Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the House has now had the opportunity of reading the Third Report and it is of course quite remarkable that we should find ourselves faced, during a session of Parliament, with three reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts with voluminous evidence of the nature of that contained in these reports dealing with matters as serious as those which now confront the House on what may well be the last day of the session. It is significant that the hon. the Prime Minister considered it necessary on the eve of this debate to issue a statement that is, of course, of paramount importance with regard to the matters we are to discuss today. Many of us would have hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would participate in this debate today—and may I say that many of us still hope that he will do so.

If I may, I shall deal right at the beginning with the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement because that statement has perhaps cast its shadow over this debate and needs to be dealt with at once. Let me say, firstly, that one can be happy with a number of the proposals the hon. the Prime Minister has made. They are in accordance with our recommendations over a period of time.

Is that why you say that it casts a shadow?

The shadow, Sir, is on that side. Sometimes a very attractive statue casts a shadow in which some people have to sit. May I say that in respect of some aspects the only criticism we can offer is perhaps that it has come a little late.

There are, however, other matters with which, regrettably, we cannot agree, matters which are left unresolved and which are left in an unsatisfactory condition. The first submission I want to make is that none of the problems which have been created here and which exist here can be solved by renaming a department a bureau, leaving it under the control of the same hon. Minister and leaving it with the same functions except for the secret activities which are being taken away. In other words, one cannot change something by changing its name. I know that the hon. the Minister of Information is magnificent in this respect. He changes “Black” into “plural” and “Bantu” into “plural” and now he wants to change the Department of Information in the same way. The fact remains, however, that one cannot change an image merely by changing a name.

What about your party changing its name? [Interjections.]

Order!

There is no doubt that this is a telling point because so much noise is being made about it. There is no doubt about it. There is no question that when the hon. the Minister seeks to go overseas as he intends to do this week-end and seeks to deal with information functions, he will have the same problems, the same difficulties because he is still there and all that is being done substantially is to change the name. The most important factor which we think the hon. the Prime Minister has not dealt with is that in so far as this department is concerned, its external functions should be exercised under the direction of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There can be no question about it that that is the logical thing to do. There is also no question about it that there is no need for a Department of Information internally in South Africa.

There are functions which particular departments may have to exercise which are of an information nature and those can be exercised by those departments. However, South Africa does not need an internal governmental propaganda machine and the sooner we appreciate that the better. What it needs is that the functions of the individual departments should be conveyed to the public. That would be the correct information service in that regard. That is why we do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has solved the problem. We also want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is no solution in regard to the problems concerning the secret funds in the statement which he has made. I want to deal with that in a moment at some length and I think that there are other steps which are required in regard to secret funds.

I want to put one other question to the hon. the Prime Minister right at the very beginning. If all that had happened was that one had some people who did something wrong in regard to air travel, that there was something wrong in regard to a couple of books, and that people were using private travel agents instead of using the State’s organs, would the hon. the Prime Minister in normal circumstances consider abolishing a department? Would he consider taking such drastic steps as he has taken at the present moment or as he said he did? Would he not in those circumstances merely say: “We must now dismiss the man in charge; the department is necessary as its functions need to be exercised.”? Is it not a fact that the problem is far more serious than that and that it is something that goes to the roots of the whole information function of the State and that that is why this more drastic step is necessary? What—and I put the question in the public interest for the hon. the Prime Minister to answer—is the reality of the problem as he sees it, not as we in the Opposition see it and as we will put it, but as he sees it, which has necessitated this very drastic action? We must make no mistake about it that as far as our overseas position is concerned we need an information service but we need one that has image and which has status and one which can do the job. Whatever anyone now says to try to whitewash the situation and whatever is being said by way of face-saving mechanisms for various people, the truth is that if one looks at our situation overseas as it is today, that situation is the indictment of the hon. the Minister and his department because the truth is that we are in a mess overseas and our image overseas is in a tragic situation. [Interjections.] That is the truth of it and those rather strange remarks—to use the most euphemistic term—of one of the hon. Ministers opposite do not take away the reality of the facts. The truth is that the reality of facts cannot be changed by a resolution or decision by this House in so far as an overseas image is concerned. What is required, is some real action. The tragedy is that the hon. the Minister of Information perpetuates the story of the wonderful work that is being done, while the whole of South African can see how South Africa is in trouble overseas because our image has not been correctly projected overseas. That is the tragedy. That is why I say that there is something more fundamental requiring this urgent action than merely the various aspects that are disclosed in this report.

I now want to come to what I think is perhaps one of the major aspects of this whole matter, i.e. the whole issue of political responsibility. Can we show that Parliamentary practice continues to exist and that we abide by Parliamentary practices when we concede that although a whole department has to be changed, the hon. the Minister can still continue in office? That is, to my mind, the greatest failing in so far as the workings of this Parliamentary system is concerned. It is further so in the light of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister uses a majority of 135 to 17 in this House in order to overcome that problem in regard to political responsibility. The truth is that in any Parliamentary system that is worth talking about, any Minister faced with this situation would never have waited to bring the matter to this House, but would have taken steps long before. He would have said that this department had failed, that he had failed and that he therefore offered the hon. the Prime Minister his resignation.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

That is what is required. Let us look at the facts. There is a scandal in the department; there are two reports which are conceded by the Nationalist supporting Press as the worst in the history of the NP; two officials have already been prematurely retired—whether one was rightly or wrongly retired, we can deal with a little later; the Secretary is now retiring. We also now have the situation that the Public Service Commission has made recommendations to change the situation. These recommendations were not made by the hon. Minister concerned, but by the Public Service Commission. In these circumstances the political responsibility in a Parliamentary Government would require a Minister to resign and there is no alternative for the hon. the Minister but to do that if he wants the Parliamentary system to survive. In this case the matter goes even further, however, than mere political responsibility. I am going to demonstrate that, by reason of the personal intervention of the hon. the Minister in the department’s activities, it is so that if he remains, the image remains as it is and nothing changes.

Let me take a simple example. The hon. the Prime Minister announced yesterday that he had appointed Gen. Van den Berg to do— to use the words of his statement—“a proper evaluation of confidential projects”. These are said to be information projects. Presumably they were approved of by the hon. the Minister, because he himself has said—and I have his document in the evidence of the Committee—that he has approved retrospectively, at least, in writing, after being told of each trip, each particular activity. We now find that the hon. the Minister who should have evaluated them and who was given the responsibility in terms of a letter from the hon. the Prime Minister, now continues to sit in the House, even though his own Prime Minister has said that his work has got to be evaluated by someone else. That is the truth of it. If that is not an admission that the authorities that be even within the NP no longer rely upon the hon. the Minister for the evaluation of his own work in his own department, but that somebody from outside has to evaluate whether we should go on with the things that he has started, I do not know what is. How can the hon. the Minister face the public of South Africa and continue to try to hold this particular job? That in itself, that very statement that his work has to be evaluated by the head of the Bureau for State Security, is a vote of no confidence in the hon. the Minister himself.

Let me go a little bit further. If we look at the record in respect of overseas travelling, we see that the hon. the Minister himself gave written consent for the overseas travel. His approval is required, not only to go overseas, but for the class in which the travel will be undertaken. The Secretary said that this approval was given informally by the hon. the Minister from time to time, and it is by common agreement established that informal consent is no consent at all. The question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister is: Is it not he who also has to carry the blame? Why does only the Secretary have to carry the blame in regard to this, because the hon. the Minister himself, as the documents show, knew that written consent was needed. The hon. the Minister signed a number of documents, documents which are part of the evidence in this report. We can look, for instance, on page 327 of the report. There one will see that as long ago as 1975 the hon. the Minister put his signature to a document in which permission was given for overseas travel. In the document it is stated that—

The hon. the Minister signed this.

Written consent?

What does that prove?

What does that prove? It proves very clearly that the Minister signed a document in July 1975—it was not only in this case, but also in a number of other cases—in which it was made clear that he was aware of the fact that it was in fact necessary to give written consent for overseas travel.

Where is that stated?

The proof is further on in the evidence itself in which it is stated clearly that according to Treasury regulations, in no case may consent which is not written consent be given. That is in black and white in this report. The hon. the Minister knows that himself. I shall show him where it is. [Interjections.]

†The hon. the Minister knew that there had to be written consent.

That is not true!

Of course he did.

That is not true!

Here is the document. The hon. the Minister cannot run away from it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members will have the opportunity of replying to the hon. member’s speech. The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

This document is not the only example. According to the evidence of the Secretary, documents were signed in most of the cases. The hon. the Minister knows what the Treasury regulations are. He knows that in terms of the Treasury regulations one cannot give verbal consent. It is a fact. The Treasury regulations are quoted in this document. The hon. the Minister knew the regulations, but now it is only the Secretary’s fault.

Let me go further. I would like to quote the evidence so that there is no misunderstanding that the evidence is there.

You can do much better than that!

Maybe; why don’t you do better, my friend?

You are guilty and you know it! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me read the evidence in the report. In paragraph 891 I asked Dr. Rhoodie—

Dr. Rhoodie answered—

Paragraph 892 reads—

However, there were forms. The forms constitute documentary evidence in this report.

†The hon. the Minister cannot run away from the fact—to put it at its mildest—that he, with his experience, should have been aware of the Treasury regulations and the personnel code after all the years he has been in the Public Service. He should have been aware that this irregularity was taking place and that it was occurring in this manner. However, let us look at what the Auditor-General has to say about it. I quote—

That is the point. It is not only not acceptable to the Treasury and the Auditor-General, but also to the public and this Parliament that the hon. the Minister can have his own rules and can ignore the Treasury regulations and the Public Service regulations. That is the point. I now want to quote from paragraph 776. The Auditor-General said—

That is the point which has been made in evidence which is contained in this report. What makes the hon. the Minister different from other Ministers? Why does he have a set of rules which are different from other rules? It is no use just blaming the Secretary. In paragraph 798 the Auditor-General said that a Minister must obey the rules. That is what it is all about. The fact is that the hon. the Minister has not obeyed the rules. I quote from paragraph 798—

*That is with reference to the Minister—

†The hon. the Minister is responsible for this state of affairs. It is he who has in fact created this situation. I want to put another fact on record. I for one wanted the hon. the Minister to give his explanations of these matters to the committee. The NP majority on that committee voted against it and would not invite the hon. the Minister to come and give evidence. Why did the hon. the Minister himself not decide that he wanted to put his case before this committee? The joke goes even further. The hon. member for Sunnyside made the threat in this House that he was going to invite, or, if he refused to come, subpoena, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give evidence before the committee, but when I asked in the committee itself that they should be invited, he and his NP colleagues voted against it. They talk big, but when it comes to the reality of the situation, they do nothing.

You wanted to hang Colin and we were not going to take part in it! [Interjections.]

I want to discuss one further matter. After the enquiry had started the hon. the Minister gave his consent in writing retrospectively. The evidence in this matter commenced on 4 April 1978. On 10 April, as is shown in appendix 0, the hon. the Minister’s approval was given. He confirmed in writing that he had verbally approved of the trips. That document was handed in to the committee on 11 April, after the whole balloon had gone up. However, there is another question I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to. In the committee we were told that at the time when this retrospective written approval was asked for, he was again told what in fact the circumstances were. I should like him to tell the House what the circumstances were about which he was told, because at that stage we were told about one set of circumstances, but after the Secretary had made his statement about the secret fund, we were told about quite a different set of circumstances.

What was the hon. the Minister told which caused him to put his signature on that document on 10 April, because I would assume that the hon. the Minister would know what these trips were really about? I would assume that he would know it fully and I would therefore assume that he would not give a certificate which would bear out the evidence of the Secretary that these were in fact funds which represented—to use his words—“0,08% of the budget” when the hon. the Minister knew, or should have known, and he will have to tell us, that four of those trips had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget at all. It was grossly misleading to say to the committee that this represented that percentage of the budget when it never came out of that budget at all, but came from a completely secret source in respect of which, to this day, we have not been told what the origins in fact are. The hon. the Minister has now got to tell us whether in fact he believes that this certificate was going to be used in order to perpetuate the story that it was all money that came from his budget, or whether in fact he thought that the correct facts would be placed before the committee. It is a very important matter about which the hon. the Minister cannot now keep quiet, because to my mind that is perhaps the most serious of all the matters which arise in this particular matter. The fact is that two-thirds of the trips which were made in particular circumstances, which we have referred to, by Dr. D. Rhoodie were never paid for from the budget, and that only became apparent at a very much later stage.

Then we come to the question of private travel agents. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what his knowledge is in regard to the matter of private travel agents and whether he approved of a procedure laid down in terms of which all departments had to use the Government organs for the purpose of booking travel. Was he aware of that, because some of the information that has become available is that the hon. the Minister himself went on trips which were booked by private travel agents and which were State trips?

Of course, for very special reasons.

That is right. Therefore, if that is so, the hon. the Minister knew what his department was doing. He knew that his department was ignoring the rules in “regard to private travel agents. Therefore it is no use saying that he played no part in this. That is why I put it to the hon. the Minister that he is in a worse position than a normal Minister in a political responsibility position, because he is so deeply involved in the workings of his own department that he really cannot carry on with information functions.

Let me give another example, and then I think I will have given enough. Let us take the example of wives travelling. Is it correct that the hon. the Minister gave the instructions that this in fact should be hidden, that this—to use the words used—“dit moenie aan die groot klok gehang word nie”? If the Cabinet has decided upon a basis upon which wives can accompany officials, has laid down a formula and has set out the basis on which it is to be done, why should that be hidden from the people in the department? Did the hon. the Minister give such instructions? If he did give these instructions and if the evidence given by Dr. Rhoodie is correct, then I fail to understand why there should be this cloak of secrecy over wives travelling when in fact it is completely legitimate and is in accordance with a Cabinet decision that wives may travel in certain circumstances. Why then does the hon. the Minister give that type of instruction? Why then must this come about?

Let me ask one last question of the hon. the Minister. He was aware, I hope, of the things that were wrong in his department. He certainly should have been aware by July last year when there was a report—a report that we have never seen, but which has been referred to in the Press—on matters that were wrong in his department. If he was not aware, then, with respect, he could not have been doing his job. If he was aware, why did he take no action? Why to this day has all the action been taken by people other than the hon. the Minister himself? The hon. the Prime Minister has had to intervene, the Public Service Commission has had to intervene and the Auditor-General has had to intervene. Where is the action on the part of the hon. the Minister? If the hon. the Minister is not capable of taking action then he is not capable of holding this job, and that is why we believe that he must be removed from all functions which relate to information concerning the affairs of the Republic of South Africa.

May I now turn to another matter. I want to touch very briefly on the position of Mr. Waldeck. Mr. Waldeck, according to the evidence, was not only helpful and co-operative in assisting the Auditor-General, but there is also information that he in fact asked the Auditor-General to investigate certain matters.

That is why he was fired!

Would the hon. the Minister tell us why Mr. Waldeck was prematurely retired? The hon. the Minister has to tell the House why this happened. Were there valid reasons for it? If so, they should be made public, because Mr. Waldeck himself invited it and because he said himself that he was innocent. Then there is also the comment and the allegations on Mr. Waldeck being made a scapegoat. Either there were valid grounds or there were not. If there were not valid grounds, Mr. Waldeck must in fact receive recompense for what has happened to him. Surely, Parliament cannot tolerate that anybody should be unjustly treated. We therefore call upon the hon. the Minister to deal with the position of Mr. Waldeck and to tell us what the facts really are.

Now I want to turn to the question of the secret funds. One of the aspects which we find most baffling is the air of mystery that has been created around parts of this department. There is a refusal, as is demonstrated time and time again, to give information, information which has nothing to do with jeopardizing the security of the State— nothing whatsoever. The idea seems to be to create an aura of mystery. Some of us certainly have the feeling that that aura of mystery is not being created in order to protect the security of the State, but is created in order not to give the information. That is one of the matters which we find most startling. Let us take for example the overseas trips, which are in fact the very matter in issue. Here we find a situation that a man goes to a conference, a conference somewhere. That is alleged to be a secret mission. Everybody knows he goes. Everybody sees him there. Everybody sees to whom he talks. Yet it is a secret mission.

A man goes overseas. He gives evidence in the Committee that he had lunch at Wimbledon, where there were thousands of people. However, he cannot tell the Committee with whom he had lunch. He is only prepared to tell that secretly to an individual member. How can this be a secret when he is openly having lunch in the presence of thousands of people? So it goes on. [Interjections.] He addresses meetings. There is an analogy given of people going overseas to address conferences. How does one explain that two people travel overseas together; one is on a secret mission, the other not, and they are nevertheless both doing the same thing? It needs a little bit of explaining, does it not?

Sure!

Then I hope the hon. the Minister will do it.

[Inaudible.]

Why did the hon. the Minister then not come to the Committee to give evidence?

I shall give it here today.

The hon. the Minister is prepared to give his evidence here. However, his Secretary was not prepared to give that evidence, because a cloak of secrecy has been surrounding all these matters. Let us look at the ambit of the secret activities. If we look at the original instruction from the hon. the Prime Minister, it was this hon. Minister of Information who, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister’s letter—which I found difficult to understand—was not allowed to disclose certain information because of it being secret. In the same way I had difficulty to understand why the Transkei matter had to be disclosed. This, even today, is getting us into trouble in Germany. Why these things had to be disclosed, I do not know. It only seems that some aura of mystery had to be created. However, the financing part of the portfolio is in fact the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Information. That is how it is stated in the letter written by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Which letter?

The letter written to the hon. the Minister of Information. If we look at page 324 of the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts we will find there the letter written by the hon. the Prime Minister and addressed to the hon. the Minister of Information. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Information must have read it! Hon. members will note, if they read the letter, that the financing responsibilities are in fact stated to be those of the hon. the Minister of Information, the financing responsibilities for all these projects, whether they be secret or otherwise.

All these projects grew to such an extent that a separate accountant in the department was needed. Officials were involved in them to a substantial extent. The Auditor-General, however, has no control over the funds. The accounting examination did not disclose the fault until the Auditor-General came into the picture. It is quite clear that the questions which relate to the secret funds remain unanswered. It is also clear that there is in fact inadequate control.

Now, Sir, let me put a very simple question to the hon. the Minister. What about the mystery of Thor? What about the mystery of the R3½ million, in respect of which the Committee, by a majority decision, refused to allow questions to be put? What about the allegation that R243 000 is not accounted for, not from Information funds, as was said in reply to a question, but from other funds?

Order! Those two matters were never before the Select Committee and are therefore not before the House either.

They are referred to in the report, Sir.

They did not form the subject matter of the Auditor-General’s or the Committee’s report, and are not relevant.

Well, Sir, I abide by your ruling. I shall deal with it in a different fashion. If there is an allegation that funds are unaccounted for and it has nothing to do with the Department of Information or the State, why do you not say so? Then you would dispel the air of mystery. Then you would solve the problem. But no; you keep quiet and therefore the inference must be that it has something to do with the State. Therefore you do a disservice to the State by perpetuating that aura of mystery.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so. In these circumstances I do not think there is any alternative but that Parliament is entitled to have these funds accounted for. There is no alternative but that there should be proper auditing. There is no alternative but that there should be a proper committee to which this accounting should be done. There is no alternative but that there should be a Select Committee of this House to deal with that situation. We cannot allow the situation to continue with this Minister in charge, without accountability to Parliament and without adequate steps to see that our image is correctly projected. I therefore move the following amendment—

1. (a) the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to which reports on the auditing of so-called “secret funds” should be submitted;
2. (b) an undertaking by the Government to request the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry into the affairs of the Department of Information; and

1. (2) this House accordingly declines to adopt the Report.”.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, please permit me to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Select Committee to the Auditor-General, who retires at the end of this month. Over the past number of years the Auditor-General has proved that he attached great value to the post, and he has given substance to the ost of Auditor-General. We should like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Barrie very much for their services, and wish them everything of the best.

Please also permit me—and I thank all the members of the Select Committee will join with me here—to express a word of thanks to the officers of Parliament who assisted the Select Committee with the handling of its business. At times it was difficult to get all the work done, and I think it is only right and fair that we in this House should express our thanks to those officers who put in additional time to get the work done for us. I also wish to thank every member of the Select Committee for the co-operation which I received from every one of them. In the nature of things, it was a difficult task we were saddled with. One need only look at the scope of the work and the number of hours which the Select Committee had to sit to get through its work. For that, I owe thanks to every member of the Select Committee. Nor can I neglect to say that I also owe thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. The Select Committee functions as an extension-piece of Parliament, and you made your contribution in assisting us in this process.

That, however, is as far as the peace can go. Now we will have to enter the arena of war. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Yeoville should rather have remained in Germany, because it is very clear that he is suffering from a disorientation in time. I had expected the hon. member to discuss the report of the Select Committee, but actually he devoted half of his speech to matters which do not even appear in the report of the Select Committee. He launched a general attack on the hon. the Minister of Information.

Let us dwell briefly on the hon. member’s attack on the hon. the Minister. The hon. member must bring me the proof from the evidence which came before the Select Committee, because what he raised here this morning, signifies absolutely nothing. His charge against the hon. the Minister was that the hon. the Minister had done nothing to rectify the irregularities which had existed. But surely that was not true. From the time the Auditor-General queried certain things, the hon. the Minister co-operated throughout.

He could not do anything else, could he?

The Auditor-General reported to the correct quarters. The Auditor-General testified that he had come across irregularities in connection with the journeys which had taken place, and the use of certain funds for those journeys. The Auditor-General was then told that the money had come from secret funds. The Auditor-General then went and reported to the correct quarters. He reported where reports about secret funds should be made.

That rests with the Prime Minister.

Just wait a moment. The hon. member must not shy away from that now. The Auditor-General reported to the correct quarters, the place where reports about secret funds are submitted. That was how the matter landed on the desk of the hon. the Prime Minister. In his statement some weeks ago, the hon. the Prime Minister said that at that stage, immediate action had been taken and that, with the co-operation of the hon. the Minister of Information and the Auditor-General, an expert had been appointed to carry out certain assignments. How, then, can the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister of Information did not co-operate? As chairman of the Select Committee, I obtained only the greatest measure of co-operation from the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I was able to obtain anything from the hon. the Minister which I required of him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, Government speakers refrained from interrupting the hon. member for Yeoville.

They did not!

I therefore ask that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke should also be afforded an opportunity of delivering his speech without interruption.

Order! That is not a point of order.

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not state a point of order.

I shall allow interjections to a certain extent, but this is an important debate and one standpoint must be stated against another. The hon. member may proceed.

I am very grateful for your ruling. I have no objection to interjections, so long as they are meaningful. You will have noted, Sir, that I did not make a single interjection when the hon. member for Yeoville spoke. I expect the same from him while I am speaking.

I was indicating that the hon. the Minister co-operated throughout this entire process. He participated in the debates in the House on the First Report. In the debate on his Vote, he also participated in the debate in this connection. In fact, he stated that action would be taken if necessary.

But the Prime Minister did so, and not he.

Let us first deal with one aspect of what the hon. member is charging the hon. the Minister with, namely the question of written authority or otherwise for the journeys. In this connection, the position is not as stated by the hon. members.

The proof is in the evidence.

Order!

I am going to refer to that very evidence now. The hon. member will recall that Dr. Steyn of the Public Service Commission gave evidence in connection with this matter. There was a problem, viz. that Audit expected written confirmation or some written evidence of expenditure on travels. However, written permission for journeys is not necessarily demanded in terms of the Public Service Code. I refer hon. members to page 56 of the Third Report. I myself participated in the discussion on that matter. A question was put to Dr. Steyn in connection with expenditure and approval of journeys. I shall only read the second half of question 906. The question was put by the hon. member for Losberg, Mr. Janson—

Dr. Steyn replied to that as follows—

Then I asked—

Dr. Steyn’s reply was—

To that, I reacted as follows—

I want to put it this way … [Interjections.]

Look at Treasury Regulation 1521 on page 12. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

All I want to say, is that the hon. member cannot stand up in the House and state that it is 100% clear that …

It is. It is in the report.

