point out that last year when the present Senator Webber was still the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in this House, he delivered an impassioned plea specifically for this. Even though he is no longer a member of this House today, his wisdom has been put into practice at last. To execute this step logically and to obtain the greatest measure of benefit to the public, as well as to save money, one prerequisite is that one and the same section should deal with passport control and the issuing of visas and of residence permits. In this way the left hand will know what the right hand is doing. It is a problem we have always experienced, and I hope that it will be possible to eliminate it in future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central was, in my opinion, very wide off the mark in the matters he has raised. The hon. member’s concern emanates from the fact that the Government’s announcement on Black residential rights, and otherwise, in the western Cape will result in large numbers of Bantu wanting to be classified as Coloureds, for a variety of reasons. The hon. member also referred to the specific problem experienced by people when they suddenly discovered that they had been classified differently to what they had thought or could not be reclassified at their request. But things do not work that way in practice. There are very few people in South Africa who do not know from the very outset to what population group he or she actually belongs. [Interjections.] Because there are people like the Official Opposition, we must have a system like this.

Is that an argument?

Just wait a moment Let me talk to the hon. member for Durban Central. After all, he spoke in a fine, civilized way and did not indulge in playing politics. There are very few people, who, when they come to their senses as adults do not know where they fit into this pattern. There are not so many people who, as the hon. member alleges, suddenly discover that they are classified differently or suddenly discover to what population group they belong.

Another matter about which I should like to set the hon. member’s mind at rest, is about his reference to page 9 of the annual report of the Department of the Interior. He referred to all the various classifications mentioned there.

Under section 5(4)(c).

Yes, under section 5(4)(c), and also to the item “Bantu to Cape Coloured”, where one case was approved in 1976 as well as one in 1977. Therefore, there are very few cases where Bantu want to become Coloureds.

There will be more in future.

I just want to deal with this point first. I first want to explain to hon. members why there are so few cases. It is because the Bantu is proud of the nation to which he belongs. Secondly, the Coloured is as proud of the group to which he belongs. I do not know how many times I have had the experience on visiting a Coloured community, either at their request or out of my own volition that they speak to me about these matters and raise serious objections to the fact that we sometimes classify a Bantu as a Coloured, because in that way the Bantu enter their communities. Both these communities, both these population groups, are very proud of their own identity. The hon. member need not be concerned, and think that there is a large number of Bantu in the Western Cape now who intend asking the Government to classify them as Coloureds and he need not think that we shall act callously. It does not work that way in practice; there will not be cases of that nature. I can give the hon. member that assurance. Moreover, I want to repeat the assurance in which I give each year, and that is that if a truly bona fide case comes to our attention, we shall go out of our way to make a full investigation of all the relevant facts, and if it is possible to exercise our discretion in terms of section 5(4)(c), then we shall do so, because we are dealing with people.

In doing our duty, we want to make people happy. It is one’s duty as administrator of the State to do so. This is our approach to section 5(4)(c), and we do in fact do so. The hon. member need not be concerned about large numbers of Bantu now wanting to change their classification. I am sorry that the hon. member adopted that attitude this afternoon. Do hon. members know what the outcome may be? The result may be that people are now going to flood us with applications because they are going to say that that there is a member of Parliament who says this about them. It will not cause any grief to the hon. member when we deal with this. It will cause grief to those people who now have to read in the newspapers that an hon. member of this House says that there is such a possibility. My honest opinion is that the hon. member should not have said it. After all, there is no sense in it. [Interjections.] There is no sense in it, nor is it in line with the approach of those people. It is not in line with the approach of the Black or the Coloured people. I do not want to hold it against the hon. member, but in my honest opinion he should not have referred to it.

As far as the hon. member for False Bay is concerned: I failed to react to his request that we should reconsider printing maps of the various constituencies. The hon. member said it was a task for the Government Printer. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Government Printer and I shall give attention to the matter and investigate whether anything can be done in this regard. Therefore, I shall contact the hon. member about this matter again later on.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana expressed his concern about two aspects regarding temporary residence permits. What worried him in the first place was the question whether too many people of unsavoury character were not entering South Africa, people with sinister motives, who, shortly after their arrival, started creating problems here for us. The hon. member also expressed concern because, as he put it, too many people from outside were taking the place of trained South African citizens. Of course, we try as far as possible to prevent undesirable elements entering South Africa. However, the hon. member will also realize that we cannot investigate the past of every person who enters the country down to the minutest detail. If we had to do so, the whole system would grind to an absolute halt. It is simply not possible to undertake a complete, full investigation of the background of a person in his country of origin. Of course, there are not always the necessary sources of information available about all people. Therefor, we are trying our best, although there are practical problems which hamper us at times.

Secondly, I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that one of the factors to which serious consideration is given when we receive applications for work permits, is the question of whether there are South African citizens who can fill the position concerned. This is true. If there are in fact South African citizens, the foreigner’s application will not succeed. This is something which the hon. member may simply accept. It is in line with Government policy. This has always been the basis of the Government’s immigration policy. We do not attract immigrants to fill posts which can just as well be filled by South Africans. The hon. member can accept the two assurances which I have just given. As far as the implementation of certain aspects is concerned, we shall definitely give serious consideration to the suggestions of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister really opened the hon. member for Durban Central’s eyes. Of course, I hope that the hon. member’s ears were also open and that he listened when the hon. the Deputy Minister was speaking. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central got hurt last night, too, when the hon. the Minister really took him to task after he had made an irresponsible speech. Now the hon. member for Durban Central will probably ask to speak again in order to rectify what he said. I must say that he also acted fairly irresponsibly this afternoon. In fact, I have no idea how the hon. member for Durban Central will succeed in bringing about racial harmony, especially not when he makes speeches like the one he made this afternoon.

I was at university with the hon. member for Durban Central. We were together from our first year. The hon. member took a course in history, but apparently he has never learned the lessons of history. To tell the truth, I think that the hon. member has retrogressed a great deal since those days. [Interjections.] As far as the hon. the member for Durban Central is concerned, I just want to add something briefly. My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend too much on him. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that I wonder whether he should not officially go ahead and join the PFP now. [Interjections.]

Just like the hon. member for Rissik and other hon. members, I should also like to associate myself with the general congratulations and good wishes which have been conveyed to the hon. the Minister. I want to assure the hon. the Minister of our hearty support and co-operation at all times. I should also like to say the same to the new Secretary of the department. In the divergent nature of its functions, the Department of the Interior also uses agencies, including the Department of Justice. It is mainly the magistrates’ division of the Department of Justice which is responsible for these agency services. This applies in particular to magistrates in the smaller centres, where it is not profitable for the State to appoint a separate representative for every Government department. I should like to indicate some agency services which are carried out for the Department of the Interior in this way.

In the first place there is the question of marriages, where magistrates are appointed as marriage officers. They are then responsible for solemnizing marriages as well as for the administrative duties in this regard. Another aspect is births, where, with the aid of Justices of the Peace, the required forms for the registration of births are filled in and referred to the Department of the Interior. A third aspect is citizenship, where the Department of the Interior appoints magistrates as its agents in order to assist in applications for naturalization as well as for conveying naturalization certificates during dignified ceremonies. Sir, the magistrates handle these ceremonies very well indeed. Often it is a new citizen’s first encounter with a magistrate and a court of law, and I should like to say that the magistrate’s behaviour in this regard generates confidence. A fourth aspect to which I want to refer, is elections and I should like to dwell for a few moments on this specific agency service.

During elections, the magistrates and their staff regularly act as electoral officers, presiding officers, etc. In these capacities they are responsible for all arrangements prior to, during and after the conclusion of elections. These services are not only carried out in connection with elections for the House of Assembly and for provincial councils, but also for elections of members to the Coloured Persons Representative Council and elections in the homelands. Services of this type are also provided during by-elections.

I should like to refer briefly to the general election of November 1977. I feel that the Secretary of the department, the chief electoral officer and his staff carried out their task in an excellent way, a task which they had to carry out in a very short space of time. There was good co-operation and no problems. The electoral officer in my own constituency, Klerksdorp, was the chief magistrate. I was very grateful—and I say this in all modesty— and also proud of the fact that the result in the Klerksdorp constituency was the first one to be announced. I am speaking under correction, but I understand it was also the first time in history that the result of an NP seat was the first one to be announced in a general election. I want to say at once that the credit for this goes to our chief magistrate in Klerksdorp, Mr. D. R. Erasmus, who was electoral officer, as well as his staff of magistrates and officials. Today, I should like to express a word of sincere and heartfelt thanks to this chief magistrate and his staff for the way in which they did their duty. I believe that their action in this regard was unsurpassed.

I have never read or heard about any problems arising during the general election from the behaviour of the various magistrates in their capacity of electoral officers and presiding officers. In fact, I think it confirms the confidence which this side of the House has in our magistrates and magistrates’ departments and the way in which they carry out their duties in various spheres, in contrast to the Opposition. Of course, this includes the agency service which they carry out in connection with elections. I therefore believe it is appropriate to express a word of appreciation towards our magistrates and their staff throughout the entire country for their excellent services during the past general election. The younger members of the department, who had to write examinations at that time, also carried out their task very well. They carried out their tasks very creditably.