I know exactly what is in the report. I have read it five times. All I want to explain, is that the hon. member cannot stand up here and say that it is absolutely 100% certain that the written authority of the Minister should have been obtained.

But it is stated there.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has had the opportunity of making his speech. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is now replying to it. There are other members who, in turn, can carry the matter further and comment on what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is now saying. The hon. member for Yeoville must not keep on making interjections.

If the hon. member will only give me a chance to complete my argument, he will see that it is not necessary to make so many interjections. Let me state the position clearly. The Public Service staff code lays down certain requirements, and Audit lays down certain requirements, and that has been admitted. The hon. member can go further into the questions I have quoted. If he will do so, he will see that it was admitted that the position was not absolutely clear, and that it could be interpreted that written permission was not necessarily required. Now the hon. member has made the allegation that the hon. the Minister, specifically, should have known that it should have been in writing.

Now I should like to come to the aspect that a Minister—irrespective of whether it is the Minister concerned, or any other Minister—should always be au fait with every rule and regulation relating to Audit requirements and the Public Service Code. The Secretary of the Public Service Commission himself testified before the committee that it was not even possible for a head of department always to be au fait with all those conditions, but that the departmental head had to make use of his officers to supply him with information in regard to the conditions of the code and of Audit. Surely that is simple. Surely that hon. member is in the business world. If the general manager of his business has made a mistake, then surely he will not dismiss the managing director. Surely it cannot work that way. How then can the hon. member demand that the hon. the Minister should resign?

In the report before the House today, reference is made to the hon. the Minister in connection with only two aspects. Firstly, there is reference to him in connection with his approval of certain journeys and his approval that the wives of officials could accompany them on more tours abroad that the Public Service Code provided for. It is surely very clear—the evidence was provided—that it was for compassionate reasons that the hon. the Minister gave permission for the wives of certain senior officials to accompany them on more journeys abroad than was laid down in the Code. In fact, in the case of Dr. Deneys Rhoodie, the hon. the Minister gave permission for his wife to accompany him on an overseas tour once a year. Nowhere is it on record that the hon. the Minister had specified on what journey Dr. Deneys Rhoodie could take his wife with him. That was left to them. The Secretary for Information testified that in connection with some of the journeys, he had specifically asked whether Dr. Deneys Rhoodie could be accompanied by his wife. The Secretary for Information testified that.

If we look at this entire matter and evaluate the report before the House today, it is clear that certain aspects connected with the investigation, were exaggerated out of proportion by the Press. It was exaggerated out of all proportion by the Press.

And by Harry Schwarz.

If that did in fact happen—and I do not think there is anyone who would want to dispute the matter with me—I maintain that the unsavouriness of the situation lies in the fact that insinuations have been made, insinuations which cannot be proved. Week after week, all we get is insinuations. Not one of us in this country can afford to have this type of journalism being practised.

I also want to refer to another aspect. A lot has been said about the secret funds. I do not want to discuss those funds, but there is another aspect I want to discuss today. What has a good hon. Minister and a good Government done since it came to light that certain problems were being experienced at the Department of Information? After all, the responsibility ultimately rests with the hon. the Prime Minister. Action was taken. The NP is not afraid to take action when mistakes occur. The NP is not afraid to take steps to rectify matters.

If the hon. member for Yeoville made one technical error today, it was to level criticism at the hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that it is only the name of the Department of Information which is going to be changed. With respect to the hon. member, I want to say that he is the very last hon. member in this House who can talk of changes of name. [Interjections.] However, I do think this is a minor technical error which has crept in as a result of the disorientation in time which the hon. member experienced on his return journey. However, I want to say in all seriousness that I have been impressed—it was the first year that I acted as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts— by the earnestness with which, in connection with irregularities in the Public Service, the NP…

Covers up.

… takes action.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the words “covers up”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to tell that hon. covered-up member that if any evidence can be produced …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to the hon. member for Bryanston as he did?

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for you to give a ruling; I shall withdraw it. What is important in this connection, is the fact that not a single hon. member who served on that Select Committee, can turn around today and say that in the Select Committee, any obstacles were placed in their way in making a proper evaluation of the information submitted to the Select Committee by the Auditor-General. In my view, the Select Committee went out of its way …

And what about Thor?

I should like to reply to that. The hon. member now charges against me that I had a decision taken that we could not take a close look at Thor. But what happened there? In the Select Committee, the hon. member for Yeoville quoted something on the matter from a newspaper. It was not a matter which was brought to the Select Committee by the Auditor-General. I do not want to discuss it further now, but I do at least have to give a reason for my ruling. The report which the hon. member for Yeoville quoted from the newspaper, did not say that it was money from the Department of Information which was involved. At that stage, we were investigating the Department of Information. We were not engaged in anything else.

But Rhoodie said there was a relationship with Thor.

Surely I cannot take cognizance in the Select Committee of what Dr. Rhoodie had said to a newspaper. Surely, Dr. Rhoodie was before the Select Committee in person and he said he was not going to testify about that. Why should he reply before the Select Committee to a charge which the hon. member brings against him by means of the Press? Surely that is absolutely ludicrous.

I therefore maintain that it cannot be said that the NP has made itself guilty of any cover-up in connection with this entire matter, not in the Select Committee, not by the hon. the Minister, and still less by the hon. the Prime Minister. We have now dealt with the matter fully. The hon. the Prime Minister has appointed an expert and the Select Committee has published a first and a Second Report in which it was requested, inter alia, that the Public Service Commission and the Treasury look into the matter. The Public Service Commission has published its report, and according to the finding of that report, drastic steps have been taken. Since the beginning of this whole matter, three senior officials have ceased to occupy the posts they formerly held. Surely that attests to drastic action.

What about Mr. Waldeck?

Hon. members are now trying to single out Mr. Waldeck in this process. I do not want to comment on his dismissal, except to say that he was Head of Administration. I also want to point out that the Select Committee found that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie had not been well-informed by his officials as regards administration. [Interjections.] Of course it is so. However, I do not want to go further into the Waldeck matter, because we did not deal with the matter.

He was the scapegoat!

I am prepared to guarantee today that notwithstanding the venom with which the Official Opposition has acted against the hon. the Minister and his officials up to now, they will all rally behind any one of those officials if such official were to turn around today and say anything against the Department of Information. Such an officer would then be their “hero”. Although they have acted vindictively towards all the officers and towards the entire Department of Information, they will regard as their “hero” anyone who merely utters a sound on which they can act.

I want to devote some attention to what the Government has done here, because much is being made of this matter. The amount at issue in this report is relatively small. What happened further? The Auditor-General did his work, everybody co-operated, and the money which had been spent irregularly, either was or is being recovered from the officers concerned. What more can the Government and anybody in a position of control, do on discovering such irregularities, than to act immediately and to recover that money? There are other unfortunate situations where the recovery of the money is not so easy. It is a pity that such a thing should happen, and I am not for a moment trying to make out today that we should excuse Dr. Rhoodie’s mistakes. In fact, it is a pity that Dr. Rhoodie made those mistakes. He is a man with great talent, but it is a fact that when one works with public money or trust money, the public eye keeps a close watch on what one does. It is a very good tradition in South Africa. It is therefore right that the Select Committee and the Auditor-General have acted as they have in fact done. We can now tell our voters that such mistakes are looked into. I am prepared to say today that the Government took stem action in respect of a relatively small amount which was involved. That shows how strongly the Government feels about such matters.

Some of the investigations have not yet been finalized. The investigation by the Public Service Commission has been finalized, and hon. members have seen what the outcome of that was. The hon. the Prime Minister announced yesterday what else was going to happen. The Department of Information is being restructured altogether. If the hon. members are still not satisfied after all these things which have been done, it only means one thing: They want to make a political football of these things in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have given the entire matter a great deal of thought. What would any responsible chairman of a board of directors do if he had discovered such an irregularity in his undertaking? Let us presume that Parliament is a large undertaking and the Auditor-General is its auditor. Suppose the auditor of a large undertaking were to point out to the chairman of the board of that undertaking that certain mistakes had been made. What steps would he take other than those the Government has taken?

Fire the directors. [Interjections.]

That is absolutely the most ridiculous remark I have ever heard. Surely one does not simply dismiss a director. I readily agree that the position of Parliament is not altogether comparable to that of a business undertaking. It is true that a Minister always remains the political head of the department.

I now want to refer to another aspect. The position is that nowhere does the Select Committee make reference in its report, and at no time did it have evidence before it, that there were any problems as regards the technical work of the department.

It is kept …

Now wait a minute!

It is kept secret.

Now, how can the hon. member say that it is kept secret? There is no proof before Parliament or before the Select Committee that there were any other problems with the Department of Information except for the stipulated items which concerned non-compliance with rules and regulations. [Interjections.] In fact, a very well-known businessman came to see me the other day and he told me that he could testify to the good work which the Department of Information was doing abroad and in South Africa.

What is the responsibility of the political head of a department? The responsibility of the political head is not to see to it that every rule and regulation is complied with. That is the responsibility of the administrative head, the accounting officer. Let us see how the Public Service operates. Nor is it the responsibility of the accounting officer alone. He also has experts in his department who can inform him about how certain sections in the department function. I challenge any of the hon. members opposite to go and look at the Public Service Staff Code and the Treasury regulations and then to tell me that within a year they will be personally au fait with every one of those rules and regulations.

What is ministerial responsibility?

I have never said that the Minister should brush aside his political responsibility. I have merely tried to explain what happens in practice. The political responsibility of the Minister lies in the policy which has to be applied in his department.

Oh, no!

The hon. members must not try to put words into my mouth which I did not use. I want to state categorically …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to a question.

[Inaudible.]

I have never said that the Minister does not have a political responsibility for this department. I certainly did not say that, nor do I want to suggest that for one moment. I only want us to take a realistic look at the situation. I want to emphasize that the two points I referred to were the only two points in the report and in the evidence before the Select Committee which can be seen as having anything to do with the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I pointed out that there was confusion—moreover it has been admitted that there was indeed confusion—about the question whether or not authority for journeys should be in writing. We admit—and the evidence confirms it—that for the sake of audit, authority and payment for journeys should be in writing. In the second place, the hon. the Minister granted permission that the wives of certain officers could accompany them more often than was provided for in the Public Service Code. If that was done for compassionate reasons, it proves that we are here dealing with a humane Minister, a person who is prepared to look after his people.

If those hon. members now still want to get at the Department of Information, I just want to remind them that it gets one nowhere to kick a man when he is down. They can go and ask Morné du Plessis what happens to such a man. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has in fact suggested that we could use a business undertaking as an example and as a corollary of Parliament in this particular instance. The hon. member for Groote Schuur, who interjected at that stage, perhaps gave the answer of a person who is not in business. However, if we are to look at it in this way, we must equate the hon. the Prime Minister as being the managing director and the hon. the Minister of Information as being the director in charge of the undertaking, in this case the department. If, in a business, members of the staff do wrong, the auditor brings it to the management’s attention and the staff concerned are fired, and if the auditor then succeeds in proving that the director actually helped the wrongdoers in their particular wrongdoing, the director of that business will be fired as well.

I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke in thanking the Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie, not only for the way in which he reported to the Select Committee, but also for his long service to this country and to Parliament. We believe he has done a very great job and we wish him well in his retirement. Secondly, we should like to thank the officials who helped the Select Committee at every stage. Finally, I think it would be wrong of us in these benches not to thank the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who chaired the committee. He had an extremely difficult job to do, but we believe he did it fairly and well.

Like the Official Opposition, we too want to move an amendment, although we agree with the Official Opposition’s amendment in a great number of respects. My colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, will be dealing with that in due course. However, we do disagree on one instance. Therefore I want to move the following amendment—

Where we differ from the Official Opposition is that we are prepared to agree to the adoption of the Third Report. Basically this report is a report which is critical of the department. We in these benches believe that it does not go far enough. But we agree with it as far as it goes, because basically what does this report say? It says that the Secretary of the department is basically incapable of carrying out his accounting functions, and if he cannot do this, he cannot remain as the head of this department. So, this report is critical, and as such we believe it should be adopted. However, it does not go far enough.

I now wish to deal with the statement made yesterday in the House by the hon. the Prime Minister, a statement which I think was made in an attempt to somewhat defuse the situation for this debate. But I do not think it has succeeded in doing that. There is one aspect, however, of this statement on which I should like to comment, namely with regard to the new bureau that will be created, the Bureau of National and International Communication. We in these benches have considered this very seriously and we think that in view of the propaganda onslaught being made on South Africa by its enemies in this day and age, it is necessary to have a department or a bureau to counter these attacks. We therefore welcome this bureau by reason of the fact that it will be helping to counter the propaganda of our enemies. There is a point of view that these activities should be handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, after mature consideration, we feel that this could be difficult for the Department of Foreign Affairs in certain instances. There are many information functions that the Department of Foreign Affairs can carry out, but there are obviously a number of functions which, in terms of the overall relations of the Department of Foreign Affairs with the rest of the world, the department should not handle. Therefore we accept the international aspect of this particular bureau. As far as the national aspect is concerned, we do not accept it in any shape or form. We think it can be seen as nothing but a propaganda wing of the NP paid for by public funds.

The very essence of parliamentary government is the fact of ministerial responsibility. This is the very essence of the Westminster system. When a Government department does anything that is good and right, the Minister claims credit for it in this Parliament, and he has every right to do so. But by the same token, when things are proved of a Minister’s department which go against the best interests of the country, then the Minister in charge of that department has to accept the responsibility in this Parliament. This is the very essence of the system. When a scandal occurs in a department, it is the Minister who is accountable. Throughout the world there has been many examples of this. The most recent one I can quote is one in Japan when the Minister of Defence of Japan resigned because a military aircraft collided with a commercial aircraft killing a number of people. The Minister of Defence in Japan on that occasion handed in his resignation to his Government. This is ministerial responsibility. When the scandal reaches a certain point, it can and has brought about the downfall even of a whole Government. This is particularly the case when the Government of the day refuses to take action against the Minister who is implicated. This is the case in the debate which is now taking place, i.e. the Government has not taken action against the hon. the Minister of Information, who obviously must take the greatest responsibility for this. We in these benches believe that the hon. the Minister is implicated and yet the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that the hon. the Minister of Information will retain responsibility for information services, albeit in a different form. We have noted what the hon. the Prime Minister said “initially” and we wonder whether that is not a straw in the wind as to how long this hon. Minister will retain control of the new bureau.

Firstly, let us look at the nature of the offences that have come to light in this the Third Report of the Select Committee. First of all, travel was engaged in far too often without adequate control. Then, a most blatant point that has come to light in this Select Committee’s report is that the Secretary of the department, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, actually lied to the Select Committee. [Interjections.]

What?

I believe he lied. Should hon. members wish to look it up, they will find it on page 26 of the report, in question 843. For the information of the hon. member for Langlaagte, seeing that he appears to have some doubts, I should like to read it out—

*Those were the words of Dr. E. M. Rhoodie. To this, Mr. Barrie replied—

Subsequently evidence was given that in two of the particular trips in question Dr. Deneys Rhoodie’s wife accompanied him. Yet Dr. Eschel Rhoodie said that no wives had accompanied officials on these trips.

Will you not concede that Dr. Rhoodie could have been mistaken? [Interjections.]

Yes, personally he was mistaken, very mistaken. [Interjections.]

The worst mistake he ever made!

Order! The hon. member for East London North used a very strong word. I have read the evidence and I must point out that that particular matter was not seen in the same serious light as that in which the hon. member sees it now. I suggest the hon. member should rather say “he told an untruth”.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept your ruling. I accept it was an untruth rather than a lie. [Interjections.]

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Under-Secretary of the Department of Information, Dr. Deneys Rhoodie, travelled first class on every occasion he travelled overseas. He used “Vacations Unlimited” for all his bookings, when blatantly and patently the S.A. Railways Travel Bureau or the S.A. Airways should have been used for these bookings. It was said that he used “Vacations Unlimited” because of the fact that he was undertaking secret trips, but we have heard in evidence of a letter written by the General Manager of the S.A. Railways in which it was said that these trips could have been kept secret, and very effectively as well, by making bookings through the Railways.

One must in fact define the difference between a secret trip and a secret mission. There can be a secret mission on a trip which is not a secret trip. This was the case in many of these instances. These trips were not secret. Their wives actually accompanied these officials. In fact, the Under-Secretary of Information even went and made himself publicly visible at Wimbledon. How can one then claim that it was a secret trip? He might have had a secret job to do on that trip, admittedly. However, certainly when one travels on an aircraft on which there are many other people, when one travels to London meeting many other people, travels together with many other people, stays at a public hotel, goes to Wimbledon, how can one possibly call it a secret trip? That is patently ridiculous.

The Under-Secretary of Information took his wife with him twice within a few months. One of these was only an eight-day trip. Nevertheless, it cost the Government R1 900 for that wife’s first class air fare. Of course, the wife travelled first class every time.

Then there was the attempt to cover up that the Under-Secretary’s wife had in fact travelled along with him. However, I will come back to this later.

There are, of course, many other things I can mention in this respect. There were the previous trips on which the wives also went along. There were also the 5 500 books delivered instead of 8 000. However, I should like to come now to the questions which, I believe, are most important, and this is where the hon. the Minister himself is in fact implicated. He is implicated on a number of occasions in this very report of the Select Committee. The first occasion appears on the first page of the evidence. Where the Secretary of Information has to contend with the Auditor-General, he writes to the hon. the Minister—in order to get out of his troubles—requesting certain things in writing. The hon. the Minister immediately replies to his secretary saying—

That goes back four years.

It is my right to decide in that manner, and I shall do so again.

Fair enough, the hon. the Minister says it is his right. Let me now go to page 7 and quote what Mr. Barrie says—

In reply to that same question, question 776, he says further—

Now I come to the question of wives going overseas, and here I refer to page 26 of the report, question 843. Dr. Steyn is replying—

Mr. Barrie then says in reply to the same question—

Yet what does the hon. the Minister do? He overrides those rules completely, stating on page 53 of the report—

So he gives permission, despite what the regulations say, for Dr. Rhoodie’s wife to go with him at least once a year. Blatantly throughout this report Dr. Rhoodie expects the Secretary to back him up on every occasion, and even where money has had to be paid back to the State, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie has the effrontery to say that he is going to go back to the hon. the Minister and probably have the money paid back to Dr. D. O. Rhoodie.

There is one further point I should like to cover very briefly. I am referring to the hon. the Minister wanting the department to cover up the fact that the officials, wives travelled. In the Select Committee report one finds it stated that the hon. the Minister asked that: “… ons dit nie aan die groot klok hang nie”. Those are the words used in this report.

I do not have the time left to go into this, but on three occasions—in questions 1013, 1023 and 1128—it is made apparent that the hon. the Minister had asked his department to cover up the fact that the wives were going overseas. That hon. Minister must say whether he did this or not, as his officials have said this about him. We believe that the statements prove, at the very least, that the hon. the Minister is incapable of adequately controlling this department. This, we believe, is the kindest interpretation we can give. What did he do when the scandal erupted? The very man who asked for an audit of a project in the department is retired. If one refers to page 247 of the report one can find out exactly what happened.

In view of these facts we believe that it is irresponsible of the Government not to ask for the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Information. We believe that the electorate should, in fact, show its displeasure with a Government that can behave in this way, and that the only way to show that displeasure is to vote this Government out at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to speak in this debate today, but not because the subject of the debate is a pleasant one. Most certainly not. Nor must the reason why I feel privileged be sought in the fact that we have reached the completion and end of what the members of the Select Committee have been involved with over the past four months in connection with the affairs of the Department of Information. I feel privileged because I can participate in the debate today after the statement that the hon. the Prime Minister made here yesterday and in which he set out the standpoint of the Government very clearly as well as indicating the steps that were taken as a result of the Third Report of the Select Committee.

I feel that by his statement the hon. the Prime Minister has simplified the task of every hon. member who will participate in this discussion today, because it is no longer necessary for us to come to the House with a mass of evidence and present it in order to motivate our standpoint concerning the decision that we reached and concerning the Third Report that is before the House at the moment. I feel that this is precisely where hon. members of the Opposition who have participated in the debate thus far have failed. It is clear to me that all the time they have been directing their speeches at the fact that the Government is not taking any steps, that the Government is going to do nothing and that the Government is going to cover things up. That is why they are quoting bits and pieces from the evidence. In this way they want to indicate that things went wrong in the Department of Information.

We admitted as much and this is apparent from the fact that an in-depth investigation followed. I therefore feel that it is entirely unnecessary to deal with evidence in the House in detail this morning. Naturally the report is before the House at the moment. Every hon. member received a copy of the report and the Press had the opportunity to go into the report very carefully, with a fine-tooth comb, and to reveal to the public the facts that the Press felt they should know about this matter.

It is general knowledge that there was poor internal financial control in the Department of Information, that there was inadequate control over the expenditure of money and that damage could have been suffered—I emphasize the phrase “that damage could have been suffered”—if the Auditor-General and his staff had not acted in good time.

It is also common knowledge that the Secretary for Information and other officials had to repay money due to irregularities. Similarly it is general knowledge that rules and regulations were not complied with by the Secretary for Information. In fact, he admitted that he was not conversant with the rules and regulations that were not complied with. It is also common knowledge that certain overseas trips took place, that the tickets for those trips were purchased in an irregular manner and that wives of officials were taken abroad, contrary to regulations. These facts are not being denied; in fact, they are admitted by this side of the House. They are facts that were submitted to the House. The Auditor-General mentioned them and the Select Committee dealt with them. As far as the Homelands book is concerned, it is well known that the Secretary for Information took it upon himself to tell the publisher of the book that he could deliver fewer copies, although the department would still pay the amount which was originally agreed upon.

Having pointed out all these facts, I must add that it is very clear to me that Dr. Rhoodie is not an accounting officer and never can be for matters relating to the Department of Information. It is very clear to me that Dr. Rhoodie—I say this to his credit—did tremendously good work in the department for the good of South Africa. [Interjections.] As far as this is concerned, I do not hesitate to praise him and say that he deserves all tribute. It really is a pity that we could not keep him on as a technical official without his having to be burdened with accounting responsibility.

Have you ever seen Rhoodie on TV?

What did the Select Committee recommend in its report? When I speak of the report, I am of course referring to the one accepted by the Committee and not the one that was rejected. The Committee expressed its concern about the way in which specific officials of the Department of Information ignored regulations and other directions. It recommended that an in-depth investigation be instituted by the Treasury and the Public Service Commission into the management and financial control of the department. This was also one of the recommendations in the Second Report, but we confirmed it once again in the Third Report. It was recommended that, if the Secretary’s technical obligations do not allow him to comply with his accounting responsibilities, he should be relieved of them. That is why the Committee did not think it necessary to recommend any more drastic steps in this regard—this is important. In the First Report we decided to ask the Treasury and the Public Service Commission to look into this matter. We did not consider it necessary to appoint a Select Committee to go into this. Nor did we consider it necessary for external help to be called in. We had complete confidence in the Public Service Commission’s skill in handling this matter. This is where we differ with the hon. members on the other side of the House. We believe in the Public Service Commission. We believe that they will rectify matters in co-operation with the Treasury. The members on the other side of the House, however, say that their help comes from the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express that they run around with under their arms. This is where the newspaper hysteria in South Africa was created. These matters were blown up as a result of the fact that people did not adopt a balanced attitude towards this matter. They simply seized upon everything that the newspapers published from day to day.

But Rhoodie made statements to the Press.

While the daily Press has already gone through these matters with a fine-tooth comb and brought them to the attention of the general public, the Sunday newspapers will unfortunately have to wait until Sunday before they can make their contribution in bold type.

It will be a second-rate contribution.

I want to say that it was not necessary to take more drastic steps than the ones that we recommended. I am not ashamed in this case to pay tribute to the Public Service Commission for the investigation that they introduced and the effective way in which they dealt with it.

But this was not all. The hon. the Prime Minister did not keep us waiting. Since he was aware of the fact that matters of this nature could have tremendous consequences for any country, he saw to it that a technical officer was appointed to go into this matter fully and to report on it. Unfortunately that investigation has not yet been completed and we are still waiting for the final report, but the Public Service Commission has in any event published its report. What positive steps were taken? The administrative chief controlling officer as well as the Deputy Secretary for Information are no longer in the service, and the Secretary for Information has already handed in his resignation and will leave the service at the end of the month. What more does the Opposition want in this regard?

The Minister must go.

I shall come to that. I am very pleased that he says this. The officials who were involved in this matter, are out.

Let me refer to the minority report. That report is probably about then times as long as the majority report due to the great deal of evidence that they included in their report and which, I feel, was unnecessary—as I said at the beginning of my speech. But, Sir, at the end of it they could only decide as follows—

Their report is concluded with the words “Your Committee recommends accordingly”. They are asking for nothing else. Now the hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is shouting: “We want the Minister.” Do you know why this is, Sir? It is very clear to me that they did not get their way. They expected this matter to be covered up. They did not expect us to say: Throw everything open; flay it open to the bone. That is why they are coming forward with this proposal today. They did not get their way. Do hon. members know what they wanted to do? They wanted to create a Watergate in South Africa. In fact, they prayed for a Watergate. In silence they hoped that a Watergate would take place. I read that the leader of the NRP says that the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to defuse the debate with his statement yesterday. I hear the hon. member for Yeoville speaking about secret funds. I deplore the fact that he speaks about it in such an irresponsible matter. This is typical of one of those cases to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred because suspicion is being cast on South Africa here too.

Where is Helen this morning?

The hon. member for Yeoville is sometimes referred to in this House as a patriot—even by hon. members on this side of the House—but I cannot agree with that statement at all after the attitude that he revealed here today.

I do not need you to show me what patriotism is. [Interjections.]

The hon. Opposition is on the horns of a dilemma today. They expected things to be kept quiet, but on the contrary, things were revealed and they could therefore not have their way. If they expected the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa to act in the same way people acted during a Watergate, they were making a mistake. I want to assure them that they do not know the Prime Minister of South Africa yet. They have definitely missed out on a privilege if they do not know him in that respect.

The affairs were flayed open and today we have come to the final discussion of this matter. I want to allege that this side of the House did everything that they should have done to make an in-depth investigation of this matter and to publish a report. I want to allege that I cannot say why they want to get at the hon. the Minister of Information except, as I said, because they could not get their way because they thought that Dr. Rhoodie might perhaps not have gone and that forced them to turn on the hon. the Minister of Information. The hon. the Minister of Information, however, is quite capable of defending his own case.

In pursuance of the speech of the hon. member for East London North I want to come back to the business world—if there is a manager in a business enterprise and it is discovered that he has transgressed and that certain charges can be brought against him, I ask myself: Why must the managing director of that company lay down his post if there is no proof whatsoever of collusion. [Interjections.] That side of the House received what they ask for in the minority report. I have already dealt with this and referred to the officials who have already resigned from their positions. The Department of Information is disappearing and the Bureau is being established in its place.

Then why is it disappearing?

That is why it is very clear that the Bureau will continue to fulfil the duties of the Department of Information. If the hon. member for East London North had only known what the Department of Information has done in the past to rectify the distorted image that other countries have created of South Africa, he would not speak so disparagingly of the Bureau for International Communication today.

What about national communication?

Thanks to the Father who watches over the fate of individuals and nations, we in South Africa have a Government that will definitely not allow irregularities to undermine the good order and authority of the State. We can be grateful that we still place the principles of law and justice first in our actions as well as in our Public Service. We can also be grateful that we still demand correct behaviour and discipline from our officials as well as from the citizens of our country. Last but not least, we can be grateful that, under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister, nothing which will damage the image of South Africa, the image of our people and the authority of our country, will be approved.

I now want to conclude by asking the following question: What lesson—if there is a general lesson to be learned—have we learned from these occurrences? In this regard I should like to refer to what the Auditor-General said in this report. He said, inter alia, that he is working with a shortage of staff and points out that he has to work with temporary and part-time staff. The state of affairs does not only apply to South Africa, but also to many other countries in the world. Furthermore he says that it is impossible for him to make a full audit of all the existing Government departments every year. Such an audit, therefore, is impossible according to him. He recommends that his staff should be increased—and we must see to it that this is done—so that he can pick out at least one department every year and have it investigated thoroughly. At the moment only random samples are made of the functions of all the departments. Such a system will ensure that these departments which do not know that they are going to be investigated, will see that everything runs absolutely correctly and according to rules and regulations and this means all Government departments.

The public outside has the right to say: What happens to the taxes that we pay? They have the right to demand that this money is not used in an irregular or erroneous way and that it is not wasted or misspent. It was strongly suspected that this happened in the case under review, but after the inquiry, after it has become apparent that everything has been paid back and after the full report that the hon. the Prime Minister issued in this regard, I know and believe that the confidence of the public has been restored and that it will continue in this vein.

Mr. Speaker, my time for putting my party’s viewpoint is limited and I think the hon. member for Aliwal will therefore understand if I do not react directly to his speech. In the course of my speech, however, I shall refer to some of the matters which he mentioned.

†In the first place I would say that we welcome the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has taken the lead that we expected him to take in this most serious matter. We also welcome his statement made in Parliament yesterday, a statement which is the start of a blueprint for the new bureau that will take the place of the Department of Information. It is vital, however, that all the people concerned with the bureau and with the various investigations should, as a matter of urgency, finalize and ensure that the bureau is placed on a basis where it can fulfil the very urgent and most important functions of internal and external communications. The Select Committee has considered the Auditor-General’s report in regard to the Department of Information as carefully as it possibly could and in the greatest possible detail. The entire committee was absolutely shocked at the intolerable state of affairs that we found. The evidence before Parliament is voluminous, and each hon. member can see for himself what sorry state of affairs we were faced with. On this point all members of the Select Committee were agreed. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that there has been a dismal failure to comply with the financial requirements as laid down, that some of the professional staff were hopelessly inexperienced and had not acquainted themselves with the required procedures. Some officials were asked to repay money that they were not entitled to expend or to have received. Private travel agents were used contrary to the instructions of the Public Service Commission. According to the officials of the department, it was done in an effort to preserve secrecy. In evidence it became clear that secrecy could be assured also by the Railways. They offer facilities in this regard. Even though there was evidence that leaks had occurred in regard to certain bookings in the past, those allegations were very difficult to prove. They were, in fact, not proved. The commission earned by private agencies in respect of travels by officials was at the expense to the Railways. This can never be justified under any circumstances whatsoever. As mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Select Committee’s report, irregularities took place and the money had to be recovered from the officials who had benefited to the detriment of the State. There were inadequate internal control measures to ensure that the interest of the State were safeguarded at all times. In some respect there was lack of proper planning, which resulted in wasteful and inefficient spending of State funds. As was mentioned earlier, some of these funds were recovered and some are still in the process of being recovered. A contract for the publication of Homelands, 1975, without Treasury approval, was varied to the detriment of the State. The order form was for 8 000 copies at a price of R36 830. After representations by Chris van Rensburg Publications the order was amended to 5 500 copies at the same price, i.e. R36 830. The publisher persuaded the Department of Information to reduce the number of copies by 2 500, but then on the other hand the same publisher gave another Government agency 5 000 copies of the book as a present. The publisher acted like a Scrooge towards the Department of Information, but then operated like Father Christmas towards another Government agency by giving them 5 000 copies. We did not investigate this strange act of generosity because it did not affect the Department of Information except in so far as the department in any event did not comply with the Treasury regulations by allowing the publisher to give them 2 500 copies less than he should have given.

As I indicated in the debate on the First Report of the committee, I was not impressed by the particular publisher’s evidence, but in fairness I want to mention that the net result to the Government of his actions was that the Government received 10 500 copies of Homelands, 1975 for R36 830 as opposed to the 8 000 which the Government had ordered for the same price. There obviously must be some explanation for this, but the committee did not get such an explanation.

I have no doubt that the members of the Select Committee unanimously agreed on all the matters which were wrong. I must say that the chairman adopted a very fair and impartial attitude and in this way he made this very difficult task much easier for all of us. The only difference between the members of the Select Committee is how the problems are to be resolved.

All of us are agreed that an efficient and dynamic information service is a necessity. At present we have a number of investigations into the Department of Information. The Select Committee did an extensive investigation and we recommended an in-depth investigation by the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. Is there anyone in this House who doubts the ability of those two bodies to do the necessary work? We have heard and welcome the recommendations of the Public Service Commission thus far. We heard their recommendations in the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday. In addition the hon. the Prime Minister, with the knowledge and the consent of the Auditor-General and the hon. the Minister, appointed an expert to do an intensive and exhaustive investigation into the department in regard to the matters which we are all concerned about. The department also has an internal auditor who has access to the matters that created the difficulties. It is obvious that the Select Committee’s report has now been received by the expert investigating the department, and the reports of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury will also all be seen by the expert. He will then have the opportunity of going into the matter thoroughly. The hon. the Prime Minister has also made it clear beyond any doubt in his first statement that if the investigation shows that the funds were used for personal gain, the information will be placed before the Attorney-General for his decision. We welcome this approach by the hon. the Prime Minister. This must surely be the most intensive investigation any department has ever been subjected to. There are five bodies who looked into or are still looking into the matter. After all the investigations and recommendations, I have no doubt that it will lead to placing the information services in South Africa and outside South Africa on a better footing.

The bureau which was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday has a vital role to play. It is an absolute necessity that now that the Select Committee has submitted its final report, all the investigating groups should reach finality as a matter of urgency. The evidence before the Select Committee did not reflect well on the Secretary for Information and some of his senior officials, and we have reported accordingly. It was obvious that the Secretary had no alternative but to retire or resign. This must be a sad situation for the Secretary. He struck me as a person dedicated to promoting the interests of South Africa. That he is a man of great capability and intelligence nobody can have any doubt about. The onslaughts on South Africa, both locally and abroad, are of such a nature that the officials of the department have to operate under the most difficult circumstances. They have to face hostile audiences and forge bonds of friendship where no friendship exists; in fact, where only hostility exists. In view of the importance of the department it was essential that nothing should have been done to impair the status of the department, but unfortunately certain officials became the authors of their own misfortunes. We have read many newspaper reports about funds and secret funds. Secret funds which the Auditor-General brought to the Committee’s attention, were concerned with travel expenses and subsistence allowances. The viewpoint was expressed that although the travel expenses and subsistence allowances were to be met from secret funds, they should be subject to the Treasury regulations and Public Service Commission codes. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, unless the Auditor-General draws our attention to other aspects of secret funds, we as a Select Committee have no further standing in the matter of secret funds. We as a Committee do not have the authority to deal with the many matters mentioned in the newspaper reports. We dealt with the investigations and the functions as was required of us.

I briefly want to deal, if I may, with the four recommendations submitted by the hon. member for Yeoville. Firstly, the hon. member recommended the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the Department of Information. As I see it, that commission would only have examined the public funds of the department plus such secret funds as are used for travelling and subsistence.

The secret funds obviously belong to one of the other departments which is entitled to have secret funds. The Department of Information merely acted as an agent for such other departments. Another department would be responsible and accountable for it. I do not think that a commission of inquiry would have achieved the same expeditious results already achieved by the Public Service Commission’s investigation. Their concrete proposals are already before us. In regard to the Treasury investigation I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville, who has always spoken exceptionally highly of the Treasury, can have no objection to their investigation. I am sure he will agree with me that their investigation will be done in an exceptionally competent and thorough manner. Including the Select Committee, there are five investigations into the department. There is an assurance by the hon. the Prime Minister that if funds were used for personal gain, the information will be placed before the Attorney-General. In view of this assurance, I think we shall achieve the same result as the hon. member for Yeoville seeks to achieve.

Secondly, the hon. member for Yeoville wants the hon. the Prime Minister immediately and directly to assume responsibility for the information functions of the State. As I see the situation, the hon. the Prime Minister has assumed the responsibility that can be expected of a Prime Minister in the sense that he has appointed an expert and has, together with the Cabinet, taken the decision to abolish the Department of Information in favour of a bureau. It is obvious that when the expert appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister reports to him in full, the hon. the Prime Minister will then take such action as may be necessary in the circumstances. The hon. member for Yeoville’s point of view in this regard has in my view been met, because in any event the hon. the Prime Minister has more responsibilities at this stage in regard to external and internal affairs than possibly any other Prime Minister in the history of South Africa. It would be folly for him to devote more time to the Department of Information than he already appears to have devoted, except that his serious consideration will have to be given to the report of the expert he has appointed, when he receives it.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Yeoville wants action to be taken in regard to the Secretary for Information. The resignation of the Secretary of the department now disposes of that particular issue. I must say that in the light of all the evidence and the report, the Secretary acted correctly and honourably in resigning.

He took a long time to do it.

The hon. Chief Whip says that he took his time about it.

He took a long time about it.

It is unlike some members of Parliament who change their political parties and then refuse to resign.

Lastly, the hon. member for Yeoville recommended the appointment of a special Parliamentary Select Committee to which reports on the auditing of secret funds should be submitted. The hon. member is aware that secret funds deal with secret projects, and I cannot see why a special committee of Parliament should have any more right to inspect secret funds than the Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts, except that the only way that members of Parliament can get inside information on secret funds and secret projects is through the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission Act, provided that members are prepared to serve on a commission as envisaged under that Act. The hon. member for Yeoville would, on the one hand, like information on secret funds but, on the other hand, his party will not agree to serve on a commission which would give them insight into secret funds. If he feels that this suggestion is worthwhile, it is a matter which he must pursue in his party caucus. If one looks at the second recommendation of the hon. member for Yeoville, it seems as though he only wants the hon. the Minister to lose his Information portfolio and not that of Plural Relations and Development. However, I feel that we should look at this matter fairly and objectively. One finds that the hon. the Minister erred in giving verbal consent for the undertaking of overseas journeys, whereas in fact he should have given written consent. That is according to Treasury regulations, but in terms of the Public Service Commission Code it is not obligatory for it to be in written form. The Public Service Commission Code is in fact now being amended to ensure that in future it will have to be recorded. In that regard I believe it is the duty of a head of a department to draw his Minister’s attention to the fact that a written motivation for an overseas trip should be placed before him and that he should authorize a trip on a written motivation.

In regard to some of the flights undertaken, which were perhaps ill-advised, that would fall under the category of lack of planning and error of judgment, but once again, the head of a department motivates his reasons, and I assume the hon. the Minister accepted the motivations which were placed before him. In the past, when there has been inefficiency or lack of planning in a department, we as a Select Committee have dealt with the matter in our report, and reports about these matters have been published. Thereafter the matter has been dealt with in the sense that the hon. the Minister may be attacked in Parliament, or he may be questioned about the matter, but we have never in the past asked for the resignation of the Minister in a case of this nature.

There was no evidence before us that reflected on the honesty or the integrity of the hon. the Minister, and as such we in these benches cannot support any move calling for the resignation of the hon. the Minister on information placed before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Should hon. members be aware of any other information in regard to the secret account that we are not aware of, obviously they must place that information before the House or, alternatively, that is a matter to be dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister when he receives the report from the expert whom he has appointed. The irony of the situation is that the hon. the Minister, with his new and most important portfolio, will most probably be pleased to be relieved of the additional responsibilities of the new bureau.

For the reasons mentioned, we in these benches cannot support the amendments of either of the Opposition parties, and we are in favour of the adoption of the report.

Mr. Speaker, at first I was surprised when I heard that no speaker on the Government side would reply to the contribution of the hon. member for Walmer. After thinking about it for a moment I realized that I should not be surprised at all. I want to associate myself briefly with what was said by various speakers by way of gratitude and appreciation to the chairman of the Select Committee—he will forgive me if I do not dwell on this for long—to the Auditor-General and all the officials who have given us advice. In passing I want to refer quickly to what the hon. member for Aliwal has just said here when he accused the Opposition of wanting to create a “Watergate”. There are many things the Official Opposition wants to do, but it is simply not within the power of the Official Opposition to create a “Watergate”. What the Official Opposition might do, is to contribute to or uncover a Watergate. But any creative work done in this regard, must be done by the Government side and from within the administration. I think we have now reached the stage—after all the reports and all the debates—where only two things are still important, still worthwhile discussing. One of them is the question of whether the manner in which the secret funds in the Department of Information was handled is something which should be allowed to continue, and whether action should not be taken in that regard. The second aspect is, of course, the position of the hon. the Minister of Information.

First of all I want to quote a few passages from the report itself, quotations with regard to the problems which came about as a result of the manner in which secret funds were used by the Department of Information. In the first place I refer to question 1912, on page 273 of the report. The chairman said to Dr. Rhoodie—

This concerns the matter of secret funds. Dr. Rhoodie’s reply to this was—

Therefore, the confusion of the Department of Information is clearly depicted here. Now the question which arises is how one deals with the situation in which officials of a particular department do a job for which the expenses come from secret funds, secret funds which do not form part of the budget of the department which pays the salaries of the officials concerned. We also paid attention to this. In this regard I refer to question 1901. I put the following question to the Auditor-General—

Mr. Barrie’s reply to this was—

Once again we have confusion, misunderstanding and uncertainty because secret funds of an unknown department are being used and spent by the officials of another departement.

As regards the control of such funds, just the following. Mr. Van Zyl put this question—

Dr. Rhoodie replied—

Then the question is put again—

Dr. Rhoodie’s reply to this was—

Later on the following question was put—

This is the secret account—

Mr. Barrie replied—

I put the following question—

Dr. Rhoodie replied—

Then I said—

Mr. Barrie replied—

Mr. Speaker, we should like to confirm the words of the Auditor-General and say that much will have to be done before the public can rest assured about the way in which their money is being spent.

Then I come to question No. 1684, which reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, there is general uncertainty about where the secret funds end and where the public funds start. Two officials travel in the same aeroplane to the same destination. The travelling expenses of the one official is paid from the secret funds and that of the other from the public funds. If there has to be secret funds, it is at least necessary for the public to know what the funds are and who spends them, even if they are not allowed to know on what they are being spent or how they are being spent. The confusion which was created here, stems from a system which, according to my opinion, is wrong and dangerous.

†Mr. Speaker, the other matter I want to refer to is the hon. the Minister’s position. There is no argument any more about the correctness of the decision of the Secretary to retire from the Public Service. I have here the annual report of the Public Service Commission for 1972-’73. Members are in general aware of it. The commission recommended against the appointment of Dr. Rhoodie and n favour of the appointment of Mr. Weideman. The relevant portion of the report reads as follows (page 23)—

Mr. Speaker, there could scarcely have been a clearer warning than that. The Public Service Commission told the Government that this was a man who lacked the administrative and financial qualifications for his post. What has happened is that he has made the greatest administrative and financial mess this country has ever seen. However, he was nonetheless appointed over the advice of the Public Service Commission because the hon. the Minister was determined to have him, because the hon. the Minister had a particular regard for this gentleman, because the hon. the Minister regarded him as particularly talented, because the hon. the Minister wished to have this gentleman associated with him in tackling the task of the Department of Information. It is absolutely clear from all the circumstances that the responsibility naturally cannot be alone on the hon. the Minister. The rest of the Cabinet must share it. However, it lies in the first instance on the hon. the Minister that this extremely unfortunate appointment, which will be regretted for many years to come, was made.

Question No. 1013 was quoted from several times. This is the “groot klok” question. The essence is that we asked the witnesses, first Dr. D. O. Rhoodie and then Dr. E. M. Rhoodie, why it was that, since they were travelling perfectly publicly, as the hon. member for East London North has observed, going to Wimbledon and since they had said that the Minister had given permission, they falsified an invoice in the most childish and disreputable sort of way in order to try to disguise from people in the department itself the fact that Mrs. Rhoodie was going with Dr. Rhoodie on this trip. Why hide it?

Who falsified the invoice?

The evidence of who falsified the invoice is in the report. The hon. the Minister can read it. He will find there are references to alterations … [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, this quibbling is not going to be of any use to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members may reply to this later …

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is that the writing on the invoice is the writing of people of the travel agency. That is why the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member behind him are so excited. However, on the invoice is the handwriting of Dr. Denys Rhoodie himself saying it is correct. There it is; it is in the evidence. Go and look at it.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not my point. Those gentlemen have succeeded in diverting me for about 30 seconds. My point is that the answer from Dr. Eschel Rhoodie as to why invoices were falsified to hide the fact that ladies go on trips is that “die Minister ons gevra het om die ding nie aan die groot klok te hang nie”. The hon. the Minister was working with his department in this whole question of going on trips and then seeking to hide them from people in the department. The general association of the hon. the Minister with the Secretary has been a close one. They have worked together, and the hon. the Minister has spoken warmly, in public and here in the House in quite recent times, of the Secretary and the work he has done. They have been a team. They have done various things together. It is not that I mind in the slightest, or object in the slightest to, their association outside the strictly professional sphere, but this has also been a matter of public record. We have to add to this the fact that this is not the only department, which the hon. the Minister has handled and been responsible for, in respect of which evidence of totally incompetent administration has appeared. We have seen this in connection with the Books of Life. We have seen how the hon. the Minister’s legislation on drugs has had to be withdrawn and changed …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Department of Information.

Yes, Sir, I think that point is made. Let me deal finally with the fact that we have here a sorry record of maladministration, financial improprieties, muddle and incompetence, and this whole story cannot be laid at the door of the officials only. It is simply too easy for the hon. the Minister to expect to get away with that. Other speakers on this side of the House have pointed out what happens in other countries. I take note of that, but I am very anxious that the right thing should happen in this country, and clearly the right thing that should happen in this country is that the hon. the Minister should resign. [Interjections.] The hon. gentleman is known for his charm, for his political gifts. He is a man of great personal attributes and warmth and people like him. There are no doubt many things in the world he can do, do successfully and gain satisfaction from doing, but administering a department is clearly not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I should in the first place like to express my thanks for the fact that I was able to serve as a member of this committee, because I realized once again how sure the general public can be that our parliamentary system has a watchdog which ensures that there will be no misappropriation of funds in any department.

It is clear that the Cabinet came to this House with its decision immediately after the appearance of the last report of the Select Committee. I believe that the decision was taken on the recommendation of the Minister concerned, and that decision is in accordance with the findings of the committee. However, we have a problem. As a result of the Cabinet’s decision the Official Opposition have made it their sordid task to try to tread upon corpses. It is perhaps because of that, Mr. Speaker, that you have twice had to point out to them that they were not acting within the terms of this report.

It surprises one, in the first place, that the hon. member for Yeoville, who during days of debate put the most questions, had to come back from Europe in order to make a third minority proposal. I find nothing in the minority report of the hon. member which calls for censure of the hon. the Minister. Perhaps at that time he was still too much under the impression of the report itself and the evidence which was given, and realized that there was in the evidence no reason to call for such censure.

The hon. member for Parktown, however, laid a charge which in my opinion is not worthy of him or any hon. member of this Parliament There is nothing in this evidence which proves in any way that the forging of that invoice was done by officials of the department.

Why did he sign it as being correct then?

I do not think it was worthy of him to have made such a statement in this Parliament.

What about “Dr. Rhoodie en gas”?

The forging was done, but the invoices were, as it happens, issued by the booking office and not by the department itself. I feel therefore that it was not fitting of the hon. member to say that.

Then why did he sign it?

Be quiet, Lorimer!

There is another matter in respect of which I think he should have acted a little more calmly. [Interjections.] I refer to the so-called secret funds to which those hon. members refer to eagerly.

Why “so-called”? They are secret funds.

That party should be a llittle more careful. They should know that the hon. member for Houghton also has such a secret fund. Woods would not actually declare the origin of that secret fund. [Interjections.] When they talk about secret funds, they should therefore be careful.

Whose money is it?

Then the hon. member spoke about the appointment of Dr. Rhoodie, as an expert, in the department. That was done quite correctly, because at that stage the department needed an expert at its head. I do not believe that in the evidence it was ever questioned that the work which this man did in the department as an expert was of the very best one could expect from any official. Incidentally, Dr. Rhoodie was not the first man to be appointed head of this department as an expert. Mr. Piet Meiring was appointed in 1952, I believe, when the department had a different name. He was also an expert. At that time it was just as necessary as it is today to undertake journeys on behalf of the department, despite all the comments we have heard about the journeys that have been undertaken. In his book Inside Information he wrote—

That state of affairs still exists today, and the department still has that task.