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the end of this debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to most of the matters which were raised. I just want to go on to reply to three members. Firstly, I want to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and thank him for raising the question of the fiftieth anniversary of our own flag. From my days as Speaker I know that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has a great love of our country’s flag and that he is inspired with the idea of us giving greater prominence to it. To reply directly to his question, I just want to tell him that Mrs. Vorster will raise the flag of the Republic in front of the Union Buildings at 09h00 on 31 May 1978. It will be a short ceremonial occasion and forms part of the Republic day celebrations in Pretoria. The hon. the Prime Minister will speak at Arcadia Park, Pretoria, at 12h00. The proceedings are being arranged by the Republic Festival Committee of Pretoria. In other words, the occasion is therefore being officially commemorated at the highest level. However, I do not know anything about an official function in the Cape. The hon. member will realize, however, that the flag and matters relating to the flag fall directly under the hon. the Prime Minister and I shall therefore bring his question to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Since the question of the flag has been raised, I should like to elaborate on it. Recently, when I entered the office of Deputy Minister Le Grange, I saw that he had the flag there on a neat little flagpole in his office. He also gave me one as a gift I think there are some of my other colleagues who also follow this good example. I want to put it to all my colleagues in the Cabinet for consideration that each one should have a neat little flagpole with a flag in his office. I think we can learn a great deal from the Americans in this regard.

We also want a flag.

I beg your pardon?

For us as well.

In my capacity as Minister of Public Works I say that if my colleagues want it, I am prepared to make such a flagpole and flag available for each one in his official office.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not make one available for every caucus room?

That is a good idea too, and if the Secretary of my department says that I may do so in terms of the financial regulations, etc., I shall do that too.

There is bound to be a secret fund somewhere or other.

I want to take the flag question further. In particular I want to raise it because the hon. the Leader of the House is present. In February 1974 the hon. the Leader of the House piloted the “Vlaglied” Copyright Bill, Act No. 9 of 1974, through this House. This is the Act in terms of which the copyright in the “Vlaglied” by Langenhoven was transferred to the Government. During the Second Reading speech which the hon. the Leader of the House made, he said the following, inter alia (Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 894)—

However, he did not leave it at that. He also issued the necessary instructions, and every time our flag is raised or lowered on parades, the Defence Force plays Langenhoven’s “Vlaglied”. In other words, it is carefully ensured that the necessary respect is given to our flag on many occasions. That is why I appreciate the remarks and attempts of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well. I appreciate the fact that he feels that we can make more of our flag, as the Americans do.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Central. We have quarrelled enough during this debate. I now want to conclude the debate on a friendly note with him, because in actual fact I do not have very serious complaints against him. I want to assure him that, with the amalgamation of the Departments of Immigration and the Interior, thorough attention will be given not only to the necessary co-ordination, but also to ensure that there will be the necessary integration of the departments and their functions. I repeat, it will not merely be called the Department of the Interior, but the Department of the Interior and of Immigration. I am sure that problems of co-ordination which were experienced in the past, especially as regards temporary and permanent residence permits, will be effectively ironed out.

Finally, I come to the hon. member for Klerksdorp. I want to thank him for the friendly words which he addressed to me. I appreciate it very much. I feel he raised a very important matter when he referred to the very valuable agency work which magistrates do for the Department of the Interior throughout the country. I am pleased that he gave the necessary recognition to magistrates and magistrates offices in this regard. For myself, I also want to say that my department is very much indebted to them for the wonderful work which they do for us at all times, especially in times of special pressure like elections.

With that, I think I have replied fully to all the questions which were asked. I want to address a word of thanks to all the hon. members who debated constructively and made good contributions. I conclude by thanking the head of my department, senior and other officials of the department for their good work during the year under review and I want to wish them everything of the best for the year which lies ahead.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Immigration”:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to Mr. A. P. Ellis, the Secretary for Immigration, who retires from his position as Secretary one of these days, and as I have already announced yesterday, is being promoted to the Public Service Commission. Mr. Ellis was born on 25 May 1922. By way of exception he is not a Free Stater! He was born in the Cape …

Hear, hear!

… and matriculated at the Ladismith High School, in the Cape. He began his Public Service career on 21 November 1939 in the magistrates’ division of the Department of Justice. He served in various magistrates’ offices in all four provinces and was transferred to the department’s head office in 1950. On 1 August 1964 he was promoted to undersecretary in the office of the Public Service Commission and there he advanced to deputy secretary. On 1 December 1969 he was promoted to senior deputy secretary in the Department of Immigration and on 1 May 1971 to Secretary of Immigration.

Mr. Ellis was able to lead this department to great heights with his thorough work and his knack for dealing with cases sympathetically. It is probably not due to him or the officials under him that the department is at present again going through less fortunate times as a result of unavoidable circumstances. I want to thank him for the very pleasant co-operation that I as Minister of Immigration received from him, for the very fine way in which he dealt with people and for the fine tradition which he created in his department in this regard.

I wish him everything of the best for his career in the Public Service Commission. Furthermore, I also want to announce that the hon. the Deputy Minister will proceed to deal further with the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister concerning Mr. Ellis. I wish him well in his new post. We also welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Minister yesterday when he advised us that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration would be amalgamated. We think this is fitting because of the fact that there is one Minister in charge of these portfolios. We welcome the fact that almost 75 posts will be abolished. This will effect a great saving. The Department of the Interior performs some functions affecting immigrants, e.g. the issuing of work permits, and for this reason I think it is a good thing for these functions to fall under one minister when matters of this nature must be dealt with.

I think it is true to say that the Department of Immigration’s main object is to bring people to South Africa, and when these people do come to South Africa, to find them proper housing and employment. I regret to say that we only have last year’s report for the period ending in June 1976, and that was fully discussed during the debate on Immigration in this House last year. Therefore I cannot take the matter of that report any further.

I think we must start with the existing statistics. We find that in 1975 South Africa had a net gain of 40 209 immigrants. In 1976 we again experienced a net gain of 30 598 immigrants, a slightly smaller number. However, in 1977 we find a dramatic loss of 1 178 immigrants, and it is the first time in approximately 20 years that we have experienced a loss in this country. It is true to say that over the last two years, namely from 1975 to 1977, immigration dropped by 50% while emigration increased by 250%. In answer to a question it transpired that the people who left this country last year took with them approximately R80 million. This is an aspect which should be looked at. Whilst there is a strong flow of immigrants from the United Kingdom to South Africa we actually found that the immigration from the United Kingdom to South Africa in 1976 amounted to 14 500 whilst the outflow to the United Kingdom in 1977 totalled 2 500. I think hon. members will agree that this is a dramatic change.

A while ago I placed a question on the Order Paper asking how many South African citizens had left the country. The reply the hon. the Minister gave was 5 240, this covering the period from January to November. I was somewhat puzzled by this reply when I saw the overall total. However, I realized that he was confining himself to citizens only and not to overall inhabitants of South Africa. It is interesting to note, therefore, that 20 758 people who had come to South Africa over the years, went back to wherever they came from. This requires some form of investigation. Perhaps a questionnaire could be used in which people could be asked why this sort of thing happens. Questions which could be asked are: Do we make people feel at home when they come here as immigrants? What is the role played by the 1820 Settlers’ Association? What is the role played by the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie? I do think these organizations are fulfilling their role to a certain extent. There have been discussions in the past indicating that the two organizations should work together. I have no quarrel with that but I think they are doing a good job on their own and could, in fact, continue to do so.

I also want to deal with the important question of assimilation. I think one must recognize that immigrants who come to this country should retain their own language and cultural background. On the other hand, I think there is nothing unusual in pressing for assimilation. It is a pattern throughout the world that wherever immigrants from a particular country go, they settle in a particular community or a particular area, e.g., in New York. Even in a city like Johannesburg members of the Italian community have found a home for themselves in Orange Grove.

That is good, because eventually, as their children grow up, they go to our schools where they meet South Africans. They also intermarry and when this happens they become assimilated into the whole national body itself.

In regard to the recruitment of immigrants there are two main categories: the skilled artisans and those who are work generators, i.e. the people with capital with which they can set up enterprises here and thus create employment. It is surprising to note that in the field of skilled labour in South Africa bottlenecks have increased from 33% in the first quarter of 1977 to 41% at the end of September 1977. We should obviously make use of our own labour force and train our people. Where we cannot do this, we should however, get immigrants to do the work. We need to give the work generators certain advantages like tax benefits and the same advantages as those enjoyed by border industries. We should, to my mind, also revise the provisions of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. These people should be generously treated with regard to the profits they make; they should be allowed to send those profits back overseas. It is essential that they be encouraged to create more jobs in South Africa by starting their own enterprises here. In that way they can help us to meet the unemployment problem. Unfortunately the administrative, clerical and building industries already have sufficient workers.

In regard to work permits I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether reciprocal arrangements in fact exist so that we will grant work permits to people who come from countries which grant work permits to South Africans. Where countries refuse giving our people work permits, we seem to be in the habit of refusing their people work permits as well.

Another matter that I would like to discuss, is the time given to the Portuguese immigrants to register while they were here illegally. I want to know whether they have been given that time, whether it can be extended and whether there are any other categories of people, besides the Portuguese, in respect of whom we can extend the deadline by which they must register.