Have they been successful?

The conditions existing today, already existed at that time …

They have failed completely.

… because Mr. Meiring wrote in the same book—

If there have been changes in the department’s functions, this has happened more because of the sharper attacks against South Africa than for any other reason. These people had to find a weapon against that.

Just tell us what success they have had.

That hon. member could do well to talk less. [Interjections.] The hon. Opposition talk about people who journey in secret, but if it were not for the many secret journeys of hon. members of that party to other countries and especially to countries in Africa …

Not one of our journeys is ever secret.

If it were not for those journeys they undertook, this department…

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the report of the Select Committee.

I shall, Mr. Speaker, but then they must not tempt me.

Since an expert was appointed as head of this department—and it was not at his own behest, but as a result of a decision taken by the Minister and the Cabinet—it is, as the hon. member for Aliwal has said, a pity that a thorough audit did not take place earlier in this department. It has already been indicated that the Auditor-General has pointed out that with the staff at his disposal it is not possible to do an efficient audit of any department and that he has to make use of random audits. Fortunately, as the Auditor-General has pointed out, a re-organization of his department is taking place and the possibility exists that more officials will be appointed.

However, if a thorough investigation had been instituted into the Department of Information earlier, these problems would not have repeated themselves. It is surely clear that, if the form which is used to claim travelling expenses is not filled in correctly, it does not at all mean that the journey concerned was not successful or worthwhile. If a payment for books was perhaps made without the approval of the Treasury, it does not mean to say that the quality of the books was not of the best or that that particular action was not effective. On the contrary; no member of the committee or of the House believes that the work done by the department, especially in respect of publications, was not of outstanding quality or done at the most competitive price. I believe that these things were done to the advantage of South Africa. Now the Official Opposition holds the hon. the Minister responsible, for the financial arrangements in the department. I do not think it is the primary task of any Minister to know the regulations. It is the task of the Minister to see to it that the work of his department is done as effectively as possible. However, since it is claimed that the Minister should be conversant with all the regulations, I should like to refer to question 803 in the report, where Dr. Steyn had the following to say—

When someone with the rank of Secretary of the Public Service Commission makes a statement like this in all honesty, how can it be expected that the Minister of a department should, in addition to all the tasks and responsibilities which he has, be conversant with all these regulations?

Does the Auditor-General agree with Dr. Steyn?

I think it was irresponsible to make such a statement, and it is not fitting to expect that of the hon. the Minister. To repeat, I want to say that the chairman of the committee applied no restrictions to any hon. member. To tell the truth I, as a new member of the committee, thought at times that he allowed the hon. member for Yeoville too much when he cross-examined these people. After all these thorough investigations the committee found that there had indeed been a transgression of the regulations. The committee reported on that and I do not want to talk about that any further. I do however want to point out that neither the committee in its report nor the Opposition members in their report asked for the dismissal of Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. The Official Opposition merely asked in their report that the present incumbent of the office should not be at the head of that department. It is therefore clear that out of all the questioning one aspect came to the fore, namely that although a transgression of the regulations took place, these people performed their tasks in other respects with diligence and with honour. For that I want to express my appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my view on this unfortunate debacle which has now become known as the “l’affaire Rhoodie”. I am, however, going to express my views more through the eyes of a concerned South African than those of a typical politician. I shall try to express the anxiety and the interest that the man in the street has generated within himself over this very sad affair. I call it a sad affair since all of us have lost a great deal because of this action by the Department of Information.

Firstly, I wish to turn to the positive aspects of this affair, in other words what we South Africans can learn from it. I want to establish what we can gain and learn from this affair rather than to adopt an attitude of “kleef dit oop tot op die been”. How should we prevent such an event from happening again? In giving my view, my suggestions and summed up thoughts, I trust that these recommendations will be looked at and considered. I have a number of points and I shall list them accordingly.

Firstly I believe and hope that our Government has learnt a basic lesson, namely that any cover-up operation never really works and the sooner the air is cleared after an irregularity of any sort is identified, the better for the country.

How do you view the situation?

Secondly …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to the Governments action as a “cover-up operation”?

Order! The hon. member is speaking of the Department of Information and about what happened in that Department. The whole matter is therefore on the political level. I rule that his words are not out of order.

Thank you, Sir. Secondly secret Government funds and secret activities cannot and should not be handled by departments who are not wholly and totally geared to secret activities. Thirdly, all secret funds should be scrutinized by competent auditors even more carefully and cautiously than normal funds. In the fourth place the rules and regulations related to the authorization of overseas travel should be tightened up in all Government departments. In the fifth place only the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways travel services should in future be used by every Government department and the SAA should set up a small, confidential and special section to deal with the sensitive or secret missions that are required for our country. In the sixth place SAA should alone be allowed to issue overseas tickets to Government officials upon written and specific ministerial instruction. In the seventh place no officials need travel first class in this country or overseas, unless it happens to be the departmental secretary and then, only when he is accompanying his Minister on an official overseas trip. In the eighth place, regulations in regard to wives accompanying officials should be strictly adhered to in all departments. In the ninth place, I believe our hon. Prime Minister is on the right track with the restructuring of this department. I also believe that it is essential that the secret operations should be entirely separated and divorced from the normal information function of the old department. I believe he is now doing this, and I hope he will be able to continue in this way. The tenth and final point is that to me it would seem far more logical that the Bureau for International Communication be attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs and that the national communications bureau could find a more natural home when coupled with the Departments of Community Development and Tourism.

Is that now the end of your shopping list?

I would now like to give my impressions of the Select Committee’s report and the main actors therein.

I want to start with Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, a man with whom I actually sympathize and for whom I feel sorry. My impression of him is a very vivid one. I see him—this is my personal opinion—as a talented and brilliant man, even as an artistic and temperamental specialist in his very own field of promotion.

I also see him as a dedicated public relations man. Certainly he is a charismatic super salesman. Coupled with these unique talents, however, he is also an egocentric, egotistical and very arrogant person. This is my summing up of him after reading about him in the Press, after having studied the report of the Select Committee and in the light of what I know about him. His personality is such that he certainly cannot be tied up with red tape. His character simply never allowed that. If ever there was a man who should not have been a civil servant, here was one. Why do I feel sorry for him? I do so because I believe his personality and character is such that he never should have been offered and administrative job in the first place. His talents should have been used in an advisory capacity.

Who put him there?

What has now happened to him? We find that his super ego and his unfettered position pushed him further and further into believing that he alone was South Africa’s saviour and that the rules and regulations were made for mere mortals and not for him and his close associates. In this regard I think the department was at fault. The tragic results of his actions and attitudes are only too clear from this report, resulting in the collapse of the entire department as well as the loss by the State of thousands of rands in the form of the loss of commissions, the loss of interest on funds which were prepaid, the loss on the purchase of books and of publications. Then there is also the possibility that thousands of rands would have been lost to the State if the Auditor-General did not get involved. A part that worries me the most is the attitude not only of the Rhoodies, but also of those who were involved with this investigation, those who saw the transgression of financial control merely as a technical financial oversight and an accounting error. Unfortunately I see it in an entirely different light. I believe the basic yardstick of criterium under consideration here is honesty. The question which should be asked is whether the actions or errors of the people concerned were honest and in good faith or not. Was the official intending to benefit himself and others at the expense of the State or not?

The most classic example in the report was the revelation of Dr. D. O. Rhoodie that he had, with the full approval of his brother, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, paid into his private account the sum of R6 042. This amount was expressly for travel costs of two first-class tickets for him and his wife. Dr. Deneys Rhoodie then proceeded to change the situation so that he could utilize the R6 042 fully for a holiday trip for himself, his wife and two children. They travelled economy class and at the expense of the State. Let us not forget that only 12 months previous to that, a circular had been issued to all State departments and heads of departments clearly spelling out the regulations relating to airline tickets. To many of us who followed this affair, the actions of Dr. D. O. Rhoodie could be interpreted in many ways. Once again, considering the honesty part of it, the question to be asked is whether his action was blatant theft, or was it embezzlement of State funds, was it fraud or was it merely taking a chance hoping not to be caught? All of us must however agree that his actions were blatantly dishonest. That is the least one can say in assessing the situation. This has been confirmed by his actions with the customs personnel at Jan Smuts Airport. A friend asked me the other day whether I think …

Order! The circumstances to which the hon. member is now referring is not before the House.

Let us then take a look at the consequences which these actions had on Dr. D. O. Rhoodie. I might add that I am not convinced that his brother, Eschel, did not know full well that his brother had taken his family to the USA at the State’s expense. If he did not know, why was Dr. Denys Rhoodie not dismissed immediately when the Auditor-General pointed it out to him and to the hon. the Minister? Here lies the tragedy of the whole affair. Had action been taken at that stage, i.e. immediately upon receiving the knowledge of fraudulent action, this country would not have been dealt the tragic blow that it has been dealt.

Dr. Eschel Rhoodie must have known it before his brother went overseas.

Yes, that is also my contention.

I have never been able to understand why men in such high positions cannot grasp the fact that it is almost impossible to cover up an operation of any nature whatsoever. It is so much easier to deal with a situation that has just arisen and that has not been emotionally built up over a period of months in the Press. The situation has now reached a crescendo in the Press and, Mr. Speaker, just imagine what goes through the mind of the man in the street as well as the thousands of civil servants loyally doing their jobs when they read about the jet-setting men of the Department of Information, men who have now been offered a wonderful golden handshake and fat pensions. What example does this set for them?

I said earlier that I am sorry for the Rhoodies. This temptation should never have been offered to them, but they and they alone pushed their luck far too hard, and unfortunately we are all the losers by it.

This morning we noticed in the Press that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie said that he should like to find out who the man was who blew the whistle on the whole thing, and that the police should investigate the matter to establish the identity of this person. I believe he is completely on the wrong track. I think we ought to look at what caused this situation in the first place. That is our bone of contention with the department.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by wishing you and all the hon. gentlemen in the House a happy Christmas. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, to enable us to conduct a meaningful discussion in this debate, we must talk about certain basic principles regarding the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, because I do not think he knows what it is all about. I should like to concentrate on the speeches of the hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown.

I should like to quote from the speech which the Auditor-General made in Bloemfontein in September 1977. If the Official Opposition differ with me, they must say so today. What was said by the Auditor-General in a speech at the University of the Orange Free State, is of cardinal importance. I quote—

I would be pleased if the hon. member for Yeoville would listen to this so that he can hear what the factual position is—

I want to say with great respect that this Select Committee has a very important function. However, should it happen—and I want to emphasize this—that it should be used for cheap politicking, it would be a tragedy for South Africa. I want to state very clearly, so that there can be no doubt about it, that it is correct that our investigations into the Department of Information brought irregularities to light. We took a strong stand because it was correct to do so. The hon. the Prime Minister’s decision was also correct. There should be no doubt about that. What there is doubt about, is the modus operandi of hon. members of the Official Opposition.

Order! Is the hon. member referring to members here in the House?

No, Sir. During this whole investigation the Select Committee maintained a high standard. I want to state quite clearly that in this Select Committee a fine spirit existed; there should be no doubt about that. In the interests of State officials and South Africa, we must, however, be very careful to ensure that this Select Committee never degenerates into a political institution; it must confine itself solely to financial matters. In the interests of South Africa’s future it is absolutely essential that this Select Committee should confine itself to that. That was clearly spelled out by the Auditor-General.

There were points of difference in the Select Committee. Sensitive projects were suddenly brought into the discussions, matters to which the Auditor-General’s report did not refer. We even divided on the question as to whether a certain company could be discussed or not, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville—who has been serving in Select Committees on Public Accounts with me for years, even when he was still a member of the provincial council—knew the limits to which we had to confine ourselves. Efforts were continually made to involve these other aspects. These are not aspects we have remained silent about. The hon. the Prime Minister made a clear statement that these sensitive aspects would be investigated. Notwithstanding this declaration from the hon. the Prime Minister we found that the hon. member for Yeoville was not satisfied. It is clear from the report that he tried continually to involve things which were not relevant to the Select Committee’s investigations.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was interrupted, I was trying to put the matter into perspective by showing that the Select Committee on Public Accounts was a financial committee and not a political committee. A problem facing us was that matters which were not at issue and which did not appear in the Auditor-General’s report were unfortunately dragged in.

Now we have to do with a troublesome situation. We have to do with a situation where both the Government and the Select Committee acted firmly. I have stated clearly and directly that there were indeed irregularities and that we adopted a resolution in this regard. As regards the other aspects, the hon. the Prime Minister acted decisively and appointed somebody to institute investigations. He pointed out that the matters which had been brought to light would not be tolerated.

I want to tell the Official Opposition that we in South Africa are fortunate to have a leader like Adv. Vorster, and notwithstanding the efforts the Official Opposition are making to break down his image, they will fail. The hon. member for Yeoville caused himself more damage today than he will ever realize. I always used to have the feeling that the hon. member for Yeoville had something which the other hon. members in that party did not have, but now I am beginning to have my doubts about that. I regret to say this—we are talking straight with each other—but the hon. member for Yeoville, as I have illustrated, tried to bring sensitive matters to the fore, notwithstanding the opinion of the Auditor-General that only the matters mentioned in his report should be discussed in the Select Committee. However, what is the situation today? I should like to do a test. Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that sensitive projects are in the interests of internal security in South Africa.

If they are really sensitive.

I put the question hypothetically only. I do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister’s reaction will be, but I should like to ask whether, if the Official Opposition values the security of the State and if the hon. the Prime Minister constitutes the Commission on Internal Security which he wanted to appoint and in which members of the Official Opposition were too scared to serve, in such a way that those hon. members also have an insight into these sensitive projects, they will be prepared to serve on that commission.

Order! That matter is not before the House.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am very thankful that you allowed me to put that question. [Interjections.]

I want to state very clearly today that South Africa has a good Public Service. As a result of all these things that have happened, it is so that the public could get the impression that South Africa’s Civil Servants are not what they ought to be. I think it is important that it should be put on record today that South Africa has a Public Service of which we can be proud. I say this as a result of many years of service on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. When one looks at the millions and millions of rand appropriated each year by this Parliament for the various State departments, and one compares that with the unauthorized expenditure, one finds that the amounts which were not authorized to be spent were minimal.

Often, in the case of unauthorized expenditure, it has been shown that the accounting officer had no option but to enter into that expenditure. Irregularities hardly ever occur in the Public Service in South Africa. This is something which ought to be brought to the attention of the public. The public ought to realize that they should be proud of our Public Service, and that they should be proud of the fact that we have officials of a very high calibre. It is naturally also important for the officials of the State to realize that we will not allow opportunities to be created for South Africa’s Civil Servants to be placed under suspicion, except in cases where financial irregularities occur. That, I believe, is important.

Then there were of course also allegations relating to the so-called bureaucratic set-up in South Africa. Rules and regulations are essential in the Public Service as far as I am concerned. Without them the Public Service cannot function. The Government has absolutely nothing to hide. In fact, the Government introduced the Exchequer and Audit Act, No. 66 of 1975, in terms of which a clear instruction is given to the Auditor-General not only to carry out controlled audit functions, but also to aim at greater efficiency.

Let us be honest and admit that at the moment we are saddled with a small minority party as Official Opposition. Nevertheless the Government feels so strongly about this that it has introduced, in the form of the Exchequer and Audit Act, legislation which is regarded throughout the world as one of the most efficient financial control measures to be found. That is what the Government has done. The Government has never found it necessary to cover up anything. It is therefore not fair that the Official Opposition should have made the allegations they made here today.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville shocked and disappointed me. He should know that nobody in this world is infallible. I believe that when people conduct a debate on any subject, they can differ. However, it is also imperative that they differ in a decent and acceptable way. The moment someone becomes personal in a debate, the moment someone tries to belittle his opponent … That is exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville did today. He tried to create the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister was neglecting his duties. I think it is a crying shame. We are going through very difficult times in this country. We are going through what is perhaps the most difficult period in the history of this country. Nevertheless, in spite of that, we have to contend with an Official Opposition of this calibre. Throughout this parliamentary session this Official Opposition never once succeeded in advocating a policy, a political policy which was even remotely acceptable to the electorate in this country.

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the discussion of the report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to call upon the Official Opposition to co-operate. Bearing in mind that we have the necessary machinery in South Africa, that we have an Auditor-General, that we have a Select Committee on Public Accounts, that we also have a Prime Minister who has not been deaf to the requests that have come from the Official Opposition, a Prime Minister who has in fact acted very strongly in this regard, I want to call upon the Official Opposition, in the interests of the country, to refrain from acting in this manner. I want to ask them, together with all the other hon. members, to go forth into the parliamentary recess with a greater realization of their responsibilities to South Africa. I think we must leave this matter now. The subject has in any case already been exhausted. Three debates have already been held in this House. Positive steps have been taken. What more can be expected, I do not know. If the Official Opposition have further evidence in respect of this matter, they must get up here today and say so. Their continual suspicion-mongering is damaging South Africa tremendously. I believe that South Africa deserves much better than that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, discussed the work of the Select Committee. Like others, this Select Committee is there to fulfil a certain function and I think this specific committee did its duty in this respect. They carried out a thorough investigation in this regard. All kinds of information came to light during this investigation and the committee has now commented on this. A report is now before the House about which we are asked to take a stand and to say whether we accept or reject it. Our party has already indicated that we accept it. But we have certain reservations about the role which the hon. the Minister played in the department. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to address the hon. the Minister. I do not think he did his duty of controlling this department. I want to say that I was invited by the hon. the Minister to come and talk to him about certain matters regarding the department. I appreciated this very much, and I went and listened to him. I want to say on this occasion that that department does work which is essential, which is vital to South Africa’s interests. That work must be protected and I welcome the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister that the whole matter will be evaluated and channeled to some or other department so that it can be continued with.

†Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that we are facing an onslaught in respect of which one really wonders sometimes what the fuel behind it is. Where does it come from? When you consider the people in the world outside who are making a living from being anti-South African and the continual campaign being waged against us in the Press, in articles, in movements that are founded, antiapartheid groups and all this kind of thing throughout the world, particularly the Western world, from which so much of our inspiration ought to be coming, then it is absolutely impossible that this Government should not engage in activities of this sort. We can call them sensitive, we can call them secret, but they are as old as mankind. This is not the first time that a Government has engaged in activities of this nature. They have to be undertaken. They have to be persisted with. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has done the country a favour in taking the action he took yesterday. What the effect on this debate was is something else again. I hope to say a few words about that later on. I think what is necessary is that the image of the Department of Information, which must act on behalf of all of us, must be without blemish. It can be a new start. It is a new bureau and it can move in a new direction, and the people who will handle it should have the best wishes of the whole of this Parliament, of every member here, because they will be fighting a battle common to every single one of us.

I want to raise a couple of questions with the hon. the Minister. Our amendment says that we believe that the hon. the Minister is deserving of censure because he has not maintained control over the activities of those people in his department who were undertaking operations, projects—whatever one wants to call them—and which were not funded by his department, but by other departments. Those activities were covered by certificates which were issued by somebody other than the hon. the Minister, if I understand the situation correctly. I have done my best to read through the evidence very carefully indeed to make quite sure that I have the right picture. What has happened? Where one finds for instance Dr. Deneys Rhoodie receiving money from the secret fund, paying it into his personal account and using that money to buy tickets for his wife and his children to accompany him on a trip on which he had to go on official business to the United States, then one cannot help wondering what there will have to be in the certificate that will be issued in future that can set the mind of Parliament at rest that that sort of thing will not happen again. This is my problem. There must be a question mark even in the mind of the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This comes back to the control that Parliament has over funds that are expended. However it will be done, I believe something is lacking now in the mechanism of this Parliament. There should be a sort of bridging mechanism which can be applied to satisfy—all of us— that the certificates that are issued are absolutely, bona fide, and that there is nothing that we should not know about. In the case of Dr. Deneys Rhoodie this matter came to the attention of the Select Committee at the instance of the Auditor-General on the basis that this was not a secret operation and that the subsistence and travelling expenses were not paid out of the secret fund and that the secret fund had been properly applied in that particular operation. I think that is something we have not yet sorted out in this debate. Where is the limits of the secret fund?

I know that the evidence is that these were projects agreed upon between the Secretary of the Department and the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister approved them and they were then funded from a certain source approved by the hon. the Minister. That source, as I understand the situation, covered the whole of the operation, the travelling expenses and everything else. There is, however, something about which the hon. the Minister has to satisfy us. As we debate this question now, we do not know whether that hon. Minister will be in charge of secret operations himself or not. We cannot tell because the operations and projects now in being are going to be evaluated by a person I regard as highly competent to evaluate them. They will then be canalized into certain directions, to certain departments, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, and I quote—

So as we are debating this, we do not know just what is going to happen to these projects, where they are going to go, who is going to fund them or anything about them. What we do know is that those of them which are found to be worth continuing with will be continued with. There is a certificate which a certain hon. Minister will issue to cover projects, and according to present practice on those projects, that covers travelling expenses—in the opinion of the Auditor-General, improperly so. So I think one of the things we have to sort out is where the cut-off point of that secret fund is, what is properly included in the certificate, what this Parliament may know and what this Parliament may not know, because that is the crux of what we are talking about.

The matters that have come before the Select Committee are not matters of worldshaking importance. It is not of world shaking importance that Dr. D. O. Rhoodie bought tickets for his wife and children. The world has not come to an end. We are going on, but the problem is that there was improper use made of money voted by this Parliament for a certain purpose. That is what the debate is all about. Let me tell the hon. the Minister something. I cannot believe that he did not know what was going on in the department. Hon. members say that he is not the administrative officer and is not supposed to know all the details and that sort of thing. I cannot believe that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, intelligent man that he is, did not know that there were things going on in his department which were not within the ambit of the regulations. Neither can I believe that Dr. D. O. Rhoodie, intelligent man that he is, did not know, when he undertook to purchase those tickets, that he was doing something that he was either not justified in doing or was at least taking a chance in doing. There is no justification for his having done so, because by taking a chance with the buying of those tickets, all these things have come upon us. The operations which the hon. the Minister has been conducting have consequently been called into question. Either through a man’s carelessness or arrogance, or simply because a man could not be bothered to go through the normal channels, all this has been visited upon us. The people concerned in that department have visited upon South Africa something I do not think we deserve. They have let us down, they have let the hon. the Minister down and they have also let the hon. the Prime Minister down as well. Let us face it, they have let the department itself down. The department has now been abolished! There is now a bureau which will function on a basis to be sketched out for us.

My problem is that the hon. the Minister was in daily contact with his people; he knew his people. I made this point in the last debate and I am saying it again now. It was stated earlier that the Secretary, Dr. Rhoodie, was not regarded as being the person who could be entrusted with the running of a department of this nature because he did not have the experience, especially the administrative experience, to do so. The hon. the Minister knew it, I think it was incumbent upon him to have seen to matters. Knowing his man as he does, a man with flair, verve, imagination, go, drive, ability, etc., the hon. the Minister should have seen to it that every jot and tittle of the regulations were obeyed because he must have known that if this did not happen, it would leak out in some way or other, and that if it did leak out what would result would be what, in fact, did result.

The minute a man steps out of line by having failed to observe all the regulations in terms of departmental duties, he can be grabbed hold of and he is for it. There is no way he can avoid that. I believe the hon. the Minister owes this House a very thoroughgoing explanation as to how this came about and as to why he did not keep his finger on the pulse. It was a daily thing. He approved all the trips. He knew this was going on. There were stories circulating that this was happening and that was happening, that money was being paid back and all that kind of thing. I believe the hon. the Minister cannot escape the onus that rests upon him in that, as stated in our amendment, he has failed or neglected to exercise control over the affairs of his department and the officials concerned. We must distinguish between, on the one side, the activities of his department and, on the other side, the activities of the officials under his control who were engaged in other projects funded from outside his department by some other authority. I do not think the hon. the Minister can give us an explanation in this regard. I think that the word “neglect” exactly fits the case.