Let us take a look at the internal position in South Africa. Last year approximately 225 doctors left the country and their reasons for leaving were said to be poor pay, Government interference and political insecurity. We want to know why the country is losing doctors after they have studied here for six years, costing the Government R13 000 each. I think one of the reasons is that they are offered attractive salaries overseas. If we take a closer look at the people who are leaving South Africa, we find that they are the younger generation with young children who cannot see a secure future in South Africa for them. People who emigrate undergo a big upheaval in their lives and they do so to improve their position. The question which arises is: Can we offer those people who are coming into South Africa the security they require? It is no good bluffing ourselves and turning a blind eye to the events of 16 June and the critical situation. We need to generate a general confidence in this country, its future and its stability, both economically and politically. There can be no economicaly stability unless there is going to be political stability. Political stability does not mean 135 White Nationalists in a Parliament of 165 seats. Political stability means the elimination of discrimination, the closing of the wage gap and the granting of political rights so that each group in the country can have a direct say in the affairs of the country as will be the case if our federal proposal is accepted. Will anyone in the House quarrel with me if I say: Let people get on according to their worth and let merit alone determine such worth?

The hon. the Minister has inherited the department and, with it, certain difficulties. I think he must use his influence to bring about a situation where we can open the doors to the flood of immigrants who will, no doubt, be pleased to get away from communist-controlled and communist-influenced countries, powerful trade unions, strikes and bad weather. We should allow them to enter the country of sunshine, hope, security and peace.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to say something with regard to the amalgamation of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration. I welcome this step very much indeed, not only because it is the first step in the rationalization of the Public Service, but also because these two departments really do belong under one umbrella. In my opinion many problems of the past can now be eliminated and therefore I believe that it is a step in the right direction. The Department of Immigration is in reality a relatively small department, but a department which has played a very important role since its inception. The department not only brought immigrants to South Africa, but also played a very important role in integrating them in our community and in keeping them here. In this regard I want, on behalf of us on this side of the House, to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister—especially since he is now in charge of these matters—and to the department for the good and outstanding work that has already been done. We are also looking forward to what will be done in future.

I should like to use this opportunity to thank the Secretary, Mr. Ellis, and his staff very much indeed for what they are doing for us in South Africa as well as abroad. In particular I want to pay tribute, on behalf of this side of the House, to Mr. Ellis, who has been promoted to the Public Service Commission, for what he has already done for South Africa in his capacity as Secretary. To us he has already become synonymous with the Department of Immigration. I should like to congratulate him on behalf of this side of the House on his promotion. I believe that he will utilize his exceptional talents and abilities in his new post to South Africa’s benefit. We want to wish him many years of fruitful and beneficial labour, and very good health.

Furthermore I should like to react very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has just resumed his seat. It is true that if we look at the statistics, we see a picture which is not quite as rosy as we would have wanted it to be, and I also believe that one can easily juggle with those figures. If, however, one looks at what has happened recently, it is important to see that with regard to management and administrative staff we show a gain of 870 for the months of January to December of 1977, and that we are also still showing a great gain with regard to people in the clerical posts. As regards salesmen and related workers we have a gain of 650 people for this period, as far as agriculture is concerned, a gain of 198 and with regard to service workers a gain of 380. These figures are not really as oppressing as the hon. member tried to supply. If, however, one looks at the negative points of view the hon. members of the Official Opposition adopt in this House and have adopted in the past, what else can one expect? If one looks at the irresponsible remarks made in season and out of season both inside and outside this House by hon. members of the Opposition and hon. members of other Opposition parties, what else can one expect? Has the time not come for us to hear some constructive and not only destructive criticism from that side of the House? It is these discouraging methods which cause people to lose their confidence; it is those stories who scare people.

It is all very well to say that young people go overseas because they want to bring up their children there. Personally I think that is a fabricated argument. I have evidence—I shall return to this later on in my speech— which will demonstrate that people in fact come to South Africa for the sake of their children and to come and build a future here. They come and build a future in a country where there is still a future for a child, where there is still a stable Government, where there is still a conservative nation, where there are still schools in which there is a large degree of discipline instead of the permissiveness to which they are accustomed. When will the hon. members of the Opposition realize that with what they do and say, they are harming South Africa’s reputation?

In their hatred for the NP they do not care whether they harm South Africa’s interests in the process. Their frustration is so great because they realize that they will never come to power and therefore they do not mind making reckless statements which harm our country either. The hon. member referred to that and I want to tell him that the fact that there are so many hon. members on this side of the House, is proof of the political stability of South Africa. This is the only basis on which we can create a rose-coloured future for South Africa.

More coloured than rose!

I am very grateful that we have nevertheless been able to welcome 436 557 immigrants to our country. These are people who came here from a foreign country and who are still here today. I am grateful that these people are happy and that they are prepared to join the ranks of those in South Africa. These are people who know that they will not be better off anywhere else than in this country. These people prefer to be here, because they also know that they cannot be safer anywhere else than in South Africa. Those who have chosen to leave us, will simply have to go. People leave a country for their own reasons and we have to accept that. I think we are much better off without them. This process we are going through now, is a sifting process and those who remain, are the people we want.

There is already much evidence to prove that many of those who left the country are already eager to return. Many of them are on their way back and many of them are making plans to return. A few days ago I spoke to one of the prominent members of the 1820 Settlers Association. He told me that they have received quite a number of letters in which people inquired whether it would be possible for them to return. It is in the nature of many people to move around. They move around until eventually they come to rest.

The fact that we are finding it more difficult to recruit immigrants is not only unique in South Africa. In 1976 the Australians complained that more people were leaving the country than were entering it. The same phenomenon occurred in New Zealand and other countries who usually receive immigrants.

However, I want to confine myself to the positive aspects. In the first place I want to say that the declining immigration rate is welcome to a certain extent because our country is going through a low ebb in the economy with resultant unemployment and underemployment. We should use this period of rest and winding down to consolidate. This in itself is leading to greater productivity. Industrialists have already told me that they are now keeping their employees and that their labour turnover is much smaller. The result is that their employees are once again doing a full day’s work for a day’s wages.

I want to emphasize the fact that economic considerations are not the only motivation for immigration. Many of our immigrants come here because of factors other than economic factors. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to associate myself with the previous speaker and his congratulations to Mr. Ellis on his promotion. I want to tell him that my best wishes go with him as well.

The argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow was, in my opinion, replied to quite effectively by the hon. member for Kempton Park. I find it very strange that people are so fond of singling out the negative aspects as far as South Africa is concerned. The fact is merely that at the moment we have a negative immigration situation not because there are more emmigrants than in the past, but because our flow of immigrants has dried up, not because people no longer want to come to South Africa but because we do not have either room or work for them. That is the simple fact. Therefore there is a negative trend with regard to immigration at the moment. The hon. member for Kempton Park dealt with that quite effectively and consequently I shall leave the matter at that.

Like all fast-developing countries, South Africa, too, has found it necessary to import expertise from developed countries to help it to establish, consolidate and expand its industries. Consequently, South Africa has attracted thousands of immigrants to this country to help with the development of South Africa. I want to refer to a few industries only in which these people have achieved a great deal for us. In the first place I think of an industry such as Atlas. This is an industry which is very sophisticated and which we would definitely not have been able to get off the ground without the help of immigrants and their expertise in anything near the time we have in fact succeeded in getting it off the ground. It is an industry which has, in fact, become so sophisticated at this stage, that I think that we can rightly say that we are able ourselves if we want to do so or are forced to do so, to manufacture some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. It is an industry which is of particular strategic value to South Africa. In the same category is the arms industry, another very sophisticated industry and one we would simply not have been able to get off the ground without the expertise of immigrants in anything near the same time. During the past few years there has been enormous progress as regards this industry as well, such progress that South Africa may speak of being self-sufficient in respect of armaments. The progress has been even more dramatic. South Africa is even beginning to think of exporting arms, and I think that each one of us can visualize for himself what it may eventually mean to South Africa in political and economic terms if we can have an established arms export industry.

I also think of a project like the Orange River project, especially the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam to be more specific, at which large foreign consortiums with immigrant workers made an enormous contribution to the completion thereof, a project which is of special importance to South Africa. I think of an undertaking like Escom, a giant in its own right in Africa, an undertaking which generates approximately 60% of all electrical power on the continent of Africa—quite a remarkable achievement. Even at this stage Escom has to rely heavily on the expertise of immigrant workers to be able to meet technological requirements.

I also think of an undertaking like Sasol, an undertaking which is unique in the world today, one which stands as a monument to South African skill, perseverance, originality and enterprise. Sasol, too, was able to get off the ground in the time it did only with the assistance of the technical expertise of the immigrant workers. I think we may say in this regard that we actually combined the expertise of South Africans and of immigrants to establish an undertaking which has made us world leaders as far as the refining of coal is concerned. If one has regard to threats of oil boycotts, I think no one can disagree with me that this, too, is a very strategic industry.

Now I want to turn to the private sector and refer to more pleasant circumstances, i.e. the restaurant industry. Not very long ago the Oranje-koffiehuis and a few cafés were the only places where one could have refreshments or a meal in Cape Town. In fact, similar circumstances prevailed in most of our larger cities. But because of immigrants who came to South Africa as managers, restaurant owners and waiters, there has been a complete revolution in this industry, and today in all our big cities one is able to have a superb meal at many places in very pleasant and sophisticated surroundings at competitive prices. Therefore immigrants have made a major contribution to making living conditions in South Africa more pleasant.

I should also like to say a few words about art. We have had artists who left a deep imprint on art in South Africa. Just think of the Frans Oerders, the Moses Kottlers and the Anton van Wouws. All of them were immigrants. The most recent example of this is the portrait painter Pacheco, who has painted some of the most prominent public figures in South Africa. All these people have made a contribution in the world of art in South Africa which simply cannot be negated, a contribution which will have a permanent influence.

I believe South Africa will always remember its immigrants with a feeling of gratitude, especially when one thinks of the enormous part they have played in the development of South Africa. We only have to look at their numbers. During the past 16 years—I think a previous speaker referred to this—we showed a gain of 436 557 immigrants. This is virtually 10% of our total White population in South Africa. This makes one realize how strong the impact of these immigrants must be on South Africa and its development, especially in view of the fact that most of them were technically skilled people. Some of our sectors showed a resistance to immigrants. We readily admit that. It is so. However, if one really analyses the situation, the antipathy amongst some groups in South Africa, one comes to the conclusion that it is attributable to one thing only; the willingness of the immigrant and his ability to put in long, killing and hard hours of work every day. This is something that has made them so competitive—if I may call it that—that certain of our population groups in certain industries have virtually been ousted.

In conclusion I should like to say a few words with regard to the immigrants we had from Portugal, especially in recent years. There is much evidence of small nations having made indelible impressions on the world scene in the past. Portugal, one of the smallest states in Europe, absolutely played a pioneering role in the world in the 17th century. Its people sailed the unknown oceans of the world fearlessly and with great courage and perseverence and planted its flat in the remotest comers of the earth as it were. The Portuguese regarded their pioneer’s and civilizing role in the colonial empires of such importance that they were the last ones who emancipated their colonies under tremendous world pressure and as a result of unfortunate circumstances at home.

During the past 16 years we have had almost 45 000 immigrants from Portugal. They have come to South Africa, and although many of them are highly qualified professional people, the educational qualifications of many of them are not very high. In spite of this they have literally earned for themselves a place in the sun in South Africa with their incredible ability to work. It is true that the Portuguese nation has also demonstrated in recent times that they are conservatively rightist and that they have been able to avert a tremendous communist onslaught on the democracy in Portugal and by doing this, have been able to keep Portugal as a bastion against communism. For this, as well, we are very grateful to this old brother-in-arms of ours who has assisted us over so many years in the struggle against communist penetration into Southern Africa.

I should like to return to the Portuguese immigrants in South Africa. Diligence is an undeniable characteristic of these people. In virtually every town in our country the Portuguese café or the Portuguese greengrocer’s shop is the first to open in the mornings and usually the last to close at night. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow the previous two speakers. I will deal with some points they have made during the course of my speech. We noticed with interest the restructuring— and I think the word “restructuring” appears to be a popular word these days—of the Department of Immigration. We note that it is now to become part and parcel of the Department of the Interior. This is a measure which we in these benches welcome wholeheartedly because, if it does nothing else, it will at least diminish the confusion that exists in the minds of so many people when it comes to dealing with the departments concerned.

Before going any further, I think it is appropriate that I express my good wishes to the staff members who are affected by the changes that are being made, particularly Mr. Ellis. I wish them all well in whatever new jobs they may find themselves doing.

It is regrettable that the last report on the activities of this department was tabled in this House covering the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1976. We have not had a report covering the activities of the Department of Immigration since then.

So, Sir, we do not have a report as such on which to base debate this year. On the other hand, we do have the Bulletin of Statistics, dated March, 1978, to which we can refer in order to ascertain the figures in respect of both immigration and emigration. I think it is common cause that our balance of payments have shown a remarkable upsurge over the last 12 to 18 months. Our balance in terms of immigration and emigration, is however, is nothing short of disastrous, and an examination of these figures will illustrate just how disastrous the situation really is. Here I must reject the arguments of the hon. members for Kempton Park and Sasolburg, who choose to juggle figures to suit themselves. The hon. member for Sasolburg referred only to Portuguese immigrants. Let us look at the total, since this is what we must concern ourselves with. In the years from 1972 to 1975 we had a steady increase in the total number of immigrants coming into South Africa. In 1976 the figure dropped from 50 000-odd to some 46 000. The first half of 1976 saw 26 315 immigrants coming into the country. This boded well; it looked as though we would improve upon the 50 000 mark achieved in 1975. After June, that is to say from July to December of 1976, however, a mere 19 900 immigrants entered South Africa. This was a drastic reduction, which gave us the total of 46 000 odd, which I referred to earlier. During the first six months of last year that figure was whittled down to 13 356 people who came to look for a home in South Africa. During the last four months for which figures are reported, that is to say from July to October of last year, there was a trickle, a mere 8 100 people who came into South Africa. What of emigration? In the first six months of 1976 6 200 people left the country. During the last six months of that year the figure increased to 9 426. That was after Soweto, and that figure almost equalled the total number of people who emigrated during the whole of 1975. In the first six months of 1977 the staggering number of 13 830 people emigrated from South Africa. Furthermore, during the last four months reported, another 8 633 people emigrated. In other words, over 22 000 people left South Africa during that portion of 1977. That is more than double the number of people who left the country during the whole of 1975.

Sir, we have to face facts. Far too many good qualified and trained South Africans are leaving our country to settle elsewhere. I appreciate that there are many of them who are on the “chicken run”. For those that are, I have no feeling or sympathy whatsoever, because I believe that it is our duty as South Africans to stay in the land of our birth and to assist in its growth and development and not to ran away from our responsibilities or to run away when trouble looms. Another fact is that in order to develop as speedily as we would want, we must accept that we need more overseas expertise. We need what so many immigrants have to offer. We need that which they can give us in order further to develop our infrastructure, and to this end I would urge the Minister actively to embark on a programme to bring more and more people into South Africa. I know that we cannot always get the cream; very often we get a little sour milk. Nevertheless, we must constantly strive to attract well qualified people. I believe we can do this. We have got what it takes. We have a country that can offer a tremendous future to an intending immigrant. One thing however, perturbs me greatly in this respect, and I want to take issue with the hon. the Deputy Minister here. On a number of occasions I have been approached by people who have come to South Africa and have been granted temporary residence permits. They have liked what they have seen. They have found employment. They have displayed a genuine interest and a genuine desire to remain in South Africa and to take out South African citizenship. But, then comes the rub. Before being able to do so, they are invariably told that they must return to the country from which they came and make application from there. I can only describe this as being “cock-eyed”, to say the least. Why in heaven’s name do we insist on this procedure being adopted? Why can we not accept an application for permanent residence from a person who is in employment on a temporary residence permit? His application can be vetted whilst he remains in this country, his suitability can be assessed and personal interviews can be conducted with him right here in South Africa. Under the present system we are causing a build-up of resentment amongst people who wish to remain and become South African citizens. We are also causing these people a tremendous amount of unnecessary and unwarranted expense and hardship.

It is past the midnight hour and high time we accepted that a well motivated and intensive immigration programme is needed. This Government and our country must realize and accept that a major key to growth is through the importation of a most valuable commodity, the immigrant. I therefore urge the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is dealing with this Vote here this afternoon, to take bold steps now in the interests of the country which we all hold dear.

Only this afternoon I had a reply to a written question which I tabled. This illustrates the point I am trying to make. I asked the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—

1. (a) How many White employees were recruited abroad by his department during 1977?
2. (b) How many of the recruits have left the service of his department and what were the main reasons for their leaving?

I asked exactly the same question in 1977. In 1977 I was told that 54 technicians were recruited to work in the Post Office. This year the figure given was 18. Last year 11 left and this year four have left. They gave various reasons for leaving this year. One went for personal reasons, two absconded and one returned overseas. This is a palpable illustration of what I am driving at. In 1977 there were 54 people recruited for the Post Office where we desperately need overseas trained, experienced men, particularly now that we are going on to a completely new semi-electronic system. This year, however, we have only managed to recruit 18.

What is the shortage in the Post Office in this respect?

There is a shortage.

Do you have the figure?

I do not have that figure, but I shall certainly ask the question and perhaps we can then discuss it. There is a shortage. Reference to the Post Office debate will show this. There is always a shortage of trained personnel in the Post Office.

Finally I wish to pay tribute to the work that is constantly being done by the 1820 Settlers’ Association and also by Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. I believe that these two organizations do a lot to assist immigrants who land on our shores. I think it is a good thing that they should be mentioned in this debate and accorded the appreciation that they richly deserve for the work they do. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga said a few things with which one cannot agree. For example, he did not have the information about the Post Office.

There are 400.

I just want to ask the Balaam’s ass to keep quiet for a while. [Interjections.] Give a person a chance to speak! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Umhlanga asked that more immigrants should be recruited for the Post Office, but he is only going to ask next week in this House how many people are wanted.

Why were they recruited if they were not wanted Barney?

Last year we recruited 54 people. However, we have enough now. It is said that we should simply accept a person who is on holiday here and who applies for work, in that time as an immigrant. Does the hon. member not know, however, that there are relations between countries? In a country such as Israel the aspirant emigrant who goes on holiday, might be needed three months later to fight in his country. Now we come along and make him a South African citizen. The Cypriots and the Greeks have the same problem. One cannot clear a citizen of another country in one’s country before he has been cleared in his own country.

Then I also have a problem with the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said, “People do not feel secure anymore”.

†Is that true?

Sure it is true—for those who leave, anyway.

“Those who leave?” Does the hon. member feel secure in this country?

Not with you in charge.

Wait a minute. Does he really not feel secure in this country?

I would feel a lot more secure with a new Government.

The hon. member’s problem is …

With the Government.

He says that the people who have left this country are not afraid but that they are looking for a new land for their children. Is that what is in his mind?

No. Is it in yours?

Is he acting in the House as he does because he wants to make sure that the day he leaves everything will be rotten in this country?

No, we are trying to help you.

The hon. member suggested that it always was like this.

For 30 years.