I think that the people concerned got carried away by the cloak-and-dagger bit. I think that that is what happened to them. I think they began with that and, when nobody pulled them up, checked them or reigned them back, they thought: It is all right, because nobody is looking; we can go on like this. In that way one gets a progressive deterioration in the situation.

Count your words.

Yes, it is progressive deterioration. I chose my words very carefully. The problem is that the hon. the Minister, seeing this happening, altered the rules to meet them. For instance, he altered the rules relating to trips for wives. The hon. the Minister may say he is perfectly competent to do so, but I do not think he is. I think that, in doing so, he merely encouraged the course of action that has resulted in the sorry state in which we find ourselves today.

We mentioned in the last debate that Caeser’s wife must be above suspicion. However, not only Caeser’s wife, but also the hon. the Minister, the Secretary and everybody else must be above suspicion. In a country like ours we thank the Lord that we have a Parliament, a chairman of a Select Committee, an Auditor-General and others who are there to see that this sort of thing does not happen. Not only that hon. Minister but every Minister is faced with the same situation, because this sort of thing can happen in any department. I think the hon. the Minister has run up against a problem which could confront many other people—it was bad luck for him that he happened to be the person in the driving seat.

In conclusion I want to say that we do not support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville—we will vote for our own amendment—particularly because it seeks an undertaking from the Government that it will request the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry into the affairs of the Department of Information. I think that, unless something absolutely unforeseen, something that has not yet emerged, blows out somewhere else, we cannot possibly go on investigating this department, but that we must close the book and set the bureau free from the onus this department has. The bureau must go on with its work in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River concerned himself mainly with the details before the committee and on which the committee reported extensively. For the rest he addressed himself to the hon. the Minister and put certain questions to him. I believe that he will receive adequate replies to the questions which he has put.

When this debate started this morning, the hon. member for Yeoville acted very emotionally here. In fact, he made an emotional speech. He asked how things could be put right by merely changing a name. He said: What is in a name? The hon. member for Yeoville is not here at present, but I should like to ask him whether he still has the same name which he had when he came to this country. A name has some meaning.

The question before the House is whether the Government has failed in its duty, yes or no. The answer is: No, the Government did not fail in its duty. The Government used all the means at its disposal to rectify what was wrong. It is true that since 1215, the year when the Magna Carta was promulgated, it has been the prerogative of each Parliament, and therefore also of this Parliament, to impose taxes. It is also Parliament’s duty to exercise control over those funds. What is more: It is also Parliament’s duty to report and to be responsible to the general public. With the passage of the years we have, by way of legislation, established machinery which enables this Parliament to deal with the funds at its disposal and to enable it to ascertain whether the funds are being used in accordance with the policy of the Government and the wishes of Parliament, and according to the rules and regulations which have been promulgated. In this way the department of the Auditor-General has become a very important department in our Government structure. It is a guarantee to the public and the taxpayer that funds are being used correctly by Government departments, by control boards and statutory bodies. The Auditor-General submits an annual report to this Parliament. Parliament delegates its powers to the Select Committee on Public Accounts to institute an investigation and to examine the reports which the Auditor-General submits to it. I agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg that the terms of reference of this committee is specifically to examine what has been referred to it. Because public funds is a national matter, the committee could do nothing but regard it from a purely financial point of view. From the nature of the constitution of the committee, it is very easy for the NP, because they are as strong as they are today, to manipulate this committee politically. Such a possibility exists, but I wish to state here today that the hon. members on this side of the House who served on the Select Committee, are very deeply aware of their responsibility and that their action was, is and always will be purely in the interests of the country, under all circumstances. Therefore it is more difficult for someone to be critical of that which is his own than that which is strange to him. For that very reason the attitude of the committee members on this side of the House is aimed at conscious objectivity. This fact is clear from the Third Report of the committee. The investigation which was carried out, is in the interests of the country, but I am afraid that the Opposition saw an opportunity and still see an opportunity here to play politics. They lack a policy and they want to use every opportunity to make political gain for themselves. Therefore they tried to suck as much venom as possible from this matter. Time and again the hon. member for Yeoville tried to go beyond the terms of reference of the committee. He wanted the committee to venture into the sphere of newspaper reports. In these cases the committee of necessity had to oppose him. So, for instance, the hon. member for Yeoville asked in paragraph 11 of the minority report that two newspaper reports which appeared in the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express should be investigated. This concerned a matter which was not before the committee at all. It dealt with the firm Thor Communicators, which, it is rumoured, had connections with the department. He deliberately wanted to drag in these matters which had nothing to do with the committee. I quote his words—

A little later, in the same paragraph, he says—

The hon. member for Yeoville is not stupid. He knows as well as I, and any other hon. member, what falls within the ambit of the terms of reference of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Yeoville came forward with this request to investigate newspaper reports with the express purpose of forcing the committee to take an opposing standpoint. He did this so that he could have an opportunity to create the impression that the majority wanted to cover up certain matters and, in his own words—

If the impression could be created that the NP is covering up certain aspects, an enormous amount of political venom could be drawn from this. This would not only harm the integrity of the NP internally, but it would also place the integrity of the Government under suspicion abroad. In the present political climate, especially in the international field, it would not only harm the Government, but would also harm South Africa. I understand the hon. member for Yeoville’s action in this regard. When the hon. member is abroad, we receive reports …

Order! I think the hon. member has discussed that matter sufficiently.

I shall leave it at that, Sir. From the very outset it should have been clear to the hon. Opposition that the NP members approached the investigation in a spirit of purely financial objectivity and that they did not shirk their duty to investigate, in terms of their terms of reference, everything which was irregular and to report to this House. Under these circumstances the Opposition could of course show very little political gain. However, they were afforded a great opportunity when the so-called secret funds came under discussion. They immediately seized upon the opportunity and changed their tactics in such a way that the main accusation was no longer aimed at the department as such, but that a much greater prize was at stake, i.e. the hon. the Minister himself. Apparently the hon. member for Yeoville was again instructed to exert great pressure on the witnesses to reveal who gave the authorization for the use of secret funds. This became extremely important to the Opposition. In reply to a question put to him, Dr. Rhoodie replied as follows—

In the very next question by the hon. member for Yeoville pressure is exerted on the witness. Enough evidence already existed to prove that there had been action contrary to Public Service regulations and therefore he did not really want to get at Dr. Rhoodie; he was after someone else’s blood. Listen to the way in which the hon. member put his question—

This is the important part—

Can hon. members see what the hon. member is aiming at? He wants to get at someone else. He is no longer concerned with the irregularities of which he is already convinced and of which the committee is already convinced; here the matter is being turned into a political issue. In a very subtle way suspicion is being sown here. However, he cannot achieve his goal for at this stage the hon. the Prime Minister has already, on the basis of the Second Report, announced that he has instructed a knowledgeable person to conduct an in-depth investigation into the expenditure of secret funds. Therefore, the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government and the NP was once again an obstacle and frustrated the Opposition in their attempts to create impressions, as if we were not prepared to reveal everything. The NP does not use its position of power to condone malpractices. The NP is strong enough to root out any form of maladministration completely. This should be absolutely clear to the people outside. In the first place this is clear from the strongly worded report of the Select Committee, and in the second place from the strong action by the Government as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister. I am convinced that this strong and correct action of the Select Committee will once again confirm the electorate’s faith in the NP. However, this is not all. Abroad this will also be a factor which, together with other positive factors, for example South Africa’s military and economic strength, will instil confidence. Let the world know that the Government will not tolerate any irregularities in its administration. We are sorry that what has happened, did happen, but as they say: “It is no use crying over spilt milk”. We shall see to it that these things are rectified in future.

It is a pity that more regular audits of the Government departments cannot be done. However, we know the limitations. The Auditor-General does not have enough staff, and I believe that the manpower situation in his office should be improved. Prevention is better than cure. Furthermore I also think it is necessary that the Select Committee on Public Accounts should have more time at its disposal to undertake investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amusing when an hon. member on that side rises and attacks hon. members on this side of the House for making politics of politics. I hope the hon. member for Malmesbury will get up one day and tell us what his side of the House does not make politics of. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately the time allotted to me is very limited and therefore I want to confine myself to a few points. [Interjections.] People outside see Parliament almost exclusively as a place where politics is argued and talked about The primary task of this House remains, however, to keep watch over the public purse and to oppose, regardless of those involved, every form of corruption wherever it occurs. With the cutting open of the unfortunate abscess which has developed in the Department of Information over the last few years, we have once again seen our parliamentary system at its best. Everyone who has taken part in the process has contributed to some extent to confirm and increase the value of our parliamentary procedures. The Auditor-General, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the House in open debate and—and this I want to add—the Press too contributed to this, because the Press in the case in question also showed itself to be an important component of our parliamentary institution. The independent investigations which some members of the Press undertook in connection with the activities of the Department of Information made an essential contribution to the dénouement.

Hon. members on the other side will excuse me if I single out the two members who represented the Official Opposition on the Select Committee, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Parktown, for special mention. Anybody who goes through the report, must come to the conclusion that outstanding work was done by these two hon. members on this side of the House. However, it does not detract from the work which other hon. members did. I did in fact praise the Select Committee as a whole. Our representatives acted in the best tradition of representatives of the people throughout. At the same time they gave a clear-cut answer to those people in the country who are ignorant enough to believe that a strong Opposition is not an essential requirement for the proper functioning of our parliamentary system.

Obviously there is also the role played by the Auditor-General and his office. If it had not been for the diligence, thoroughness and unimpeachableness with which they as this high and impartial instrument of Parliament investigated the offences which took place and brought them to the attention of Parliament, the damage to the State could have dragged on for heaven knows how long and could ultimately have been much greater than it is. In this regard it must be mentioned that one of the ugliest and most painful things which came to light in the course of the proceedings in the Select Committee and by means of statements in the Press was the impudent way in which the Secretary for Information in particular at first tried to distract the Auditor-General in his inquiries and, when he did not succeed, tried not only to attack the Auditor-General, but to cast suspicion on his person. I am sorry, but in my opinion that alone is enough to exclude him from further appointments in the service of the State. The hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown, with their first-hand knowledge as members of the Select Committee, dealt with the recommendations and findings of the Select Committee. They also made certain proposals in the House. I do not want to repeat anything in that regard. I just want to say that I am afraid that there are some members who are adopting the attitude that a few technical offences have been committed, but that there is very little more to be worried about. Unfortunately it is a fact that anyone who goes through the report of the Select Committee, even studies it superficially, must come to the painful conclusion that we are dealing with clear-cut cases of dishonesty, abuse of position, and attempts to cover the true situation. This is undoubtedly a serious situation.

In a certain sense the wider objective of this debate had already been achieved before it started. The Department of Information is being abolished, the Secretary for Information is being replaced, his most important assistants have already disappeared from the scene and a new instrument for information is being established. The Cabinet has clearly found that it concerns a lot more than a few offences committed by a few officials. According to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister the Cabinet has decided that the activities of the present Department of Information are to be transferred to the new BNIC with the “exception of secret operations”. I hope I am right, but I see it as an indication that the Government has learnt a lesson. In all countries there are people who occupy themselves with special liaison work and sensitive public relations operations for their country. This is known in some circles as para-diplomacy. There is no reason why South Africa should be an exception to this rule.

In this regard I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not want to make an issue of it. One of the fundamental problems which arose in the Department of Information was that a delicate internal power struggle developed, a struggle which led to all kinds of ambitious attempts by the hon. the Minister and his Secretary to upstage the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs and to manoeuvre themselves into the position of the foreign representatives of South Africa. This was responsible for much of the swaggering and wasteful gadding about to and fro around the globe which we saw. I hope the BNIC will refrain from that and that it will be placed in charge of a Minister who does not see it as his task to take over the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs. After all, that department consists of the most well-trained men who will best be able to do the necessary liaison work for South Africa particularly in those countries where we have diplomatic representation.

With regard to the evidence and attitude of the most important witnesses before the Select Committee, there is a further remark which I wish to make. There was a time, particularly during the first years of the present Government when, however much one differed from the politics of the Government, one did get the impression that one was dealing with a “people’s Government” in the best sense of the word. Today, however, we are very far removed from that. There is an obsession with status as never before in the history of this country. There are officials who give the impression that one’s status depends on the price of one’s hotel room and one’s seat in an aeroplane. In his testimony before the Select Committee Dr. Deneys Rhoodie went so far as to tell these hon. members of Parliament that he took certain liberties because they had to understand that he was such a senior person that, had he been in the Army, he would have been a lieutenant-general! This tendency is widespread and the hon. the Prime Minister will have to take steps in order to effect a return to the true idea of a people’s government.

The two greatest problems of the hon. the Prime Minister will be the following. In the first place the public believes that what they have seen so far with regard to the Department of Information, is only a small part of what is really going on with public finance and that in the field of public spending there is great abuse and waste of funds.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the report. He may not make statements which have not been investigated.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

He is irresponsible.

No, that is what people think. If those hon. members want to shut their ears, they can shut their ears to it. [Interjections.] The point is that there was an abuse of funds and therefore I am entitled to say that the public believes that that is not the whole story.

Where is your proof?

I am not busy with proof. That is a question which the hon. the Prime Minister should take into account. [Interjections.]

You are a scandalmonger.

Order!

It would appear that what one of the immediate answers to that will be that the staff of the Auditor-General should be increased. I think it would be sensible if wider use were made of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, not only during sessions, but also during the recess. I cannot understand why hon. members on the other side are so excited. They know as well as I do what the public are thinking of what is going on.

The very greatest problem which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to encounter, is the enormous damage which this debacle with the Department of Information and its chiefs had done to the image and the work being done for our country abroad. All the friends and associates of the department—unfortunately this is so—are suspect. In the USA there is even talk of a congressional inquiry into the activities of the Department of Information there. This imposes a duty on the hon. the Prime Minister, on the Cabinet and also on the Minister of Information. The hon. the Minister of Information was very intimately involved in the work of his department. He was an active co-worker in everything that happened. He lived with the work of his officials, and that is good. The point is, however, that he cannot dissociate himself personally from what happened particularly in respect of the image abroad.

He had better resign.

The hon. the Minister must realize that it is not in the interest of South Africa if he continues—regardless of who he is—to remain Minister in charge of Information, or as it is now being called, National and International Communication. He should realize it himself. If he does not realize it himself, it becomes the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to bring it to his attention. In the light of the distrust which has arisen everywhere with regard to South Africa’s information service the hon. the Prime Minister will have to consider very thoroughly the question of whom he is going to put in charge of the new Bureau for National and International Communication.

Mr. Speaker …

Resign! Resign! Resign!

Order!

I am definitely not used to demonstrations in Parliament. [Interjections.] In fact, I believe that nobody is used to demonstrators in Parliament. [Interjections.] Let me say right at the outset that in terms of the rules of this House I am confined to a speech of 30 minutes. I should like to reply to the best of my ability to all the questions which have been raised, and try to put the entire matter in perspective. I should therefore appreciate it if I could be granted time to do so, and if I am not interrupted too often.

In the first place, I have a duty to discharge. It has come to my notice that in a previous debate, after I had spoken about corruption and self-enrichment, I had also made mention of the resignation of a former Deputy Minister. That has possibly created the impression that something of this nature led to the resignation of Deputy Minister Rall. I wish to state unequivocally and expressly here today, that Deputy Minister Rall resigned voluntarily after a discussion with me, and that his resignation had nothing whatsoever to do with corruption or self-enrichment.

In other words, you sacked him! [Interjections.]

I want to begin by saying that I hold the view that public funds, regardless of whether they are secret funds, regardless of whether they are directly or indirectly allocated to a department, are funds which may not be wasted, funds over which strict control must be exercised, funds every cent of which must be controlled, precisely because it is public money. In the second place …

Where is the Prime Minister?

Where is the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

I shall just react briefly by stating that the hon. the Prime Minister apologized to me for not being able to be here. He has made other arrangements. This debate was to have taken place yesterday. [Interjections.] However, in order to accommodate the hon. member for Yeoville, we decided to postpone the debate until today. The hon. the Prime Minister delayed his departure until 12 noon today. He could not stay longer, however. He requested me to accept his apology. It was impossible for him to be here this afternoon.

The embarrassment was too great for him!

Secondly, I want to point out that the Auditor-General carried out his duty by reporting these matters and the irregularities which he encountered in the course of his audit. In the third place, the Select Committee has heard evidence, has made certain recommendations, has taken certain decisions, and has acted as the watchdog of Parliament, in the tried and tested parliamentary tradition. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the chairman and to all the members of the Select Committee for the thoroughness and penetration with which they have accomplished this task. By their penetrating questions, the entire matter was exposed and scrutinized to the finest detail, cut open to the bone, so that nothing remained hidden from Parliament and from the public at large.

We now come to the end of this session and I think it is necessary on this occasion to look back on this whole matter as it has unfolded itself and as the average voter in the street saw it. This entire reaction in Parliament was preceded by allegations in certain sections of the Press and by insinuations by which an extraordinary climate was created in the Department of Information. That was followed by the report of the Auditor-General to Parliament, a report in which certain matters were reported on, as is indeed the duty of the Auditor-General. Certain sections of the Press reported on this document in a responsible manner, and with due perspective. A section of the Press reported objectively to the public on the matters which the Auditor-General had reported, and added the information that the matter would be referred to a Select Committee on Public Accounts, a committee which would carry out a thorough investigation and submit a report. To that section of the Press which acted so responsibly, I want to express my thanks. That is the way things ought to be done.

Another section of the Press, however, immediately found the Department of Information guilty, even before the Select Committee had held its first meeting, even before the investigation had started. It was announced under large banner headlines that there had been large-scale squandering of money, that officials had travelled far and wide to carry out the merit rating of a single typiste. That was the tenor of the words used.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You ruled earlier today, when we tried to refer to various matters which pertained to newspaper reports, that that was irrelevant to the debate. Yet the hon. the Minister is now specifically referring to newspaper reports. Is that permissible in terms of your ruling?

The hon. the Minister is not dealing with those specific two issues. The resignation of the hon. the Minister has been demanded in this House and he is merely dealing in general with the events that led to the investigation. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In any case, I do not want to discuss the Press any further. I merely want to say that that was the impression which was immediately created.

How did the Government react when these impressions were created? How was the matter handled? No attempt whatsoever was made to cover up or hide anything. Everything had to be investigated and exposed. Nothing was concealed. The investigation by the Auditor-General covered all open funds of the department, and he reported fully thereon to the Select Committee. He also deemed it advisable to report to the Select Committee on certain secret actions of the department. The Select Committee made its findings known to the House in three reports. The Committee found, firstly, that not all relevant financial instructions had been complied with. I admit that, I concede that. Secondly, the committee found that certain directives of the Public Service Code had not been complied with. I admit that, I concede that. In some cases, money had been wrongly claimed, or allowances had been paid to officers without authority, as indicated in appendices A to F of the report of the Select Committee. In all these cases, the moneys were recovered from the people involved. The general picture here, is that the State has not suffered large-scale damage. I want to quote here from the third report of the Select Committee, namely question 1259. It concerns a specific matter which was investigated—

Mr. Barrie’s reply was—

The chairman then asked—

Mr. Barrie then replied to that—

That is the position. Against that background, I want to state that the open account and that part of the secret account which Mr. Barrie audited, have been disposed of as far as I am concerned. The committee has made its report, and has made certain findings which we are considering here today.

As far as the rest of the funds are concerned—whether they came to us directly or indirectly, whether they constituted secret funds, or wherever they came from, I do not want to talk about that—the auditing has been assigned to Mr. Reynders. The Prime Minister issued a statement about that, and his name is therefore now known. He is a person who was formerly on the staff of the Auditor-General and who is connected with the Bureau for State Security. He has been engaged in this investigation since August 1977.

It is a secret investigation.

It is a detailed investigation, an investigation in depth. In respect of this investigation, the hon. the Prime Minister said in his statement yesterday that it was not yet complete, but that up to now, he had not come across any offence which required legal action against any person. Once again, therefore, no corruption or self-enrichment has been found up to the stage to which this investigation has progressed.

Between these two investigations, all funds which came directly or indirectly, to the Department of Information, from whatever account, and which were handled by officials, have been audited and reported upon. As far as I am concerned, the insinuations made, were not proved.

The hon. member for Yeoville put a few questions to me to which I should like to reply. He put pertinent questions and I want to reply to them. In connection with Mr. Waldeck, I just want to say something briefly. I do not want to go into this in detail. I just want to touch on a few matters here and there, because I have another matter which I wish to state. Why did Mr. Waldeck retire prematurely?

When the Public Service Commission recommended his retirement, it was expressly stated by both the Public Service Commission and myself, as well as the Minister concerned, that the retirement of Mr. Waldeck was not connected with his ability or with the performance of his duty. His retirement was the result of reorganization. This is a normal and recognized procedure, and is not unusual in the Public Service. He retired from the Public Service with supplementary service. That is the standpoint of the Public Service Commission. That is the position of Mr. Waldeck, and as far as I am concerned, that is the end of the story.

The next question concerned wives of officials who accompanied them once a year. There is a ruling which reads that—

That is the standing rule. A few of my officials were entrusted with this large number of projects abroad. These men did not travel once, twice or four times a year. Instructions to go and do certain things abroad, required that they had to travel overseas 10 or 11 times, and I stress “had” to travel.

Shame!

This gave rise to abnormal disruption of their home life. On compassionate grounds, I considered that the three top men, who sometimes had to undertake as many as 11 to 12 journeys a year, and whose home life was placed under abnormal stress as a result of their absence, could take their wives with them once a year.

On what authority did you do that?

On my own authority, and I accept full responsibility for it. [Interjections.]

Order!

What are the facts in connection with the journeys? The whole fuss is about the Deputy Secretary, Dr. D. O. Rhoodie. During the past five years in which he has had authority to take his wife overseas at Government expense once a year, he took her overseas twice. For three years, he did not make use of the privilege. [Interjections.]

I now want to talk about the open journeys and the closed journeys. [Interjections.] I say the open journeys and the closed journeys. The criticism concerns the fact that two officers travel together, but the journey of one of them is regarded as an open journey, while that of the other one is regarded as a closed journey. That is absurd, people tell me. However, that depends upon how people regard it. If one is talking about a journey which was open in all respects, I can understand that. However, I want to set out our view of the matter. If one launches a certain project, then in the nature of things, one wants to know the total cost of that project. One wants to know precisely what it will ultimately cost, so that one can evaluate its benefit. One can then judge whether it was worthwhile or not. We reasoned that in order to be able to do that, the entire project should be financed from secret funds, calculated in terms of the secret funds, credited to the secret funds, and borne as a whole by the secret funds. For that reason, there were cases when two officials travelled together, one with a secret assignment as his major task, and the other, the head of Foreign Services, to carry out routine inspections of offices.

00 open and 00 closed! [Interjections.]

The two officials then travel in the normal way. When they arrive abroad, one of them carries out his secret assignments and while the two of them are there together, they form a merit-rating committee which assesses the officials there to determine their merit. That is how we worked it out in practice, and it worked extremely well. I also wanted to make an evaluation of its value. What was the result? The result was that in this way, we could actually carry out merit-rating of the officers. But what happened in practice? It was alleged that our people had travelled from South Africa to Los Angeles just to carry out the merit-rating of a typist. The evidence now indicates that that was not the position.

Must have been some typist! [Interjections.]

Please, that hon. member is wasting my time! [Interjections.]

Order!

Certain newspapers had banner headlines about this matter. I do not want to argue about that. I just want to make the point. The following heading appeared in a newspaper: “Government men fly from Johannesburg to Los Angeles to see a typist.” The article read, inter alia, as follows—

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must not abuse his privileges in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat—

†This has not been proved by the evidence. As a matter of fact, the opposite has been proved by the evidence. This newspaper says the public is entitled to know, and I wonder now whether it will give exactly the same publicity to the fact that this is not correct, because the public are also entitled to know the true facts now, after the investigation has been completed.