By the time you are finished with it…

That hon. member should also keep quiet. We are still coming to him, but that will only be next week. We are waiting for him. The hon. member for Hillbrow showed us one thing. He said that the people who fled the country were looking for a place where they could bring up their children. In other words, the few Progs who have remained here do not believe that their children have a future in this country.

That is absolutely nonsensical reasoning.

They are telling people that their children do not have a future here.

That is rubbish.

Yes, the hon. member said it very clearly. He said, “You must change this and you must change that because the people of this country do not feel secure.”

†The hon. member is only a mouthpiece and these are the thoughts he is spreading.

*The hon. member served on the town council of Johannesburg. Does he know that certain members of that town council are also going to flee?

Now they are silent.

There is something else I should like to tell hon. members. A man called Vincent Beitner of Metro Travel in New York telephoned me last year …

What are you up to now?

I think the priest should keep quiet. We shall come to the Methodist Church stories in a moment. I see that we are being attacked in the press now because some Nationalists are also Methodists. I shall come back to that. Mr. Beitner telephoned me …

Are you arranging your trip?

… and said to me, “Mr. Barnard, please: There are 300 families in the United States clamouring to get back to South Africa.” He added—listen to this: “Can you arrange a SAL aeroplane to take them back?” I asked him first of all, “Can you send me the names. Please, send me a list of names.” I wanted to show the people who had fled the country and who now wanted to return.

That’s right: You first want to determine whether they are Black or White.

But Mr. Beitner, being a good businessman, said, “Look, if you cannot give me the okay, we cannot send you the list.” People who are living in Canada and other countries today, telephone relations in South Africa and say that they want to return.

What did you do?

In the world in which we are living today, I see no reason for getting upset when one is not attracting many immigrants to one’s country.

What is citizenship really and how is it obtained in South Africa? In South Africa one can become a South African citizen in four ways. One can be a South African citizen by descent. In other words, if one is born in France and both one’s parents are South African citizens, one is a South African citizen by descent. One can also obtain one’s South African citizenship through birth. If one is born in this country, one is a South African citizen. Many people who are born here, however, are not worthy of their citizenship. The birthright is, however, something accepted traditionally throughout the world.

Is everyone born in South Africa a South African citizen?

I expected that hon. member to ask that.

Just answer “yes” or “no”.

Mr. Chairman, with such a stupid child one needs more time. I shall instruct him outside this House after I have completed my speech. The point is that one can also obtain citizenship by naturalization or registration. It has been alleged for many years that the Nationalist Government is unfeeling towards the immigrant, but that is not true.

I think especially of foreigners from Eastern Europe who are South African citizens today and have a special place in this country. They are people who have made a place for themselves in the economy of this country and who have taught us many things. I think, for example, of one of them whom I have known very well, a man called Nislow. What someone of his calibre means to us, can be inferred from what the late Dr. D. F. Malan said at the time: These people have been in the country for 20 years, but your Smuts Government has never given them the vote. Dr. Malan also said that the Government of the time had never given them the opportunity to become citizens of the country. Dr. Malan agreed to their being granted exemption so that it would no longer be a requirement for a person to read and write, but merely to read and speak. [Interjections.] What are those hon. members laughing about? The fact of the matter is that these people became respected citizens of South Africa.

I was a passenger on an aircraft the other night and one of those beautiful old people one meets so often, sat next to me. He was a Mr. Shapiro and I started talking to him. We had a pleasant conversation and when we eventually came to politics, he asked me whether I had known Dr. Malan. When I said that I had known him, he told me this story. I checked on the story and got the facts about it. It was a man like Dr. Malan that had made these things possible so as to afford these people the opportunity to become South African citizens. Those people meant a great deal to South Africa.

We have in this House a person who strongly resembles Dr. Malan and he is sitting next to me: The hon. the Minister of Immigration. I feel that he has the insight, the experience and the knowledge as well as the vision that a Dr. Malan had. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I ask the hon. the Minister that he, like Dr. Malan did when he offended people who did not qualify the opportunity to become South African citizens, will also give consideration to the position of the Portuguese immigrants who entered the country, because of circumstances, in large numbers. They are people who had to flee from communism, people who had shown in this country, as the hon. member said, by hard work that they are good citizens of this country. We have problems in this regard, because we know that all these people—and they know it too—do not have the qualifications to qualify for citizenship in ordinary circumstances.

We know that all of them do not have the required training, but we know that they have the will to work and live in this country. There is no other country in the world where they will be able to adjust as easily as here. These people know the problems of Africa and they know what the situation here is. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that these people be allowed in the country if they are able to produce a police certificate of good behaviour or if they are able to prove that no criminal case is pending against them. I address this request to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I work with these people daily and I know their problems. The third largest Portuguese-speaking city in the world today is Johannesburg. For that reason I want to ask today that we should take another look at the position of the Portuguese in our society. I am not doing this for the sake of those people who have committed offences, but for the sake of those Portuguese who are here to work and who want to make South Africa their country by becoming a citizen.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member who has just sat down, for the striking contribution which he has made. His reference to Dr. Malan and to the hon. the Minister were especially interesting to me, and for that reason I afforded him the opportunity of having that part of his speech recorded in order that it may read in future. At a later stage, I shall again return to the hon. member’s outstanding contribution.

Before I go into any details of the debate thus far, I just want to endorse the introductory remarks by the hon. the Minister in connection with the Secretary of our department, Mr. Ellis, who after many years of excellent service in this department—he has also served in several other departments—has now reached the pinnacle of his career i.e. to be appointed as Public Service Commissioner. It is an outstanding achievement, and I should like to wish Mr. Ellis everything of the best for the future. It is also a privilege to me to avail myself of the opportunity of referring to the outstanding service which Mr. Ellis rendered in the Department of Immigration, in order that it may be recorded. In the difficult times the Department of Immigration has experienced, Mr. Ellis was—until today—a tower of strength to the Minister who were responsible for the department in the past, and especially to the hon. the Minister who holds this portfolio now.

†I would like to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I shall, in my general reply to the debate, come back to quite a number of the issues that he raised. At this stage I should like to refer, in passing, to two particular aspects which the hon. member touched upon. In the first place I want to refer to the question of work permits and to the hon. member’s views as to the refusal of these permits. The problem that I have in this regard, is that the hon. the Minister of the Interior should consider this question and not the hon. the Minister of Immigration. The hon. member unfortunately missed the boat during the discussion of the previous Vote. The same applies to the question of the time allowed for registering to the Portuguese and other people that are in South Africa. The Ministry of the Interior has to decide that issue and supply an answer to that.

The Progs always miss the boat.

I did not ask for that hon. member’s comment. Where does he come from? The hon. member for Hillbrow also discussed the question of security in South Africa, of poor salaries, and some other similar matters. He also said that it is mostly our younger generation, people with young children, who are looking for more and better security when leaving South Africa. He then made a political point by trying to tell the House what political stability means, but I do not wish to go into that. I shall deal with the hon. member’s argument in more detail later, but at this stage I should like to tell him that the five countries to which most emigrants from South Africa have gone during the past years are Rhodesia, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Can the hon. member honestly tell me that there is no form of discrimination in any of these countries? I do not wish to start on Israel and I do not wish to discuss Rhodesia, but the fact remains—and we all know it—that there is discrimination in all these countries. People are therefore not leaving South Africa because of discrimination in South Africa. I shall discuss that issue later in more detail.

*I am grateful for the exceptional contribution which the hon. member for Kempton Park has made. As chairman of the NP study group on immigration, the hon. member has, during the past few years, especially distinguished himself in the expression of his interest in immigrants. I have had occasion to attend naturalization functions together with him. I am grateful for his actions outside this House as well. The hon. member has made his customary, well-considered contribution to the debate.

I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Sasolburg. He is a person who can reply to the essence of an argument, and accordingly he has answered the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Umhlanga very clearly on one aspect. I shall go into this aspect in greater detail later on. The hon. member has said that we should not allow ourselves to be obsessed by our so-called negative immigration. Briefly, the question is: Do we have work and accommodation for all the people? In regard to these two aspects, we have to work out our own salvation here. The hon. member made a few excellent observations in connection with the contribution which immigrants make to the restaurant industry in South Africa. That is true. Over the past decade, South Africa has become more attractive and more interesting in this respect because people from abroad have introduced a special atmosphere into the South African restaurant and hotel industry. If one wants to take some friends to an interesting little eating place at night, one seeks out this type of restaurant. It is therefore true that these people make a fine contribution towards making our society more interesting.

The hon. member also made a positive reference to the contribution which the Portuguese immigrants have made and are still making in South Africa. I am very grateful that the hon. member has singled that out, because there are too many of our people who say things in the course of ordinary conversations in connection with Portuguese and other immigrants, which might better have been left unsaid. I think it is time for us to be a bit more careful in our references to immigrants and to act more positively towards these people—also in our personal conversations. As the hon. member has said, it is true that the Portuguese and other immigrants—the hon. member referred especially to the Portuguese—are people who have also made a fine contribution to our country’s economy. They are hard-working people and set an example to many of us as to the number of working hours we can put in per day. The Government has no intention of expelling Portuguese people who are lawfully in South Africa. Nor does the Government intend discriminating against the Portuguese or any other immigrants merely on account of their national group. I am therefore very pleased that the hon. member has sounded that positive note in respect of these people. It is true that the Portuguese who returned to Portugal from Southern Africa, are making a very real political contribution to the situation in Portugal today. We in South Africa can be very grateful for the political standpoint of those people—grown-ups and children together, they number between 800 000 and 900 000—adopt in Portugal today after their experience in Southern Africa.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the fact that the only available report of the department is the report published in, I think, 1977 for the period 1974 to 1976. I can only tell the hon. member that it is customary for this department to publish reports only every second year. Another report will therefore be available next year. I will later answer in more detail as to the question whether our balance sheet in respect of immigrants over emigrants is disastrous or not. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member’s very strong language in saying that many South Africans are on “the chicken run”. Because we are not in that situation, I do not think it is for us to refer to South Africans who are emigrating in general as being on “the chicken run”. I do not think we will ever be in a situation where it will be necessary for us to say that people are on “the chicken run”.

The hon. member also mentioned the difficulties of people who are in South Africa on a temporary permit, then apply for permanent residence and are then sent back to the countries from where they came and then have to go through the whole procedure of applying again. He referred to the resentment felt by these people. The position is that the Department of Immigration has not sent people back to their countries of origin when they apply for permanent residence. They are in South Africa on a temporary permit. If they wish to apply for permanent residence it is up to the Department of the Interior to extend their temporary permits. It so happened in the past that temporary permits were not extended and that is the problem that the hon. member and many other people experienced. However, the Act provides that people can apply for permanent residence whilst they are legally within South Africa. Our policy in general is not to send these people back to their countries of origin when they apply for permanent residence. That will also be the policy in future.

That is not your policy when you put on your other hat, namely that of the Department of the Interior.

That will also be the position in future.

Now that sounds good.

Is it not clear to the hon. member?

It sounds good. I like it.

I think the hon. member has been most effectively answered by the hon. member for Langlaagte regarding his concern about the Post Office technicians. I do not think the hon. member was very serious when he made this point. He did not even know whether the Post Office had a shortage of technicians, but he was concerned about the matter.

Why would they recruit if they do not have a shortage?

The Department of Immigration does not do the recruiting for the Post Office. They do it themselves. Moreover, they are training more and more of their own people to do these jobs. So, there may be very good reasons why they have a shortfall this year compared to last year.

I am thankful for the kind remarks the hon. member made about the 1820 Settlers’ Association and the MEI. These two organizations are doing a grand job in South Africa. I associate myself with the hon. member’s remarks.

*I have already referred to the effective reply which the hon. member for Langlaagte gave to the hon. member for Umhlanga. I am also grateful for the other ideas which the hon. member expressed. It is true that there are immigrants who, over a period of years, have set us in South Africa a fine example as regards loyalty, attitude, determination, and so many other fine qualities. It is always a pleasure to encounter these people in our society.

I think I have now replied to all the arguments. Now I want to exchange some general ideas with hon. members, especially because this is the last occasion on which the Immigration Vote will be discussed as a separate Vote. Apart from the general remarks I wish to make, I shall also reply in more detail to some of the cardinal points raised by the hon. members for Hillbrow and Umhlanga.

A total of 614 683 immigrants approved in a strict process of selection, have entered our country during this period. It is true that 178 422 emigrants left the country during the same period, but that still leaves us a national asset of human material—which includes workers and entrepreneurs—of 436 261, that is 71% of the immigrants. That is proof of the quality and the adaptability of the people brought to South Africa by the department. If we had merely concentrated on numbers, we should never have achieved these results. There can surely be no difference of opinion among us about what has been achieved through the years, or about the contribution which the immigrants themselves have made. It is true that initially—at the start of our immigration schemes—the demand was different from what it is today. The emphasis was then placed on other aspects. In connection with certain fields of work, there has been a total shift in the emphasis. I can furnish a few examples of that. During the years 1963 to 1969, the professional men comprised 19,2% of male immigrants. During the years 1970 to 1977, the figure was 34,9%. Workers in the manufacturing industry, construction and transport respectively constituted 51,5% as against 36,9%. Among the female immigrants, the same tendency manifested itself.

During the former period it was 20,1% and during the second period, it was considerably higher, namely 36,8%. The same applies in regard to the clerical occupations. What is especially remarkable and redounds to the credit of the officials here and abroad, is the manner in which—especially during the past decade—they have succeeded in recruiting better qualified workers in greater numbers— notwithstanding negative anti-South African propaganda conducted against South Africa by a horde of organizations abroad and aimed at immigration to South Africa. Any one of us who has had the opportunity of going abroad during the past few years and of meeting our officials there, can surely testify to the difficult conditions under which they work and in spite of which they have accomplished so much. It has been during the past 10 years in particular that this campaign has raised its head and has increased in intensity and vhemence. It has been extremely unpleasant for our officials. One should be extremely appreciative of these people for their loyalty and their perseverance. We must keep in mind that during the first eight years, from 1961 to 1968, our officials succeeded in bringing 281 913 immigrants to South Africa, and during the years 1969 to 1977, 332 770 immigrants— which gives the total I mentioned just now. Over a period of 18 years, the department has succeeded in reaching the target set in the Government’s economic development plan, and by doing so has made an extremely important contribution towards the economic growth in the Republic. However the contributions by way of immigration should not be regarded solely in terms of material contributions to the economy, but rather as a total national asset—which it indeed is—and which has strenghtened the South African nation to help overcome the challenge with which it is confronted. This contribution is not a slight one, especially if we take into account that without immigration, the annual population growth of 2,2% among the Whites would have been only 1,39%. Immigrants constituted 38% of the new accession to the White labour corps, which again created employment opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled persons in South Africa.

One of the hon. members—I think it was the hon. member for Sasolburg—also referred to the excellent contribution which immigrants have made in South Africa in the field of culture. Between 1961 and 1967, 552 065 aliens were admitted to the Republic on the basis of the State Immigration Scheme for permanent residence, while 119 644 noncitizens emigrated from South Africa during the same period. That means that 78,33% of the aliens who have settled in South Africa, are still here. I think that 78,33% is an excellent achievement. If the attitude of the inhabitants of our country can be judged by the extent to which they leave the country of their birth, and, on the other hand, by the extent to which aliens who have come and settled here, leave the country of their choice, we can only deduce that the people of our country are happy. That applies not only to our own citizens, but also to the aliens within our borders. The aliens within our borders are not “on the chicken run”. It is also a good testimonial for the hospitality of our people in South Africa, and perhaps also for the effectiveness of our immigration machinery which, by way of painstaking selection and dedicated service in the reception, housing and employment of the breadwinners, has made immigrants feel at home here.

But when we have introduced the employer and the employee to each other, that is not the end of the matter. It was realized right from the beginning that the assimilation of immigrants was not only the task of the Government, that it was not merely a task for officials of the Government. We are dealing here with people who must be accepted and assimilated by the community in which they work and live. In other words, it is a task for the community. With that in view, the 1820 Settlers’ Association and the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” were established. These are two organizations which devote themselves to the task of the full social and cultural assimilation of immigrants. These two organizations have thousands of members and they do excellent work. They do the work with voluntary assistance and render a service to our country which cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Nor, indeed, do they expect that. This task, which they tackle with compassion and with sincere hospitality, is not one for which they expect any material compensation. It is fitting that we, on our part, should express a word of appreciation and recognition to those who make such a fine contribution to the service which the Government also tries to render to the country by way of its immigration effort.

It is of course all very well that I now speak here about the appreciation which we ought to show towards those people who perform this particular task. But I do not think it can end there. Our entire nation ought to co-operate to realize the ultimate ideal of total assimilation. If, in the present circumstances in which we find ourselves, there is one great task which we face in connection with our immigrants, it is to retain what we have and to ensure that as many as possible of these people become South African citizens. Every one can make a contribution, even if it is merely by being a good neighbour to the stranger next door to him, and making him feel that he is really accepted as a desired immigrant. It is really the civil duty of our community to make this neighbour of ours feel that he is accepted by us.

The “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” and the 1820 Settlers’ Association can assist us with very good advice in this respect. The duty, and perhaps also the need, for assimilation is not limited to the newcomer who has just arrived. We would do well to give some attention to the man who has already been living next to us for years— the man who has, for years, been a member of the community, but who has not yet acquired citizenship. Although the State assists these two organizations by means of a subsidy to keep their basic administration going, and although they also receive contributions from some churches and from other organizations, this is not nearly sufficient for the country-wide financing of an effective organization. These people are dependent upon collections by the community. For that reason, I want to make an appeal to the public today to assist these two organizations actively in their efforts to collect funds.

Now I want to refer to a few aspects which arise from this. A few days ago, for example, I found this excellent report in Die Vaderland. The heading reads: “Immigrante bly in Suid-Afrika ná kamp vir kinders”. It is encouraging to read such reports in our newspapers. But where did it arise? It arose from the efforts by the Department of National Education and by a few other departments. The sum-total of this is, however, that if we do our duty by the child of the immigrant in the way we can, we can achieve results. In this connection, for example, this newspaper writes as follows—

I also want to refer to another fine example I came across in the report of the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie”. I do not have the time to go into detail, but I just want to mention that the 1820 Settlers’ Association does similar positive work. For example, during the past year this organization has distributed 242 Bibles to immigrants. They exert themselves for the welfare of the children at these camps. They devote themselves to the assimilation of immigrants by means of immigrant friends. They encourage people to adopt citizenship. They have also communicated with our education departments. I also want to express my thanks today to the education departments in the different provinces for their fine contribution to the assimilation of our immigrants in South Africa. In this connection, I should like just to refer to one letter which I came across in this report. It is a letter which the Transvaal Education Department wrote to the heads of departments as a study guide. They say this—

Mr. Chairman, one is grateful for this praiseworthy attitude displayed by our education departments.