But we have still not been told …

The hon. member also asked me whether the projects were approved by me. I can tell him that every project was approved by me personally. I accepted responsibility for every one of them. The hon. member said it would amount to criticism of me if the projects were now to be evaluated by General Van den Bergh. I want to state that I welcome his evaluation wholeheartedly. The projects are evaluated from year to year in any case.

By whom?

By me. They are evaluated every year to ascertain whether it is worth while continuing with them or not. Every year, we check up whether or not we should continue with a particular project, whether we should start a new project, etc. I welcome the fact that a man with Gen. Van den Bergh’s knowledge and experience of international conditions and security intelligence, should look into it and give his own judgment. South Africa could only benefit by such an investigation. We have no problems with that. I welcome it wholeheartedly.

Let me come to another charge made against me, namely the charge in connection with written permission for overseas journeys. The hon. member for Yeoville said that as the Minister, I knew that written permission was necessary, and he quoted from page 327 of the report. In a submission to me, it was stated—

This does not say “written approval”; only “approval”. I wrote at the bottom of that memo—

There was no mention of written approval. It merely read that “approval” had to be given.

Look at page 12.

I now want to read from the latest document from the Public Service Commission in this connection. I have just called for it. According to my information, it has been in force since 1965. It concerns travel abroad. The following is laid down—

It does not say “in writing”—

That is the direction I have before me.

Look at page 12 of the report.

I want to concede to the hon. member that it is laid down that the Auditor-General requires written approval.

No, not the Auditor-General; the Treasury.

Very well, the Treasury requires written approval. I accept that. I have read that. However, if hon. members think that a Minister must be au fait with all the myriads of rules and regulations appearing in books, I want to say that it is physically impossible …

How long have you been a Minister?

Up to now this has never been brought to my notice. It was brought to my notice for the first time in this report.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Secretary for Information never comes to Cape Town for the full duration of the session. He remains in Pretoria, and carries on with his work. The Department of Information is not involved in legislation, and it is not considered in the interests of the State that he should be here during the entire session, receive S and T, and remain sitting around here if he has no work to do here. He therefore remains in Pretoria, and does not come down to Cape Town. If there are projects in progress, and a journey or something of the kind has to be undertaken, he phones me. He then informs me of the circumstances, and we discuss the matter. Thereafter, I may say to him: “I think it is necessary that the journey should take place. I give approval for the man to undertake the journey”. I do so under the impression that there has to be approval, as this direction indeed reads, and not specifically written approval. Never was a directive to the effect that written approval is necessary, brought to my notice before this report was published. I hasten to state that if we had known that approval had to be in writing, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to send me a document for my signature, after which it could have been filed. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to do if we had known, but we did not know. That is why I continued in that way, and I did so because I was not aware that written authority was required.

I believe you, but nobody else will. [Interjections.]

I now understand this very clearly, because it has now come to my notice that all journeys must be approved in writing. That fact was brought to my notice by this report. That is the beauty of our system. Since it has become known …

[Inaudible.]

Harry, shut up now, man.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, shut up!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei has said “shut up” three times. Is he allowed to do so? [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Tygervallei and other hon. members can leave the regulation of affairs in my hands. Hon. members must now please comply with my request. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I was not aware of the fact that there had to be written approval, and our method of operation—the fact that the Secretary was in Pretoria and I in Cape Town for six months every year—has resulted in its being done that way since 1972. Never, at any stage, did anybody point out to me that this was wrong. I therefore want to assure hon. members that I was not aware of that. We should not have done it if we had known about it. It was never pointed out to us. Since it was pointed out to us, it has been done, and there are no longer any problems.

But I want to go further and return to the question to which the hon. member for Parktown has referred, namely the request that the journeys should not be publicized. Of course I told the officials that when they went on journeys, they should not publicize them. It is the most natural thing in the world to say … [Interjections.] Must a person, when he goes on a secret journey, go and tell the Press that he is going on such a journey? [Interjections.] I repeat that I told the people that if they went on a secret journey, they should not publicize it. [Interjections.] What they said in evidence is their own business. But that is what I told them. What is wrong with that?

The Official Opposition has continually asked, by way of interjections, what successes have been scored. I invited two hon. members of the Opposition to come to my office and take a look for themselves. [Interjections.] I invited the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Mooi River was in my office, and he and I had a long conversation. I showed him certain documents and gave him certain facts. He then left. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville, however, has not turned up and has never yet come and had a look at the documents. [Interjections.] He does not want to know about the successes, because he is not interested in them.

I have been criticized for having appointed Dr. Rhoodie to this position in 1972. I still remember the rejoicing in certain newspapers in those days. I can still remember how they boasted that the Minister had now had the courage to appoint an expert from outside, something which should have been done in the Public Service long ago. It was said that he should not merely slavishly appoint officers from the Public Service. I have brought only two newspaper clippings with me, so as not to waste more time than is necessary. In The Star of 30 August 1972, the following report appeared—

That was the standpoint of that newspaper at the time. In the Sunday Times of 9 August 1972, the following report appeared—

That was how the Press talked at that stage. It is all very well to be wise after the event and to say it was wrong.

Mr. Speaker, please permit me at this stage to say something about Dr. Rhoodie, because I owe it to him and I think the House also owes it to him, despite all. Everyone who worked with him, will admit that he is particularly hard-working, that he has a lot of initiative, and that he is a particularly dynamic person with a strong personality. Whether or not one agrees with him, these qualities were the keys to great successes which he scored during the past six years, internally as well as abroad. However, one may differ on his actions—I concede that one can differ with him—it remains a fact that in his own way, and to the best of his ability, and with untiring zeal, he served the interests of South Africa.

Then why was he dismissed?

His department was not administered in accordance with the regulations of the Public Service Code. He often took short cuts, and in that way the fixed, tried and tested ways of the administrative and financial pattern of control were not complied with. The same self-assuredness and aggressiveness which made him such an effective fighter for South Africa’s case against his opponents in discussions, forum discussions and television interviews abroad, operated against him in our country and led to his undoing. It will no longer serve any purpose, regardless of the circumstances, to pillory him further. I want to express my thanks to him for the years of untiring zeal in fulfilment of what was virtually a dual task, which he carried out with great success. His personal loyalty towards the State, the hon. the Prime Minister, myself and towards all his officers, cannot be allowed to go unmentioned in these circumstances.

Then why was he dismissed? [Interjections.]

The Public Service Commission has also carried out further in-depth investigations into the administration of the department. Not only do I endorse the investigation wholeheartedly; I also endorse the findings wholeheartedly.

A thorough evaluation of the secret actions and projects has been carried out. I am proud of many of those actions. South Africa has benefited immensely by many of those actions, and I wish the full story could be told.

So do we!

Tell us!

I wish with all my heart that I could do so. Hon. members will recall that I said on a previous occasion that I thought the investigation of the Select Committee would not go far enough. I then requested that the investigation should go further. I also wanted an investigation to be instituted into the question whether the structure of the department should not perhaps be changed. I am pleased that the Public Service Commission did indeed go further and also investigated the structure of the department. They have now made a recommendation, and I endorse that recommendation wholeheartedly. I said in a previous speech that in my view, it would be advisable to take a look at the functioning of the “Central Office of Information” of England and also at the American Information service which has just been instituted. In accordance with the proposal by the Public Service Commission, we are moving very close to the pattern of the “Central Office of Information”. I therefore endorse the recommendation wholeheartedly, and should like to test the new structure.

Now comes the rebuilding, and because there are questions in the minds of certain people, I want to reassure all officers of this department, internally as well as abroad. The task must continue; it must continue in the interests of South Africa. The department has to be restructured on the new basis. The administrative side has been restored and must, from now on, remain at the highest level of efficiency. The financial control has been put in order and has to be impeccable, exact, and stringent. The onslaught against South Africa is carrying on mercilessly and is increasing in extent and in sophistication. We have to repulse and neutralize it. If ever there was a time when the officials of the department had to take off their jackets, roll up their sleeves, and work, then it is now. In all fairness, I want to state here today that in the meantime, another department has been assigned to me which takes up a great deal of my time. It is a department of which I should like to make a success, because South Africa needs it. However, I am not going to let down the Department of Information and the new bureau at this stage. I am going to restructure the bureau and get it on its feet, but at the same time I want to say that these two tasks are not always going to be possible for me. At some time or another I shall have to request the hon. the Prime Minister to relieve me of one of these two tasks. I shall do that as soon as the new bureau has, in my view, progressed far enough on the new road.

Why not both?

It is in the interests of South Africa that both these tasks be carried out with great success, and in the light of the time factor, it will be physically impossible for me to carry out both successfully. Internally and abroad, there will have to be hard work in the interests of South Africa, and the time has now come for us all to throw in our weight. South Africa is worth it.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—120: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W.L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—25: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Report adopted.

Order! Before I request the Secretary to read the next order of the day, I should like, as Speaker and on behalf of Parliament, to thank the chairman of the Select Committee and all the members of all the parties who served on it for the manner in which they made this very important machinery of Parliament function, and for the work which they have done.

Mr. Speaker, when we discussed this matter last night, I indicated, on behalf of the Official Opposition, that we were supporting this proposed legislation. I only have two further points I want to raise. The first one relates to the question of the Registrar. I want to submit that this being a new organization …

Order! Hon. members leaving the Chamber should have their conversations outside. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to submit that this being a new professional organization with a new status, the position of the Registrar is going to be a very important one indeed. Regulations will have to be framed, regulations on which these organizations will be consulted. Other aspects which will have to be taken into consideration, are the training aspect, the status, guidance and discipline which will play a role in this profession.

Order! If hon. members do not stop talking now I shall ask the hon. member to resume his seat until we have silence. What prevents hon. members from leaving the Chamber and talking outside? The hon. member may proceed.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For this reason I want to submit that the Registrar who has to be appointed, will be someone who is going to have a very keen and deep understanding of what a social worker is, how a social worker is trained and how a social worker functions. I therefore submit that the Registrar who is appointed, should in fact be a qualified social worker. It may well be argued by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Registrars who are appointed in various professions do not necessarily have to qualify in those professions. However, because of the new circumstances in this case, I want to submit that there is a strong case for the Registrar being a social worker.

The second and last point I want to raise, relates to the question of the role played by the universities. This is very important because they are the training institutions where the social worker is to be trained. There is a joint committee of universities which lays down the curriculum and plays a very vital part in the training of social workers. I believe that representation on the council itself should be given to the joint universities committee. The hon. the Deputy Minister has in the Other Place indicated that he is prepared to give representation to provincial councils. That is fine. In that regard I only want to argue that this might be on a regional basis and that it might be difficult to single out one. However, to come back to the universities themselves, I say it is essential that representation be given to them. In addition to that, although it perhaps cannot be prescribed in the Act itself, I think there should be a strong indication from the hon. the Deputy Minister himself that when subcommittees are framed in terms of clause 10 of this Bill, there should be a universities’ education committee consisting of say five people from the universities of South Africa to ensure that the curriculum remains the same at all universities and that there is no change in the curriculum throughout the actual training of these social workers.

As I indicated last night, I shall not detain the House with regard to the details of the clauses themselves. We shall soon be discussing the Committee Stage and we shall make our points by means of amendments in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that as far as I can infer from the hon. member for Hillbrow, the Official Opposition is supporting this Bill. We are very grateful to the hon. member, very grateful in the sense that we are today experiencing a very unique occasion.

The introduction of this legislation of the department by the hon. the Deputy Minister is a very special occasion to me because this legislation is the culmination of years of progress with regard to social services in South Africa. When we trace the history, we find that, dating from the earliest years, there is indelible evidence of the contribution of the church in this regard. These services were rendered, without the necessary machinery, in a particular way to the needy in our midst. Over the years this practice came into being under the standard of the Church in South Africa, more specifically the Dutch Reformed Church, until the years 1904 to 1915 when several women’s bodies were established in the various provinces.

I am referring here to the Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging in the Cape, to the Suid-Afrikaanse Vrouefederasie in the Transvaal, to the Oranje-Vrouevereniging in the Free State and to the Natalse Christelike Vrouevereniging in Natal. Out of these women’s bodies there arose not only piety, but also a need to care for the poor. I am referring here to the years after the Second War of Independence and also during the Second War of Independence when as a result of the war disaster thousands of orphans had to be cared for. I am referring here to all the misery after those bitter years in our history. To these women’s bodies which I have just mentioned, I want to extend in this House today our greatest appreciation for the way in which they gave expression to the love of the woman for the needy in our midst.

Out of these women’s bodies there came into being a calibre of person which still today performs a special function in our society, viz. the social worker. It is from those women’s bodies that an awareness grew of the need, as a result of poverty and other misery, of our people. This resulted in the Carnegie Report which in turn led to the Volkskongres on the Poor White question. The congress took place in Kimberley in 1934. These are all the steps in history which remind us that in earlier times there was no such department as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. One can hardly imagine such a situation.

In 1937 a division of the Department of Labour was established as a result of the pressure exerted on the Government of the day, when social welfare and pensions formed part of the functions of the Department of Labour. At last in 1937 a fully-fledged Department of Social Welfare and Pensions was established.

In this regard I want to refer to the words which the late Dr. Verwoerd used with regard to social services in 1934—

It was in the wake of that wonderful statement that social services developed. For that reason we can today look back on a wonderful history of services rendered in this respect over the years. To me this legislation is wonderful in the sense that it gives substance to one of the best practices in our national economy, viz. social services.

That Christian woman whom I talked about earlier, brought forth a calibre of person inspired by a love for these services. It is that same calibre of person who is still performing social services today. Young people are being trained in this field at our various universities, and are receiving there the scientific training and skill to render the excellent social services in the various sectors of our society. This legislation acknowledges the wonderful work of those workers in our midst.

The time has come for this fine profession, this wonderful task of service to the community, to be recognized, more particularly in the senses that social workers should not only be registered, but should enjoy professional recognition as a result of the wonderful work that they are doing. The same applies to the education profession. Therefore I regard this legislation as an opportunity to extend and strengthen social services even more and to protect them from the onslaughts from outside.

I am particularly glad about the amendment to clause 15, an amendment moved by the hon. the Minister himself, which amounts to social workers, for example those involved in the care of paraplegics and in the service of orphanages, etc., being registered in terms of this legislation. We must bear in mind that many of these social workers have already served for many years. The services rendered by those experienced people, have become virtually indispensable to us. This legislation therefore makes it possible for those people to receive recognition by means of registration. We should like to wish our social services the very best. We also pray that the adoption of this legislation will not only lend colour to the profession, but will bring about a new inspiration for workers in the profession.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Somerset East dealt mainly with the historical background to the introduction of this legislation. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by him as well as with the gratitude expressed to those persons who have been connected with the development of social work as a profession. I think it is also appropriate at this stage to acknowledge the fact that this legislation is really the result of the work of the Committee of Inquiry into Separate Legislation for the Social Work Profession. I now refer to the commission which is generally known as the Auret Commission.

I should like to pay the highest compliment to the members of that commission. When one studies the report that was tabled here in the House, and when one takes note of the calibre of the people who served on that commission, it is possible to realize that this report is based on extensive practical and theoretical knowledge. All those involved in the work done by this commission deserve the gratitude of Parliament as an institution, and indeed the gratitude of the country as a whole, because they, as social workers, will have to bear the brunt of every task undertaken by the profession throughout the country and in respect of all the various race groups. We also realize, of course, that the Social Work Commission will become obsolete and that the National Welfare Act, 1965, will be repealed once this legislation has been adopted by this House. I just want to point out that the National Welfare Act was the First Act which provided for the registration of social workers. Through the provisions of that Act social workers in South Africa for the first time obtained professional recognition. It is also important to mention that the Social Work Commission has carried out a major task in obtaining professional recognition for social workers in South Africa.

Therefore it is also fitting to thank those members of the Social Work Commission who have carried the burden in these early initial stages, of ensuring that social workers obtain full professional status in every meaning of the word. That is why we on these benches welcome this legislation. We believe that it is an important step forward for the profession of social workers to see that they have an Act of their own on the Statute Book which will give them full professional status.

The Bill was introduced in the Other Place and I must say that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who handled the Bill in the Other Place, moved amendments and accepted changes to the Bill as it was originally introduced and then withdrawn in this House, which have improved the Bill considerably. Having read and studied the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech in the Other Place, we believe that the intention here in this Bill is one which deserves the fullest support of all sides of the House. I refer particularly to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that it is his intention to ensure that the council to be elected in terms of the legislation, a council of 12, will be representative of all the various race groups in South Africa. My colleague, the hon. member for Durban North, did place an amendment on the Order Paper, indicating that we on these benches would like to see that all the race groups are indeed represented on that council. However, with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s indication that that is his intention, my colleague will not be moving that amendment in the Committee Stage and will deal with the matter briefly when we reach the Committee Stage. It is important that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that that is his intention, because with the development of the other race groups, we know that there is a tremendous shortage of social workers. The brunt of the work is having to be carried by White social workers, and it is encouraging to know that the other race groups, through their representation on that council, can also play their role in ensuring that social workers come forward for training to assist their particular race groups with their problems. It is important to see that they do play a greater role as far as social work is concerned. This Bill will give them some encouragement in that they will now gain full professional status once they have satisfied the requirements that are to be set down by the council.

Whilst dealing with the position of the council, I would be interested to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why the council is to be restricted to 12 members. Originally in the report of the Auret Commission, it was recommended that up to 15 members should be appointed to that council. The hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to ensure that it is a fully representative council, because he will be entitled to appoint four members of that council. He could therefore give further consideration perhaps to accepting the report’s recommendation that there should be up to 15 members on the council. There might be a good reason for this number, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us some indication as to why he has decided that there should be 12 members of the council and not 15 members.

Other aspects concerning this Bill can readily be dealt with in Committee Stage when we deal with the Bill clause by clause, but the position, I believe, of the associated worker is one which requires further clarification at Second Reading. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that the council virtually would decide who would be associated workers in an associated profession. However, that council will consist of social workers and if one considers the various memoranda that have been submitted by different branches of social workers’ organizations, one gets the impression that they are more in favour of having this registration restricted to social workers. It would appear that the auxiliary personnel that could be incorporated as associated workers or as an associated profession, do not really receive a good deal of sympathy from some of the recognized social workers’ organizations. I hope that when this council is appointed they will view sympathetically the position of associated professions. Obviously a social worker in many instances cannot work in isolation.

Therefore it would, in fact, be to the advantage of social workers as a whole to ensure that those in associated professions can play their part as members of a team rendering social work to the community. Consequently the position of an associated worker or an associated profession does, I believe, require a little further clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister so as to give the House some indication of who he has in mind as persons eligible to be registered as associated workers.

This leads one to the position of the voluntary worker. We know that in some professions provision is made, in certain circumstances, for professional status based on experience. For example, in regard to professional engineers there is a specific provision whereby a person who has occupied a responsible position as an engineer for more than 25 years can be considered for registration as a professional engineer, if he is over 50 years of age, without having graduated from a university. This provision was introduced when the profession of professional engineers was instituted. I know that they are, in fact, subject to further examination. They have to submit theses and certain steps have to be taken before they are given recognition. However, on the basis of their experience and knowledge, they are granted recognition as professional engineers.

There are also many voluntary workers connected with various organizations, workers who, over the years, have gained tremendous experience in the field of social work. I know that by virtue of the definition of social work, and in terms of the position as far as social work being performed for gain is concerned, the voluntary worker is, to a certain extent, allowed to continue. There are persons, however, who have worked for many years as voluntary workers, persons who are in the employ of certain organizations. They may, however, not be able to meet the requirements laid down for registered social workers. There is consequently a degree of concern about the position of these people.

I refer, in particular, to a memorandum submitted by the S.A. Legion. I know that with all the memoranda submitted on the three Welfare Bills, the memoranda on the Social and Associated Workers Bill were limited mainly to detail and not principle. Consequently this measure is virtually an agreed measure. However, the S.A. Legion indicates, in its memorandum, a degree of concern. Their concern stems from the fact that certain persons could be working on the paid staff of an organization such as the S.A. Legion, which is a registered welfare organization. These people, however, may perhaps not be able to meet the requirements laid down for registered social workers. They believe that it is perhaps possible for these people to be accommodated as associated workers in terms of the definition of an associated profession. However, there is some vagueness surrounding the definition of an associated profession and what is really meant by associated workers. An association such as this therefore does express some anxiety about the fact that its members might be prevented from continuing their work, which is social work amongst dependants of ex-servicemen and amongst ex-servicemen themselves. They are, in fact, recognized by the Government, in many instances, as being the greatest authorities on war disability pensions and other aspects appertaining to military pensions. These organizations do have a certain degree of anxiety about the future of their staff in terms of this legislation.

I may just mention the fact that there are other organizations that also made representations, other organizations which do not actually employ social workers as such. They do, however, have members on their staff who are performing the duties of a social worker, and in terms of this legislation it would appear that it would not be possible for them to do so as designated social workers. I therefore do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to the debate, will give us some clarity as far as associated workers are concerned.

There are other aspects relating to this legislation which are more detailed, and on the various clauses we hope to obtain further clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

There is also the question of the regulations. This is another vitally important factor when considering this legislation.

Obviously, there are many people with good ideas and good intentions in respect of what should be written into the Bill in addition to what is already there. Consequently, there are many matters that have to be dealt with by the council and by regulation. Therefore it is important to indicate at this stage that the regulations that are to be read with this legislation will be sufficiently wide to cover the various contingencies that might arise as a result of the passing of this legislation.

The position of other organizations and the basis on which they employ social workers and the position of social workers in private practice are other aspects about which some people have expressed a little concern. Since we are, however, dealing with the Second Reading stage of the Bill, I merely want to say that the principle of the Bill is a good one. Another step forward, another milestone in the provision of social welfare services in South Africa is being ensured by providing full professional status for social workers and persons associated with social work. Therefore, it gives us in these benches great pleasure to support the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, for many years now the hon. member for Umbilo has distinguished himself in this House as an expert in the sphere of social work and social welfare and I think that his positive contribution this afternoon thoroughly endorsed this fact and was no exception to the rule.

The hon. member for Somerset East said that social problems had occurred in society from the earliest times and that those problems had had to be handled by such bodies as the church and by persons who did this work out of a feeling of compassion and philanthropy. It was only during the ’twenties that a positive start was made with the training of social workers in South Africa and it was only during the ’fifties that full professional status was granted to social workers in South Africa when the social workers in the service of the State were granted expert status. If one compares the relevant provisions of the existing National Welfare Act of 1965 with the statutory regulation of other professions in South Africa, for example medical practitioners and dentists as these are regulated by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, one realizes that there are quite a number of deficiencies in the existing legislation as far as social workers are concerned. For that reason the Auret Committee, which instituted an in-depth study of the social work professions in South Africa, justifiably recommended that there ought to be separate legislation in the country to bring this profession more into line with other full-fledged, independent professions in South Africa. This recommendation was accepted and with these Bills it is being implemented.

The fact that, as is described in chapter 1 of the Bill, eight of the 12 members of the statutory professional council are elected and only four are appointed by the Minister, to a great extent lends autonomy to the profession. This is something which every other full-fledged profession in South Africa aspires to. I want to quote only one of the objectives of the council which is being established. It is—

If we look at this object and also at the other objects, it is clear that the public is to a great extent being protected and that when someone is dealing with a person who lays claim to the title of social worker and is registered as such, he is dealing with a person who has been thoroughly trained and who complies with specific standards as laid down by the council. On the other hand the prestige, the status and the dignity of the profession is placed in the same category as other professions in the country.

The fact that the council is going to have the power to cause research or studies to be carried out into any matter related to the profession of social work can only lead to the enhancement of the standard of the social services rendered in South Africa. If one considers what the S.A. Medical and Dental Council means to the medical profession in South Africa in respect of the standard of training, the high ethical code which is being maintained and the prestige and status which this inevitably entails for the profession, it ought to be possible to achieve the same for the social work profession.