The hon. member for Umhlanga has expressed his concern about the small percentage of immigrants who ultimately apply for naturalization and South African citizenship. In this connection, I might just refer to a few interesting details. If one takes the five-year period from 1967 to 1972 as the starting point and the year of 1972 to 1977 as the end years, one finds that the percentages of immigrants who applied for naturalization in South Africa, were as follows: 1972—8,35%; 1973—8,84%; 1974—7,98%; 1975—6,86%; 1976—13,33%; 1977—9,11%. That gives us a fine picture, but if one includes in this the total number of immigrants since 1961, it reduces this percentage to 1,3%. That is what the hon. members are concerned about. But just permit me to furnish comparative figures in connection with a few other countries.

†I have here a table referring to the major European immigration countries in 1975. What do we find here? In a country like Austria the figure, calculated on the same basis, is 2,1%. In Belgium it is 0,2%; in France, 0,8%; in Germany, 0,6%; in the Netherlands, 1,2%; in Sweden, 3,7%; in the United Kingdom, 0,9%. In England and Wales alone it is 0,1%. In other words, our percentage of immigrants applying for naturalization compares very well indeed with those of some of the major European immigration countries, as well as some other countries in the world.

*Finally, I want to express a few thoughts on the entire question of emigration, which causes concern among so many members of the Opposition and some of our people too. The impression created by certain bodies and persons, is that South Africa is being drained of its population. I should like to reply that this is by no means the case. We are not showing a serious loss. I therefore do not think that it is necessary to be inordinately worried about our emigration problem. As far as immigration is concerned, we have, nothing to be ashamed about as far as the year 1977 is concerned. That is the year which was such a great worry to some of us. The immigration figure of 24 822 is not as favourable as, for example, the 46 239 for 1976, or the 50 464 for 1975. But if all the factors which have a bearing on immigration are taken into account, we still have an excellent achievement to our credit—even better than in 1973, when employment opportunities in the Republic were by no means difficult to come by and conditions were not at all as stringent as today. The relatively low immigration figure for 1977 can be attributed chiefly to the fact that since the end of 1975, the Department of Immigration has, on instructions, begun taking steps to play its part in connection with the economic situation in South Africa. The object was, to discourage would-be immigrants from coming to South Africa in a balanced way. As the number of employment opportunities in particular sectors dropped as a result of the economic recession, these measures were intensified and extended. It is therefore not a question of people running away. There was orderly action on our part. In this connection, the department acted with the greatest responsibility and implemented to the letter not only the Act, but also the Government’s policy— namely that immigration should not be to the detriment of the country’s workers. This has a bearing on what the hon. member for Sasolburg has said. 9 597 of the 24 822 immigrants in 1977, were economically active and every single one of them was placed in employment without any difficulty and also without detriment to anybody else. This could be done by admitting only those workers for whom there was a demand, and this could only be done through close liaison with employers and with the employees’ organizations. The entire effort bespeaks thorough and sound planning. In cases where there was doubt about the necessity of admitting particular tradesmen, we consulted trade unions in advance. There is definitely great appreciation on the part of trade unions for this attitude on the part of the department, because on their part there has been no criticism of the implementation of the Government’s policy in this respect during the past year.

This fine achievement is, however, partly overshadowed by the number of emigrants who left South Africa during 1977. It is true that our people link emigration and immigration, but it is also true that while the Department of Immigration is actively involved in the implementation of the immigration policy and pursues a specific immigration programme, it has no function or control in respect of machinery relating to emigration. Emigration is therefore by no means a factor to be considered in assessing the success or otherwise of our immigration programme. But I do want to furnish hon. members with a few facts. Although a constant watch is kept on emigration trends, it is unfortunately true that people who emigrate, are not obliged to advise any official bodies in advance about the reasons why they do so. Their intentions only become officially known when, on leaving, they hand over the prescribed form of departure to the passport control officer. Emigration is a phenomenon which is encountered in all countries of the world, and it was precisely for this reason that it was possible for us in these circumstances to attract immigrants from other parts of the world in such large numbers. As was said in the debate on this Vote last year, the most important reason for our high emigration rate is the present economic conditions. The hon. member for Umhlanga must realize that political conditions are not the dominant factor. During the year headings like the following appeared in newspapers: “Executives get the chop”; “Work lack brings crisis to architects”; “7 000 motor men have lost their jobs”; “Civil engineers facing bleak year—many may go insolvent”. This sort of thing was the order of the day.

Medical doctors?

I shall come to them. According to The Cape Times of 28 February this year, the Opposition spokesmen ascribe it to the following—

They ascribe it to political considerations. When they get the chance, they try to make political capital out of this type of situation. This type of report is also published abroad. A few days ago I had two senior newspaper editors from the USA in my office. They had specifically come to speak to me about an article on our immigration position in South Africa which had appeared in two very important periodicals in the USA. In that article, it was alleged that people were on the so-called “chicken run” and that they were fleeing from South Africa for political reasons. These two gentlemen were very grateful when I was able to give them the full facts of our situation in regard to immigration and emigration.

I should like to refer briefly to a few factors which have, inter alia, given rise to this situation. It is not factors of the nature of political unrest which are involved. Our immigration policy is based on the recruitment abroad of skilled workers in those professions in which a shortage of workers is experienced in the Republic, but on the express understanding that it will not cause unemployment in our own ranks. The objective set in respect of numbers has been related throughout to the Republic’s economic development programme, which has a goal of a growth rate of 5,5%. A net immigration gain of 30 000 per annum is necessary for that. During the years 1963 to 1976, this growth rate was maintained. During that period, there was an average net number of emigrants of approximately 23,27% as against the number of immigrants, until we had a record in 1975. From the second half of 1975, emigration started to increase, and during the past year we have shown a loss. It is, as I have explained, mainly as a result of the economic situation. Whereas we maintained an average growth rate of 5% during the years 1961 to 1975, it declined to 2,4% in 1975, 1,5% in 1976, and 0,5% in 1977. Economists have advised me that this prospect for 1978 is a growth rate of 1%, which may perhaps increase to 2,5% or 3% if certain stimulatory measures are introduced.

Unemployment is another factor. Time does not permit me to go into detail on all the factors. I can only give the main points. A further factor is that in all sectors of the economy, there is a large percentage of unutilized production capacity. Many employers can increase their capacity without additional staff. They tell us that they do not want us to recruit additional staff. Yet another factor is that wage levels have stabilized at a comparatively low level as a result of the economic conditions. Extra earnings, for example by means of overtime, are no longer a factor where with to attract people from abroad. Apart from that, there is also the unfavourable rate of exchange of the rand against certain strong European currencies. That is also a factor which adversely affects our ability to attract people to South Africa. There is also the question of our internal labour policy, which may undergo important changes during the next year or two. I refer, for example, to the question whether compulsory military service and the measures recently introduced to extend compulsory military service to young immigrants. That may have an influence. At this stage, the influence of this factor cannot be ascertained, but we nevertheless hope that it will have a positive influence. Furthermore, there is the situation of our neighbouring States. There are therefore many factors which the Government must consider when we seek to determine where we stand in connection with this matter. It is not a matter of fleeing from South Africa.

If one analyses of the details of where people resettle, one finds that 7,5% of them go to African States. Is there any African state which offers greater security than South Africa? Most of the people have moved to Rhodesia. Apart from that, 3,5% moved to Asia and the Middle East, mainly to Israel; 10,3% have left for the Americas and 9,5% for Oceania, i.e. Australia and New Zealand; 63,1% returned to England and Europe where, as citizens of, for example, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, West Germany, etc., they can enjoy exceptionally ample benefits by way of, for example, social aid schemes and pensions which are not applicable in South Africa.

I just want to refer to a few other aspects. It is alleged that all 26 000 of the emigrants left for political reasons, e.g. security and a safe existence. It is maintained that they left South Africa as a result of “growing insecurity and uncertainty of life entrenched in living in Southern Africa”. How, then, do we explain the fact that during the same period, 24 822 people came to South Africa? While other people are fleeing, they have come to South Africa to settle here. I can refer to interesting reading matter in To the Point and other publications. I also want to refer to a few other aspects. The number of emigrants who left the country in 1977, included 5 525 South Africans and 20 002 non-South African citizens. For the most part they have gone to those countries to which I have referred. Although we are concerned about the emigration position, we should perhaps look at other countries too. People emigrate, for example, from our country to New Zealand and Australia. During the past year, Australia has not experienced a net loss, but nevertheless, 24 589 emigrants left that country during the past year. Among them were 9 912 former immigrants from the United Kingdom, while 9 438 were Australian and New Zealand citizens. People also leave our country for New Zealand. But do hon. members know what is happening in New Zealand? The registered migration loss, i.e. immigrants minus emigrants, for the 12 months ending 31 March 1977, amounted to 13 900 in that country. That was their greatest single loss since 1885, when a start was made with registration. We therefore need not think that people are on a “chicken run” from South Africa. The general reason given for emigration from these countries, is economic deterioration, and not political instability.

Is it just a coincidence?

It is not a coincidence. This trend was growing as far back as 1976, and I want to prove that by way of an extract from the Inter-governmental Committee for European Emigration which refers, inter alia, to the following—

I also want to read an interesting paragraph from an article which appeared in To the Point of 20 October last year. In it, the author discusses the movement of immigrants and emigrants in the world in a very interesting way and says the following—which is very informative to us—

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude, because the time for the debate has expired.