If we examine the social work profession itself, particularly as far as the White sector of our population is concerned, it is clear that this profession relies heavily on the women of South Africa. During March 1976 there were 3 728 registered social workers, of whom only 286 were men, consequently only 7,67% of the total number of registered social workers were men. This in itself implies certain disadvantages for the profession, i.e. a serious lack of the necessary continuity in the profession. It is an unfortunate fact that married women change employers more often than unmarried women and far more often than men. There are obvious reasons for this. Firstly there are family reasons in that women cannot work for long periods as a result of the birth of their children and the need to care for them. Furthermore the transfer of their husbands compels many of them to resign, etc. For that reason the Auret Committee made very specific recommendations in this connection.

However, it is not only the continuity in the profession which is affected by the shortage of male social workers. There is also the essential service to groups in society which suffers, groups such as alcoholics, drug addicts, ex-prisoners and juvenile offenders. In the case of these groups the help of a male social worker is almost indispensable.

There are probably many other reasons for this as well. There are, for example, the salary structures which are not competitive enough, unsatisfactory conditions of service such as inadequate pension benefits and a lack of promotional opportunities which make this profession unattractive to the breadwinner.

Furthermore there is the fact that social work is traditionally considered to be a woman’s profession which is associated with charity work. These are all matters which can be dealt with to very good effect by the council which is to be established, so that a climate can be created which will make the social work profession more acceptable and more attractive to male social workers, to the benefit of the profession itself.

Another matter which deserves attention in this connection is the fact that there is a major backlog among our other population groups as far as social workers are concerned. Of the total number of 3 728 registered social workers, only 1,8% consisted of Indians, 5,74% of Coloureds and 5,55% of Black people. Particularly if we look at the population figures of our Black people, this is definitely something which deserves the attention of our Black universities in South Africa. We know that as the community becomes affluent, some social problems tend to increase accordingly. We can examine, for example, the different philosophies of life of the respective population groups. In this way we can consider the views of the Black population group on marriage, family life, their entire social and authority structure and their customs and traditions which differ radically from those of the Whites. In this connection I want to quote what a professor of Sociology and Criminology at the University of the North, Prof. Dr. D. Grové, said in his inaugural address. He said, inter alia, the following—

That is why the social worker of the specific national group of which he is a member is best able to deal with the social problems of that population group.

In the Press and elsewhere misgivings were expressed to the effect that this legislation would contribute to driving a wedge between the professional worker and the voluntary social worker. This is not the intention of the legislation. In fact, in clause 15—particularly in view of the way the provision has been amended in the Other Place—provision is being made for these people who have done extremely valuable work for the country enabling them to be registered in this connection. One cannot but have great appreciation for such an unselfish labour of love. This is in fact being recognized in this legislation. On the other hand the happy and joyful child probably gives great satisfaction to the social worker involved in child care. That is why this profession lends itself so well to the mother who is best able to understand the profoundest happiness, the profoundest fears and the profoundest unhappiness of a child. She is best able to work with and care for this little creature.

Finally, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate this professional council which is now going to be established. With the birth of the profession which is now to become a full-fledged profession in its own right, which is now taking its place alongside other professions in the knowledge that this is the first recognition of this kind in the whole of the Western World, I would like to wish them everything of the best and the strength to fulfil this particularly difficult and great task which will rest on their shoulders in future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Somerset East and the hon. member for Pietersburg for the striking tribute they paid to the social work profession and to the workers engaged in this profession. I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with their words of appreciation. The same applies of course to the two speakers on the Opposition side. I should also like to thank them for their positive contributions during the private conversations which we had in this connection. I also want to convey my appreciation to the third Opposition Party.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned that he would be raising certain points again during the Committee Stage. He did mention, however, a few aspects which I think I can deal with at this stage with the hope that the arguments will not be repeated during the Committee Stage.

It depends on your answers.

Hon. members are at all times welcome to air their grievances again if they are not satisfied with my explanations.

In the first place the hon. member mentioned that today social work is undertaken by a team. This was also pointed out by the three other members who participated in the debate. There is a lot of truth in that statement, but when we deal with a definition of social work—it is in that connection that the hon. member mentioned it—I think we are faced with a difficulty that I again want to refer to at this stage. We cannot define social work by describing it as a system. I hope the hon. learned ex-judge—incidentally a friend of mine—will bear me out if I say that we cannot put a system in the box to cross-question it when an offence is thought to have been committed. If we want to punish certain acts according to the provision of this clause, we cannot possibly described social work as a system; we have to describe it as an act. If we start describing it as an act I think a lot of our difficulties will be solved. If we describe it as a system we are faced with the difficulty which was borne out by what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. He said that the social worker is not a worker who works alone and that he is part of a team. He then went on to mention the members of this team, i.e. the physician, the social worker, the psychiatrist, the psychologist, the Minister of religion and usually an educationalist as well. This is very true, but it is a fact that over the years a separate profession has developed in this country, and we are giving further status to this profession in this piece of legislation. We cannot possibly have all the different items in the system described as social work per se. That was the difficulty with which we were faced when we had to describe “social work”.

In the second place the hon. member mentioned the fact that various organizations had made representations to himself, to the hon. the Minister and, in fact, to all the parties, because they saw this Bill as a piece of legislation which had to be seen with the other legislation which was adopted recently. These organizations had one main objection—this was also mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo. This objection was that they were unhappy about exactly what was going to happen to the voluntary welfare worker. In this regard the hon. member for Hillbrow said that he was also worried about exactly what the definition of “associated worker” meant. Let me be quite honest about it The Bill which is now before the House is not the final word. In connection with regulations the hon. member for Umbilo said: “It is a further milestone.” That is exactly what it is. This legislation is not the final word that will be spoken about the profession of social workers.

In the same way two previous Acts, also mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo, were not the final word when they were enacted. I am referring, of course, to the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act. The hon. member will remember that at the time we had great difficulty to provide in some way for those people who had for years been engaged in architectural and engineering work, but did not have the qualifications which later became a necessity for such a person’s registration. The council to which we at the time gave the power to give exemptions recommended that the position of those people who had been working in such capacities would be considered by the council on merit. As far as I know this was done over the years. However, even in the Professional Engineers Act the final word was not spoken in 1972 when it came before the House. Hon. members will recall that during this session there was once again an amendment to the Professional Engineers Act. I was not here when it was discussed and therefore do not know the details, but it shows that these Acts can always be amended. We do not have the final word, and people and next generations will decide for themselves what will be better in their circumstances. We are not going to deny them the right to make their own decisions.

What is more, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, we intend giving wide scope to this council which is to be constituted, to draw up the regulations. Furthermore, we have already indicated that these regulations will be published well in advance so that all interested parties, also those who had difficulty with this particular definition, will once again have the right to come forward with suggestions, and if they have complaints, to come forward with their criticism.

In the third place the hon. member asked whether a voluntary worker, for instance somebody who works for a church, will be able to continue to do the voluntary work and social work he is doing at present. This question was also put to me by the hon. member for Umbilo. I heartily endorse the kind remarks made about him by the hon. member for Pietersburg. I want to say unequivocally that if anything is done by this council to hamper the voluntary work undertaken by welfare organizations, it will certainly not be tolerated. Any unfair action to make it difficult for these people to carry on with their work, will certainly not be tolerated by the Government. That was said on previous occasions too.

In the fourth place the hon. member for Hillbrow asked about the question of the registration of a social worker. I want to repeat that this is going to be left in the hands of the council. However, the council will at least have something on which to go. Registration of social workers has been going on for the past number of years. That fact is realized, so they have a basis on which they can continue.

In this regard the hon. member asked whether qualifications obtained overseas will be recognized. The reply is a plain and simple “yes”, but under certain circumstances, even though comparisons are odious, I do think I must point out that one cannot just give a carte blanche to people to become registered. For instance, in the medical profession people who have practised overseas, even as specialists I am told, could not obtain registration in this country until they had undergone a further two years training in South Africa. That is an accepted fact. Therefore this council will also have the right to decide about what qualifications will be recognized. At the moment we are registering people who have qualified overseas—some of them may in the past have been doing excellent work also in our country.

His further question concerned the South African citizenship of people serving on the council. I hope that the Opposition parties accept it as the final word that we cannot possibly have someone who is not a South African citizen serving on a council serving South Africa’s interests. However, if the hon. member says that thereby we will stop the Black people living in the Black townships in South Africa from serving on this council, I want to say it is completely incorrect. In the course of the debate yesterday it was said—I do not exactly know who said it; but the same applies here—that a South African who is not a citizen of an independent country, is a citizen of South Africa It was stated yesterday and I merely repeat it. So they will be able to serve, provided they live in South Africa. That is to say, seen in the context of recent developments, if they are not Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Swaziland or Botswana citizens, they will be eligible to serve on this council.

The hon. member for Hillbrow’s seventh question, which was also raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, concerned the private practitioner. Of course, in private practice there will be certain rules which will be applied. Once again this will be left to the discretion of the council who will, by regulation, be able to govern this type of practice.

I think I have dealt with the points which were raised by the hon. member last night. He only mentioned two more points today, and the first one dealt with the Registrar. He asked me whether it could not be written into the law that this person has to be a social worker. I do not for one moment want to be associated with tramping on somebody who has already been punished a great deal. We held a long debate today about a gentleman for whom I personally have the greatest respect who served as Secretary of a department, but who did lack certain qualifications according to what was said here this afternoon. If the work of a Registrar should for instance also include administrative responsibilities, he would have to be an auditor to be responsible for all the bookkeeping. There are certain other qualifications which would be much more important than being qualified as a social worker. I hope I can leave the matter there. This argument was borne out by today’s debate.

In the last instance the hon. member wanted to know about the universities. I have already explained this in the Other Place and quite frankly I think there was a bit of contradictio in terminis in the case of the hon. member himself. I do not want to go into detail, but he said in his speech last evening that there was a certain four-year course at Durban-Westville and a three-year course at other universities. We do not want this whole profession to become a standardized thing where certain subjects are prescribed and only those subjects. We want competition between the different universities. One may offer a three-year course and the other a four-year course. We want the autonomy of the different universities to be recognized at all times. This council will be able to negotiate with the different universities as to the curriculum, and that was what was mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo. The curriculum is a matter which can be discussed between the council, which is the professional body, and the different universities. There can be bilateral agreements between the different training institutions and the universities and the council which is to be constituted.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me about the number of members on the council and why there cannot be 15. There is a simple answer to that. On the request of the council the number can immediately be increased to 15, 20 or more members if the need arises. However, to start off with, we are faced with the problem of finances. Also, in terms of the clause which deals with the appointment of the Registrar, we must bear in mind that we may possibly have to second someone from the department to act as Registrar, because initially very few funds will be available, until such time as we have made provision for that. That is the only reason. It was with the full concurrence of the chairman of the committee and the members of the committee that we decided that 12 members would initially be enough.

The hon. member also raised valid points about associated workers. In the first place, I think we are going to create a further status for a profession which deserves it. From what I know of these people, not only the members of the committee who investigated the whole issue and to whom tribute was paid, but also the members in the department and serving elsewhere are responsible people. I want to state quite clearly that I believe it would be an act of the greatest irresponsibility, an act which I do not for one moment dream they would descend to, if they so jealously guard their own interests that they do not allow people who have the qualifications to be registered. By the same token I think we must at all times be wary that the quality will improve as the years go by. Therefore we cannot possibly allow just everybody who is doing a bit of social work in some field or other to be registered. This is a profession which places high demands not only on the integrity and on the honesty of people, but also on other aspects of their character. It therefore requires training, especially when one deals with the problems with which modern-day society has to cope day by day.

The last point mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo was about the regulations. I think I have already replied to that. I believe I have sufficiently replied to all aspects in respect of which amendments were moved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

1. (xiv) “social work” means a system of service in accordance with professional acts preceded by professional preparation and directed at individuals, families, other groups and communities for the purpose of achieving and maintaining effective social functioning and preventing or remedying social problematic functioning or malfunctioning by giving attention particularly to the social environment and the relationships found in that environment;

This amendment refers to the definition of a social worker. What we are proposing here is completely in line with what was put forward by the Auret Commission. The hon. member for Umbilo rightly praised the commission for the work it has done. We associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by him.

The hon. the Minister, I think, referred to the 400 memorandums and the 278 witnesses. Obviously these people went to great lengths and linked up with the definition the precise wording which we in fact agreed to submit. They also failed to understand why the Government had decided to change it. The hon. the Deputy Minister today says that this legislation is not the final word. With great respect, I am absolutely flabbergasted by the fact that, in this House, legislation could be proposed without that legislation being the final word on the issue in question. While we have spent so much time in this House altering and amending legislation, to now introduce legislation which will not be the final word, is in the first instance an admission that the particular legislation is not sufficient to meet the needs and the demands which it sets for itself.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also raised a legal argument. He said that if someone who posed as a social worker was prosecuted in court, the public prosecutor would then have to look at the definition of “social worker” in order to decide whether the accused had in fact committed an offence in terms of this legislation. According to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of the definition an offence can only be committed by someone taking definite action. This is a matter, of course, which one can argue. However, what the definition of the Auret Commission could mean to a court of law is, I believe, that the question should be answered of whether a definite act has taken place which was preceded by definite preparation; in other words, whether a premeditated act has taken place. That could be a key to the definition. I could be wrong, but, with great respect, I do not see any legal difficulty in establishing a definite act in terms of our definition. The hon. member for Umbilo’s definition is virtually identical to our own. It only differs slightly towards the end. I do not know whether his wording improves it in any way, but he also makes mention of definite acts preceded by definite preparation. I believe that is the key. In fact, it is actually six of one and half a dozen of the other. Therefore, I am open for conviction if the hon. member could prove to me that his definition is a better one than our own.

Finally, I should like to refer again to the Auret Commission’s definition of an associated profession. In this respect, I believe, the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly stated that it should be left to the profession itself to decide. However, in deciding on that, they should be very careful so as not to confuse this profession with any other profession which may already be registered; a profession like the nursing profession, for example.

I think we must be very careful as to who it will be. Lastly, when we come to the question of the associated worker, we welcome the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that people who have been doing social work as voluntary workers at this stage will not be precluded from doing so in the future.

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

1. (xiv) “social work” means a system of service in accordance with professional acts preceded by professional preparation and directed at individuals, families, other groups and communities for the purpose of achieving and maintaining efficient social functioning by giving attention to individuals, groups and the social environment and the relationship within these entities;

The hon. member for Hillbrow has moved his amendment, which, as he quite rightly stated, is in accordance with the definition of “social work” as contained in the report of the Auret Commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, indicated that there were certain difficulties in providing for the wording: “Social work means a system.” The hon. member for Hillbrow has also indicated the legal aspects. It will be interesting to hear further argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I assume that his argument, as well as that of the hon. the Minister, is based on advice received from the legal advisers attached to the department.

The definition of “social work” is the whole basis on which this profession is founded. Quite obviously, if any definition requires careful scrutiny, it is the definition of “social work”. This is the whole essence of the profession. The report of the Auret Commission indicates wording which, I believe, certain social workers involved in the profession find difficulty in interpreting. It refers to the correction of certain aspects, and this could be described as a negative aspect of their functioning, as it refers to the treatment of “malfunctioning”. The words used are “preventing or remedying social malfunctioning”. The definition of “social work” which I have proposed here tries to convey a more positive meaning. Rather than trying to establish what is a malfunctioning, or problematic functioning, it deals with a positive aspect. I quote from my amendment as follows—

The basis is that the preventive work involved in social work is of paramount importance. A social worker, in the course of his or her duty, endeavours to achieve and maintain an efficient social functioning as far as the community is concerned. It is a debatable point whether the interpretation is that one deals with the remedying of a malfunction or whether one endeavours to achieve and maintain an efficient social functioning. It is a matter of wording. Personally, I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, which is in line with the recommendations contained in the Auret report, is a very wide one. I believe that this definition is acceptable by a large number of social workers and organizations representing social workers. The particular practical difficulty in interpreting the aspects dealing with social and problematic malfunctioning is a question which, in its practical application, does cause some difficulty with social workers as regards their interpretation of that definition. For these reasons I have moved my amendment in an effort to try to place the emphasis on the positive side of social work, and not so much on the remedying of a malfunctioning as far as social work is concerned.

I wish to indicate that if the amendment I have moved is not acceptable to the Committee, we on these benches will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, because basically they are the same, the only difference being the emphasis, as I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, I have partly tried to explain why we adopted this definition. I also just want to state that I also had certain objections to this definition, not objections which I thought of myself, but objections brought to my notice in certain memoranda. We then considered how we could possibly improve it. In the first place, there is an idea which is to an increasing extent taking root in social work these days, and which is beginning to receive attention in philosophical schools of thought in particular.

†This idea is that all welfare work or social work should be community directed rather than directed towards individual cases. The point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo is, of course, a very valid one. We should, rather, try to stress the positive side of the work being done and refrain from laying too much emphasis on the negative aspects which do occur in social welfare work.

However, when one starts looking for a definition for this work, with all due respect to the two hon. gentlemen, every definition could have some criticism levelled at it, and with valid reasons too. I am not going into the details, however, because I think we would do much better to leave this to the legal people to battle out. I can only give the assurance that after receiving the Auret Committee’s recommendations, this matter was fully discussed with the legal advisers and other people interested in the field of welfare work. All the different suggestions in the memorandums were considered by members of my staff. The matter was then again discussed with Dr. Auret, as chairman of the committee of inquiry, and the pros and cons were weighed up one against the other. I should like hon. members to accept my assurance now that after having given their own definition, Dr. Auret and his committee agreed, after lengthy discussions, that the definition, as it is now framed in this legislation, is an improvement on what they had. That is the assurance that was given to me, and I am merely conveying the fact to the House. But even about this definition the last words have not yet been spoken.

*Let me put a question to the two hon. gentlemen. The Afrikaans title of this Bill reads “Wetsontwerp op Maatskaplike en Geassosieerde Werkers”. I might just say that because “geassosieerde” sounded like an anglicism to me, I, as an Afrikaansspeaking person, had objections to the term—until it was pointed out to me why this was the most acceptable term in the circumstances. The English equivalent of the title is “Social and Associated Workers Bill”. However, social work is known as “social welfare”. In both cases there are therefore the compound terms which can give rise to differences as to what the definition should be.

†We are doing social welfare work. In other instances people talk about “welfare work” without mention of the word “social”. The person doing the work, however, is a social worker, not at all times a social welfare worker. So we can become too enmeshed in all these arguments as to lead to no improvement in the work that is being done by these people, and that is what we are concerned with. What we are concerned with is the service they are rendering and what they deserve from us to protect them in their profession. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived and amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

1. (k) to accredit training institutions entrusted with the tuition and training of social and associated workers.

I am able to anticipate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to this because he was kind enough to discuss the amendment with me. I think this will save a lot of time. I still feel, however, that I must proceed with this amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister feels that the matter dealt with in my amendment should be left to the council itself and to the organization that will be established in terms of the Bill. However, I have a difficulty with that argument. We are dealing here with the objects of the council. In the Bill ten objects are prescribed and I think that one more object will not hurt the council. If we are prepared to prescribe ten objects, I do not think one more will do any harm.

What is more, the one contained in my amendment is a very important one. The object contained in paragraph (6) already concerns the standards of tuition and training. In view of that, I think the council should also concern itself with the institutions that are responsible for the training. Therefore, we must make provision for them. I think the amendment is therefore essential to the Bill.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

1. (1) The council shall consist of twenty-one members, eight of whom shall be elected in the prescribed manner, three of whom shall be appointed by the Minister, four of whom shall be nominated by the Administrators of the four provinces, three of whom shall be elected by the Regional Welfare Boards as defined in the National Welfare Act, 1978, and three of whom shall be elected by the Joint Universities Committee on Social Work: Provided that the members elected in the prescribed manner shall include at least one each from the Black, Coloured and Indian population groups.

We listened carefully to the hon. the Minister’s argument, but we feel that 12 members are too few. Representations have been made in this connection. Universities spoke about 15 to 18 members. We feel that the council should be composed of 21 members in order to give every one concerned an opportunity. The hon. the Deputy Minister said he was prepared to include provincial administrations. I believe that, once he accepts that, he is bound to give representation to all four provincial administrations. I do not think that one can choose one member to represent all four provinces. As regards the universities, we have already established that they should have representation. The same applies to the other groups concerned. The composition we propose speaks for itself and I shall therefore take the matter no further.

Mr. Chairman, we have taken note of what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say in the Other Place as well as of the introductory remarks he made this afternoon. From the spirit in which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke, it is obvious that he would have had no difficulty in accepting our amendment.

If our amendment does make it more difficult for the hon. the Deputy Minister, depending on the acceptance of the spirit in which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke in the Other Place, I am prepared to withhold my amendment if the hon. the Minister is prepared to confirm here today that the facts related in the Other Place apply equally here. We should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are grateful that he has specified that, if the members of the other race groups are not provided for in the normal way, he will utilize his power to appoint an additional four members to ensure that those race groups are represented.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. As far as the amendment by the hon. member for Durban North is concerned, I want to say that as he has rightly remarked, I have already indicated in the Other Place and also in my Second Reading speech what the idea in this connection is. The hon. member should also take into account that, as the constitution of the council is provided for at present, it is possible that some of the elected members may also be members of the other population groups. Why should we always have to entrench the position on the grounds of colour? I think we should rather do away with that. If the hon. member has read the report of the Auret Committee on this aspect he will know that they placed the utmost emphasis on the fact that the representation should be on that basis. There must be no uncertainty about this: I believe that, as the hon. member for Pietersburg has also said, the members of every population group are perhaps best able to do work among their own people, precisely because they know their own people best. For that reason, an Afrikaans clergyman preaches to his people in the Afrikaans language, and an English clergyman in his language. That principle is as old as the hills. There are peculiar problems, but on the other hand we live side by side in South Africa and sometime on an intermingled basis. We work on an intermingled basis, and this also applies to our social problems. What affects one population group, will also affect another. I want to repeat what Dr. Verwoerd said, because he said that happiness, work and food are worth more than all the weapons we have, provided we can give them to people in such a manner that everyone can be proud of himself. The work of building bridges between population groups and people can also be done by this department, and it can also be done without making people lose their identity. The provision of work, happiness and food for other population groups will be done by this council, and that is why the council is constituted in this way.

†As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned may I, as an ex-member of the United Municipal Executive ask him why he does not include that body and the various organizations with all sorts of interests, for instance the municipalities?

Because they are not allowed to do social work.

No, municipalities have, on behalf of the department, undertaken a vast amount of social welfare work. In terms of the recent subsidy scheme that has been announced, municipalities are entitled to apply for loans for the provision of housing for the aged, for instance, and also crèches and things like that. However, I do not want to argue that point, but I do want to say that any body can make out a case why it should have representation on this council. We cannot make the council too cumbersome especially in the beginning when we have to watch the financial aspect. If the council wishes to co-opt members or wishes to come forward with suggestions to increase the number of members as the need arises, it can be done. There is nothing to stop this being done at a later stage. However, for the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments (1) and (3), now amendment (2), printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 12, to omit “worker” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 7, in lines 14 to 16, to omit paragraph (c) and to substitute:
   1. (c) he is not domiciled in the Republic;

In view of my discussion with the hon. the Deputy Minister I have not moved amendments (2) and (4) printed in my name on the Order Paper but only amendments (1) and (3). The reason for moving amendment (1) is that we are now going to have a qualification for members of the council. In terms of clause 6(1 )(a) no person can be elected if he is not a social worker. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the title a moment ago. In clause 2 we have just established a council for social and associated workers. Why, therefore, exclude associated workers? Why include only the social workers? We have established the council for all of them.

Once one prescribes to them and makes them register and lays down qualifications for their membership, I believe they should be represented. The purpose of the first amendment is therefore to give them representation.