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow about our professional occupations. We do not have a loss of 41% in professional people. We do not have such a loss, because in 1977, we brought 3 119 immigrants to South Africa who were classified under the professional occupations. Among them were doctors, architects, surveyors, etc. Our emigration was 3 626; in other words, we had a loss of only 507 people. If I analyse the figure of 507, hon. members will see that a small percentage were doctors. Among them were also architects, quantity surveyors and engineers. There is therefore no question of medical doctors fleeing from South Africa on a large scale. This is being exaggerated out of all proportions in the Press. At this point I do not want to go into all the other details in this connection.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in the light of the information he has given us, he is prepared to consider a questionnaire being handed to all emigrants who leave South Africa on a voluntary basis so that we can, during the year, determine the causes for their leaving South Africa?

I have noted the hon. member’s question and I shall give the hon. member more details in a private conversation later on, because unfortunately time does not permit that now.

I still want to raise one final aspect before I resume my seat. I have tried to sketch all the factors which must be taken into account in connection with the immigration policy which we are following at the moment, what it looks like in practice and how it is implemented. As far as the emigration position in South Africa is concerned, it is a pity that we have to suffer this loss of manpower, but it definitely cannot be regarded as a disaster. We should not continually make negative statements about this, because in reality we are not suffering a loss, and the position is not quite so negative. We are definitely not on the run.

We should all convey a positive image to the outside world in connection with these matters. There is every confidence—we also have practical examples of this—that large numbers of these people who are at present emigrating from South Africa, will return here as soon as our economy is normal again. The first signs of that are already visible, because not only in our department, but also at the 1820 Settlers Association and the MEI, letters are being received from South African citizens and from immigrants who are not South African citizens and who re-emigrated, asking whether they can return and whether we can supply them with employment and housing. They also want to know whether we can assist them to return to South Africa. During 1977, altogether 2 515 South African citizens who had previously emigrated, had already returned to the Republic to settle here. Unfortunately I cannot supply the House with figures relating to former inhabitants who had not acquired South African citizenship and who again want to return to South Africa.

I am very grateful for the interest shown in this Vote, and I trust that with these few thoughts, I have been of assistance to hon. members to convey a positive image of our immigration and emigration position to people abroad.

Vote agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

to sit again.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to give the House some indication as to the extent and value of the fishing industry.

The Republic’s fishing industry currently produces a yearly fish catch valued at more than R225 million. The industry answers a basic and sought-after need for high-quality protein food, earns valuable foreign exchange through considerable exports of fish and fish products, and provides employment for several thousand people directly or indirectly involved in these activities. This important national asset consequently deserves sustained protection and encouragement to optimal development in the interests of all the peoples of the Republic of South Africa.

The rational exploitation of renewable natural resources such as fish, requires a highly specialized knowledge of the resources themselves, their physical environment, the industry, the interaction between these factors and the management and control techniques based thereon. Resources research on the one hand, and management and control by means of relevant legislation and inspection services on the other hand, provide in this very essential need.

Resource research entails in-depth investigations of the extent of a resource in terms of its physical and biological environment, the amount of fishing and the resultant interaction of these factors, which ultimately determine the yield. Research is done on a priority basis on all our important pelagic, demersal and rock lobster resources, with relatively restricted commitments to other lesser resources in accordance with their economic importance. These efforts have already been successful and with few exceptions all the Republic’s fish resources are currently approaching rational levels of exploitation. The goal remains optimum exploitation in terms of a healthy, yet difficult to attain, balance between the maximum biological yield and the concurrent optimum economic and social application thereof.

After several years of heavy fishing of especially deep-sea resources by foreign vessels, the Republic’s extension of its exclusive fisheries zone to 200 nautical miles from 1 November 1977 heralded a new era in fishing. Foreign trawlers are now excluded or in the process of being reduced in this zone. The resultant reduced intensity of fishing holds promise of renewed growth and diversification in the fishing industry. There are good indications that, with sound management and control, the Republic’s catch of hake and other important foodfish can in the near future be doubled to more than 200 000 tons per year. The withdrawal of foreign fishing effort will also increase the availability of other resources for local utilization. The currently under-exploited south-coast maasbanker resource has a calculated catch potential of at least 50 000 tons per year. Special techniques for the catching of this species are already being developed. The red-fish potential of 7 000 tons per year, previously almost exclusively caught by foreign vessels, already enjoys the active interest of local companies. Squid resources of largely unknown potential are now being fished on an experimental basis.

The benefits to be derived from a 200 mile fisheries zone have certainly not yet been fully explored. The optimal utilization of these benefits would of necessity require a much larger research, management and control effort of increasing sophistication. The Republic must be fully equipped for this important task.

Besides the expansion and diversification which can follow on the introduction of the 200 mile fisheries zone, existing known stocks provide further opportunities for development.

After a period of heavy fishing the local pilchard resource, due to the Government’s present management policy, is already showing signs of recovery. With intensified management and control, the valuable rock lobster fishery can be rationalized. Aquatic plants hold considerable promise for the future, both with respect to collection and the processing thereof. With an intensified marketing effort, existing deep-sea demersal resources can be much better utilized. Antartic krill, currently under-exploited and largely unknown but with an estimated potential yield of several million tons, provides considerable scope for future development. The Republic is in a relatively favourable geographic location in this regard.

The full and successful evolution of the Republic’s fishing industry with its undoubted potential for diversification and better utilization of known and unconventional resources, is very largely dependent on the rational management and control of such resources. For such control it is essential that the Republic should have effective and efficient legislation.

The present Fishing Industry Development Act, 1944 (Act No. 44 of 1944), has because of changing circumstances become outdated in several respects, namely the following—

1. (a) The general format of the Act is outmoded and, with respect, somewhat pedantic.
2. (b) The capital structure and accounting procedures provided in terms of the Act envisaged participation in the corporation by fishermen. This aim has, however, never been realized and the said capital structure and procedures are therefore unnecessarily complicated.
3. (c) Overlapping occurs between the objects and powers of the corporation as prescribed in the Act, which in some respects are vague and in others too restrictive.
4. (d) Control measures which include unnecessary approval by the State President and the Minister result in expensive and lengthy administrative procedures.
5. (e) A number of sections contain shortcomings compared with modern legislative practices.
6. (f) And lastly, but important, control measures to prevent the marketing or export of controlled fish which has been caught illegally, do not enable effective prevention of malpractices, the occurrence of which has increased considerably recently.

In the light of what I have said and based on the principles contained in the present Act, as well as those incorporated in the founding Acts of the Industrial Development Corporation, the Coloured Development Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, the Fishing Industry Development Act, 1944, was revised, consolidated and rewritten as set out in the Bill before us for consideration.

*With the exception of two clauses this Bill contains no principles which were not already included in the provisions of the existing Fishing Industries Development Act, 1944, or in the founding Acts of the IDC, CDC or IIDC to which I have referred.

Consequently I just want to refer briefly to the two new principles—

1. (1) It is being proposed that the corporation also be authorized now to exercise its powers with regard to fish in fresh water. During the past decade Viskor was actively engaged in research and development as far as commercial marine aquaculture with eels, oysters and prawns was concerned. Although the corporation’s efforts met with a relative degree of success, the findings show that the stormy conditions and the very limited sheltered sea water areas along the coast of South Africa adversely affected the establishment of a marine aquaculture industry on an economic or commercial basis. However, experiments showed that these species of fish and animals could be raised equally successfully in brackish and fresh water and that in such countries as Israel, Japan and Taiwan good results have been achieved in this regard.

At the moment there is no State institution with the specific aim and function of promoting the establishment of a commercial fresh water fishing industry in the RSA. This function and aim, however, is completely appropriate to and reconcilable with the present functions and powers of Viskor which can act as developer with the necessary financing and manpower to activate private organizations into entering this industry. The fact is that Viskor, because it can also keep the market potential in view as a result of its existing links with the sea fishing industry, is in a favourable position for marketing development with regard to new fish products.

Since Viskor already has the expertise and means to promote and expand the establishment of a commercial fresh water fishing industry in South Africa, it is only necessary to grant it the statutory powers, as envisaged in clause 5 of the Bill.

1. (2) Clause 36—I should like to bring this clause to hon. members’ attention—this clause makes provision for the repeal of the existing principal Act as well as the ensuing amendment Acts and subclauses (2) and (3) contain transitional provisions.

Mr. Speaker, you will note that the following points of departure were adopted in the Bill—

• — provision is being made for the continued existence of the corporation as a juristic person;
• — as I have said already, the powers of the corporation have been reformulated;
• — the corporation’s financial obligations as far as the raising of loan funds and the giving of guarantees are concerned, is being limited to an amount equal to half of its paid-up share capital plus reserve funds;
• — provision is being made for the giving of State guarantees by the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Finance with regard to Viskor loans;
• — the prescribed capital structure of Viskor is being put on a more acceptable basis; and
• — control measures for the marketing and export of controlled fish which are not comprehensive enough are being improved in certain respects. As a result of the high value of certain fish products today, for example rock lobster and abalone, there are cases of the illegal catching and marketing of these controlled fish species. I also intend to review the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, and next year I shall D.V. submit a Bill for consideration to streamline the control measures of this Act as well.

†Mr. Speaker, I think I can conclude by saying that South Africa has entered a new phase of development in the fishing industry, offering advantages, new fisheries opportunities and interesting technological challenges. I hope that this and the further legislation I have referred to will contribute towards sustained progress by South Africa’s fishing industry in this regard.

At this stage I should also like to refer to the amendments proposed by the hon. members for Germiston and Worcester, as printed on the Order Paper. These amendments improve clauses 1 and 4 and I am prepared to accept them.