The purpose of amendment (3) on the Order Paper, now amendment (2), is to omit clause 6(1 )(c) and to substitute the words “he is not domiciled in the Republic”. This goes to the very roots of our discussion. I have respect for what the hon. Deputy Minister said a few moments ago when we spoke about the African people who will no longer be South African citizens. I do not want to get involved in and refer to the arguments that took place in the House yesterday. However, he says that they will be recognized while they are here, but the moment their homeland becomes independent, they are disqualified. Therefore, I think the word “domicile” should cover it. It is not only applicable to Africans; it is applicable to everyone. Therefore, people may be residing in South Africa while domiciled elsewhere in the legal sense. Domiciled in the legal sense means that one has the intention to remain permanently in the country. That is what the word domicile means in law and therefore I believe we should use that word. The amendment has been moved accordingly.

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

The effect of this amendment will be that when a member of the council wants to resign, he will submit his letter of resignation to the president of the council instead of to the Registrar. We believe this is the proper way of doing it, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give due consideration to accepting it.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the original copy of my amendments did not include amendment (5). I now move amendment (5) which appears in my name on the Order Paper, now amendment (3) as follows—

1. (3) On page 7, in lines 48 to 58, to omit subsection (4).

The amendment seeks to omit subsection (4) because it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. I have already, in our private discussions, indicated to the hon. member for Hillbrow why I cannot accept his amendments. I briefly want to repeat my reasons for not doing so for the purpose of the record. The provision reads: “… if he is not a social worker or …” and then the hon. member wants to insert certain other words to include an associated worker. There is no associated work profession as yet proclaimed. How can I therefore include something which is not yet there?

But there will be.

Yes. There will be and then they can insert it if they decide to do so. At the moment I cannot include it in the provision in the light of the fact that no such profession exists.

The hon. member is also concerned about the question of domicile. I have explained the situation on previous occasions and I now merely want to repeat that if a person in this country decides that he wants to become a Transkeian citizen and that he wishes to take out Transkeian citizenship and if he becomes domiciled or resident there, whatever the legal word might be, then he cannot be a member of the council. In the light of a discussion that will follow as a result of an amendment that the hon. member for Umbilo is going to move to a later clause, I would like to say that although a person’s residency will have an influence on his membership of the council, it does not automatically mean that he cannot be registered as a social worker. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept that amendment.

The hon. member’s amendment (3) deals with subsection (4) which provides that the Minister can, when something technically goes wrong with an election, condone what has gone wrong, so that the election can therefore be regarded as being valid. This happens every so often in the case of the election of bodies such as these and I cannot possibly accept something that will make it, as a result of a mere technicality, impossible for a council to function if it has to function.

Amendments moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, in view of my discussions with the hon. the Deputy Minister, I shall not be moving the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

We on this side of the House feel very strongly about this aspect. Clause 9 provides that the council can give the executive committee the power to carry out certain acts. As the Bill reads at the moment the executive committee may during periods between meetings—there are only going to be two meetings per year—exercise all the powers of the council. We feel this is dangerous because if they are going to perform all the powers of the council there need not be a council at all. The purpose of the amendment which I have moved is to provide that the executive committee may perform only those functions which should be exercised which are specifically passed on to them. If the council in its wisdom decides to pass on all its functions to the executive committee I will accept it, but I feel we should not provide in the legislation that they must exercise all the council’s powers.

Mr. Chairman, I have argued this case with the hon. member for Hillbrow previously in connection with the United Municipal Executive Association in the Transvaal. If this executive committee had been the same as that committee, I could not have agreed with him more. We also saw it in the case of the management committee of municipal councils. I would have supported the hon. member’s amendment, but it was pointed out to me that I should rather stick to the pulpit and keep away from legal matters. Clause 9(2)(a) states—

The hon. gentleman with legal knowledge sitting next to the hon. member for Hillbrow will explain the meaning of this to him. It is exactly what the hon. member’s amendment means. The executive committee is subject to the directions of the council. In other words, they cannot act out of their own free will. So, the hon. member’s amendment is already, so to say, in the Bill.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the quorum for and procedure at meetings of committees shall be determined by the committee and not be prescribed by regulation.

Mr. Chairman, these committees function under the direction of the council itself and because the council also has the power to decide on the powers of these committees, it is clear that there will be a standard procedure which will be prescribed by regulation. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 61, after “registrar” to insert:

1. (2) on page 11, in line 8, after “request” to insert “and with the approval”.

We have already argued that the Registrar should be a social worker and there is no need for me to repeat the argument. The object of my first amendment is merely to write into the legislation that he should be a social worker.

The object of my second amendment is to ensure that the Secretary has the approval of the council for this step.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react to the hon. member’s second amendment. I have already discussed the aspect with which the hon. member’s first amendment deals during the Second Reading debate and I do not want to repeat it.

With regard to the hon. member’s second amendment, I want to point out that a request has been received from the social workers themselves to the effect that, as they do not initially have the necessary funds for such a council or to appoint someone to the council, someone from the department should be appointed.

†With all the respect in the world, the registration work has up to now been done by a junior official of the department on the behalf of the committee and we cannot possibly have the council dictating to us which official of our department they want for the job. If they want to appoint their own Registrar it is all very well, but if it has to be somebody from the department it is up to the Secretary to decide whom he can give to them for the job.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the amendments the hon. the Deputy Minister will move later on, I shall not move my first and second amendments, but only my third amendment. I accordingly move amendment (3) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (e) to a minister of religion.

Mr. Chairman, most of the other amendments have already been accepted in the Other Place. I thank hon. members for the sound suggestions they have made.

I now want to refer to the hon. member’s request that a minister be given special exemption. I am glad the hon. member for Pinelands is not present. I cannot speak about his denomination. However, it is, difficult to find a definition of a clergyman. In the then Department of Bantu Administration and Development I dealt with churches and found that a clergyman, who works with many people, sometimes is really the person least qualified for this. If he can do nothing else, he goes around with a collection book and says that he is a minister. How does one find a definition for such a person? It is totally impossible and I do not even want to consider accepting the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the registration of a social worker and consequently it is of great importance, particularly to those persons who already are registered as social workers in terms of existing legislation. Specific provision is made in subsection (4) of this clause for—

First of all a great deal depends on the date this proposed legislation will come into effect. I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment proposes to give greater flexibility to this particular subsection so as not to put any restriction on a person who in all probability would be entitled to continue with his work as a registered social worker, but who does not meet the requirements of being resident in the Republic at the time of the commencement of this proposed legislation.

The National Welfare Act of 1965 is to be repealed in so far as it affects the registration of social workers. Obviously the intention of this subsection is to allow those persons to be continued to be recognized as social workers and to be able to be registered as such under this legislation.

With regard to the definition of a person who is resident and a person who is domiciled, this is, of course, a legal argument and I am not endeavouring to change the word “resident” to the word “domicile”; I am merely wishing to add “or domicile”. In other words, I am endeavouring to meet a situation which could arise. It would be very difficult to have retrospective legislation coming into effect at another stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister did say that this legislation was a milestone in regard to the registration of social workers and that it might be necessary to come with amending legislation later, but we know that retrospective legislation is not easy to introduce and it is certainly not easy to enforce in certain instances. The reason for my amendment is that a situation could arise where a person is temporarily resident outside the Republic of South Africa at the time of the commencement of the Act, but at the same time be domiciled in the Republic. With regard to the question of being resident or being domiciled one has, of course, to refer to various legal definitions. I consulted Bell’s Legal Dictionary and Stroudd’s Judicial Dictionary to try to ascertain the difference between a person who is resident and a person who is domiciled. According to the one dictionary the word “domicile” means, generally speaking, “the place where he has his permanent home”. Taking into account Government policy of granting independence to other areas, the situation could arise where there could be a Black social worker who is domiciled in the Republic, but is resident in such an area as Transkei or Bophuthatswana where she is undertaking social work. We know there is a tremendous shortage of social workers in those areas. Those areas are no longer part of the Republic; they are independent areas. I believe it would be an injustice if such a person could not be registered as a social worker in terms of this particular provision, although she could be registered in terms of the 1965 Act. That person could possibly not be resident in the Republic at the time of the commencement of this Act, but could be domiciled in the Republic in that their permanent home is within the area of the Republic.

In terms of the definition of “residing” a person could be residing, but not necessarily domiciled in that area. Consequently, I have endeavoured, by means of this amendment, to extend the definition slightly so as to meet an eventuality which could arise where a person is not resident in the Republic at the commencement of the Act, but is domiciled and it is recognized that their permanent home is in the Republic at the time of the commencement of the Act.

I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give due consideration to this particular argument. It is not relative to the discussion we had on clause 6 and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow in that it dealt specifically with the question of a person having qualifications in order to be a member of the council. That also dealt with a question of a person being resident in the Republic. I do realize, too, that the situation could arise where such a person could be prevented from serving on the council because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow was rejected by the Committee. This clause, however, does deal with registration of a social worker and, indeed, it could affect the whole livelihood of that person, because a person who is a social worker and is registered as such is undertaking social work for gain in terms of this legislation. Therefore the livelihood of that particular person could be affected as he could be prevented from registering as a social worker in terms of subsection (4) as a result of a technicality in that “residence” does not also include the person who is domiciled in the Republic at the time of the commencement of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, there is a possibility that the hon. member may be right in certain respects. I should like to draw his attention to clause 20, which in any case provides for any possible injustice where a person may possibly be prejudiced as a result of incorrect interpretation. Then there are corrections which can be made. I do not want to debate the word “domicilium” with him. However, I want to read him a definition from a legal dictionary, as follows—

I want to extend it. I do not want to remove the word “resident”. I want to add the words “or domiciled”. This is meant to widen it.

Widening it so that it can include anyone who is temporarily in another country?

It will only apply to a person who is permanently resident in the Republic.

Someone whose permanent home is in the Republic, but who happens to be in the Transkei when this legislation becomes operative? There is no reason why any such person cannot apply for registration immediately upon his return. That is possible at all times.

Why is the one then treated differently?

Because I have no way of knowing what his real motives are. He may be wanting something which I cannot possibly establish. I do not know exactly what his motivations might be. His presence here may even be illegal in terms of other legislation. Someone could, for example, be domiciled in the Transkei while being registered as a social worker in the Republic. With the Transkei becoming independent that person is no longer entitled to serve on the council. Secondly he is still a registered social worker. His name is now deleted, however, from the register because he is resident in another country. However, immediately upon his return to South Africa he is free to apply for re-registration. The hon. member for Umbilo should know that inhabitants of the homelands are registered in South Africa in exactly the same way as people coming from the United Kingdom are registered here as social workers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I shall not be moving the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

I have already discussed the amendment with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I have moved the amendment merely because I believe it improves the definition originally printed in the Bill.

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

1. (1) On page 21, in line 62, to omit subsection (6) and to substitute:

1. (6) An appeal against the decision of the appeal committee shall lie with the relevant division of the Supreme Court of South Africa.

1. (2) on page 23, in line 1, after (1) to insert “and (6)”.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the consistent attitude of the Official Opposition in this respect. We believe that in all cases appeals should be lodged with the Supreme Court. We believe that justice has to be seen to be done. Because the South African Supreme Court is held in such high esteem we believe that the safest and the best way to act in this instance is to allow an appeal to be lodged with the Supreme Court. My second amendment is merely consequential to the first one.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. B. Miller agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Chairman, there are three points I would like to make. We have had very interesting and fruitful discussions on this Bill. Firstly, I think that it would be remiss of this House at this stage if we did not pay tribute to the social workers of South Africa who make tremendous sacrifices as far as their time and their families are concerned. This is the type of work where you cannot do a nine to five job. It is weekend, night-time and holiday work. They are called out at all hours. I think that the social workers of South Africa who keep these various welfare organizations going are indispensable to the welfare work being done in South Africa. We have been a little bit scared at the fact that there is a big turnover in their staff, but I believe that the fact that we are now giving them status will attract more people to do social work. The universities have an extremely important role to play in this regard. I believe that they must publicize the work done by social workers and attract more people. In this way we can ensure the continuation of social work in this country.

Secondly, we want to place on record our tribute to the Auret Commission for the work they have done. The tremendous amount of study of the memoranda they have undertaken has brought about a new situation in welfare work, this being the third and last of the welfare Bills which have come before this House. Thirdly, a case has now been made out—and I have reason to believe that we may have the support of the Government— for the fact that the whole of social work is now dependent on proper treatment. This is something which takes place in the courts of law in South Africa. As far as the question of divorce, adoption and juveniles is concerned, we have to do with the family unit, and I believe that a case has been made out for the Government to consider establishing family courts in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, from these benches I have already indicated our appreciation to the members of the Auret Commission for the work which they have undertaken. I believe that it is an opportune moment to thank the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and particularly the Secretary and the officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, who in some respects have had to deal with a difficult piece of legislation providing for the gaining of professional status by a group of people who wish to have legislation passed by this House which will meet with their requirements. I believe that all those officials concerned have shown tremendous patience and understanding in dealing with the representations which came from the social workers of South Africa. I believe that the social workers themselves look forward to the implementation of this legislation and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister might give some indication as to when this legislation might find its way onto the Statute Book and come into operation. We on this side of the House wish this profession every succes with the new status they are now receiving in terms of the legislation which we are about to pass.

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the day I do not want to keep the House occupied for long, except for a few acknowledgements. In the first place I want to thank everyone who participated in the debate, and also everyone who co-operated in the Other Place so that this legislation could be placed on the Statute Book. In reply to the question by the hon. member for Umbilo, I want to tell him that I hope that this council will be operating next year, that the regulations will be promulgated and that new milestones will have been reached with the work of the past years.

The hon. member for Umbilo stole a march on me, for what I want to say with sincere gratitude now, he has already said very briefly. I want to pay tribute to an official who, particularly during the past session, did an enormous amount of work. I say this with all possible emphasis, particularly to the members of the Social Welfare Group for the National Party. Particularly in view of the change of ministries, the work done by Mr. Van Vuuren, the Secretary for this department, is something which deserves the praise of everyone on both sides of the House. I should like to thank him, for he worked under difficult circumstances. Sometimes there was even opposition from his Deputy Minister to proposals made by him. However, Mr. Van Vuuren remained courteous at all times. Particularly during the past few days he has done his work extremely well under difficult circumstances while running back and forth between this House and the Other Place. I think these three pieces of legislation represent a monument to him.

†Finally, may I, on this occasion, pay tribute to a gentleman whom I have known for the past 13 years—although we differ politically—as a man who has done a very grand job of work at all times, calmly, colly and collectedly and with all possible sincerity and honesty. He is a man who, to the benefit of all, has given advice—though we may not readily admit it—to people on both sides of the House. I know that there are several newcomers to the House, and I hope they will also make a contribution, but I am now referring, of course, to the hon. member for Umbilo who at all times has given of his loyal service. I also thank him for his services and what he has done for welfare work in South Africa.

*I hope that this sort of work will also be continued through this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Publications Amendment Bill is aimed at amplifying the Publications Act, 1974 in a few important respects so as to eliminate problems which have arisen in the application of the Act.

Committees of experts

Men of letters and authors are concerned about the Publications Act and its functioning, particularly as far as the development of Afrikaans literature is concerned. They feel that the existing provisions of the Act do not afford them an adequate say.

For that reason the Publications Act is being amplified in the first place to empower the Minister of the Interior to compile a list of experts every three years, from which the chairman of the appeal board shall, of his own accord, or at the request of an appellant or of a person making representations in the case of a ministerial direction, constitute a committee of experts to advise the appeal board in respect of any publication or object or an edition of any publication or object, or any film, or any public entertainment or intended public entertainment examined by the appeal board on appeal in terms of a direction.

Persons will be included in the aforesaid list of experts by reason of their educational qualifications and owing to their special knowledge of and experience in art, language or literature.

Persons with a special knowledge of and experience in the art of the film and drama and of fine arts may also be included in the aforesaid list of experts.

The proposed new provisions will make it possible to give authors and men of literature a greater say in the decision-making process before the appeal board in respect of publications having literary merit. The appeal board will then have the benefit of the collective and co-ordinated advice of authorities in the art of writing and literature.

In the case of film, public entertainments and painting, etc., the appeal board will also be able to consult experts in these fields as a body.

Conditions in respect of distribution

The Publications Act is being further amplified by empowering the publications appeal board to impose conditions in respect of the distribution of publications or objects or editions of publications or objects. The effect of these conditions could, for example, be that the publication or object or edition concerned—

1. (a) may not be made available to persons in a specific age group; and
2. (b) may not be exhibited or displayed in public.

In practice most public libraries already comply with these conditions of their own accord in that they do not in the library display or exhibit or make available to children books dealing with the fine arts which contain pictures of naked human figures.

The Directorate of Publications reported that after close examination of complaints by members of the public about some publications which were offered for sale in bookshops, the complaints were not directed so much at the publication, but at the way in which the publication concerned was being displayed for all and sundry to see and that it was available for children to peruse and even to purchase. The publications which are being referred to here are usually expensive publications on art photography.

The principle which is now being inserted in the Publications Act by the amending Bill, by means of which conditions such as an age limit in respect of the distribution of publications may be imposed, is not foreign to the Act, because the Act already provides that films, in respect of the exhibition of which an age limit has been imposed, may not be sold or hired out to children in the age group concerned. The same principle is now merely being extended to the distribution of publications.

The proposed new provisions do not imply that it will not be possible to declare publications, which are in fact undesirable within the meaning of section 47(2) of the Act, to be undesirable, but that it will only be possible to distribute publications, to which the community in itself has no objections because it is art, subject to certain conditions if the publications appeal board deems this to be necessary.

†Reservation of a question of law

Mr. Speaker, section 38 of the Publications Act, 1974, specifies that a decision of a committee on publications, the Directorate of Publications and the Publications Appeal Board shall not be subject to appeal to a court of law.

Section 39 of the Act contains provisions in respect of the review of decisions of the Publications Appeal Board by the Supreme Court. There is no provision for the reservation of a question of law for decision by the Supreme Court in respect of a matter that is being considered by the Publications Appeal Board.

By the proposed new section 38A the Appeal Board is authorized of its own accord and shall at the request of an appellant or a person who has made representations to the Appeal Board in the case of a ministerial direction, reserve any question of law that has arisen in the form of a special case for opinion by the Supreme Court.

The proposed new provision does not mean that the Supreme Court will now be authorized to decide whether a publication, film or public entertainment is undesirable or not. By the new provision appellants and other interested persons shall, however, be able to approach the Supreme Court on questions of law.

Public entertainments

In accordance with section 31(6) of the Act as it reads at present, the Publications Appeal Board may, in the case of an appeal against the prohibition on the giving of a public entertainment, either confirm that prohibition or set it aside. The Appeal Board may do no more.

By the proposed amendment of section 31(6) of the Act the Publications Appeal Board is now authorized, as in the case of film appeals, either to confirm or set aside a prohibition on the giving of a public entertainment or approve of the giving of the public entertainment subject to conditions. The conditions may include the prohibition of a part or parts of a public entertainment that is or are the subject of an appeal or it may be provided that the public entertainment may not be attended by children in a specified age group.

In the case of an appeal against a condition subject to which a public entertainment has been approved by a committee on publications, the Publications Appeal Board is now also authorized either to confirm or set aside that condition or in place of that condition impose another condition or, in addition to the said condition, impose a further condition or conditions.

This will enable the Publications Appeal Board in future to remove the total prohibition of a public entertainment and merely to prohibit that part or parts of the public entertainment that the Appeal Board regards as undesirable. This will remove a long-felt shortcoming in the Publications Act as regards public entertainments.

*Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the proposed new provision to amplify the Publications Act will eliminate the present impasse which had arisen in respect of publications control in South Africa and that with the envisaged committees of experts and the other new provisions it will be possible for the Act to function better.

Mr. Speaker, as was predicted in 1974 when the principal Act was first introduced, and subsequently at every single debate in this House when the Votes of the hon. the Minister of the Interior were discussed, it was not long before the hon. the Minister had to come back to this Parliament and say in effect—and he took a long time to say it—that this law has not been working and that he must now move to break the impasse, as he put it, which exists. It is not usually my tactic, but in this particular instance I do not think that we on this side of the House can be ashamed to say to the hon. the Minister and to the Government: “We told you so.” We told the Government in 1974 that this legislation would not work. The entire Opposition told the Government in 1974, when the Act was first introduced in Parliament, that this Act…

Were you here at the time?

Yes, I was. We told them that this Act would bring the authorities into conflict …

He was then talking for the UP.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House must contain himself. We told the Government that the Publications Act and the system of censorship, which was then brought in by the Government, would bring the Government into conflict with authors, with impresarios and all the people who produce public entertainments. However, the Government would not listen to us at the time and would not hear the arguments of the Opposition. They would not bend and would not in any way be reasonable at that time. The Government was stubborn in 1974, and as a result of that it has had to bring amending legislation to this Parliament at this time. We have an amending Bill introduced as a direct result of that conflict which the Government was warned of by all hon. members of the Opposition at the time the Bill was first introduced. What is more, the hon. the Minister now comes to this House and he naively believes that the conflict, which I have spoken of, will be resolved by the provisions of this Bill. I use the word “naïvely”, and I use it not without reason, because far from breaking the impasse and resolving the conflict and the stalemate which exists in relation to literature and censorship, this Bill will hardly affect that conflict or the impasse at all. The most generous thing we can say about this Bill is that the hon. the Minister’s proposals are innocuous.

We want the sheriff.

I beg your pardon?

We want the sheriff.

You want the what?

The sheriff.

The hon. Chief Whip is incomprehensible as usual. The best we can say about this Bill is that it is innocuous and that at least it will not, or should not, exacerbate the existing position, provided, of course, that the hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill, does not hold out too much hope and does not create, in the literary world, too many expectations which, in months to come, could well be shattered. I am even prepared, in this particular instance, to make a prediction. I predict that after a brief period of respite from criticism on this legislation which is to go on the Statute Book, the hon. the Minister will, quite soon, find himself in that same impasse all over again. It will be back to square one, at odds with the artists, at odds with the publishers and, once again, at odds with the public. The reasons are quite obvious and they are there for all of us to see. Basically the hon. the Minister’s proposed solutions do not even begin to strike at the root of what is the real problem concerning this piece of legislation. The solutions proposed by the hon. the Minister are as helpful as taking an aspirin when one has a broken leg. That is about as much as we can expect from this legislation. The failures and the weaknesses of the legislation are to be found in those sections that the hon. the Minister has left untouched, those which he has deemed fit not to amend today. Let us take a look at one of these sections. Section 38 of the principal Act contains only one sentence comprising 22 words. This section, more than any other section in the legislation, gives rise to the overall lack of confidence in the administration of publications control displayed throughout South Africa by authors, artists, academics, film distributors, editors of newspapers, playwrights, impresarios and, in the end result, by the public. Section 38 of the Act reads—

That is how section 38 reads and we in these benches believe that that is a wicked section. It is an indefensible section which spelt death to what Prof. N. P. van Wyk Louw, one of South Africa’s most famous authors, described as the writer’s last and only hope, i.e. the right of appeal to a court. Even if the holder of the office of Chairman of the Appeal Board is a retired jurist, no single holder of a permanent office of this nature can in any way measure up to the breadth of vision of a dozen or more active judges, involved in the hurly-burly of everyday life and law, who would be available to be assigned at any given time to any given case.

Every day in court judges in active law deal with the morals of the public, with the interests of children, as the upper guardians of children, with fraud, with embezzlement and with every other aspect of life. They are not zoned into one particular aspect of life and thus, over a period of months, put in a situation where they can adopt a fixed or stereotyped point of view. Under the provisions of this law all appeals are heard by the same person week in and week out. Whoever that person might be, and whether he be enlightened or blinkered, whether he is broadminded or bigoted and whatever his standing or expertise, the whole future of literature and the arts in South Africa is subject to one man’s viewpoint. The end result …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Section 38 of the principal Act is in no way affected by the provisions of this Bill, and therefore I want to know whether the hon. member is in order when he argues a matter which in no respect constitutes a principle of this legislation.

Of course he must; he has already given his speech to the Press! [Interjections.]

Order! I am not at present in a position to give a ruling on that point. I only heard that the hon. member referred to the chairman of the Appeal Board, to whom reference is also made in clause 6 of the Bill.

One man is therefore chosen by the executive to perform this function and this man dictates what South Africans might see and read. For years on end—I think his term of office is five years— he holds the sword of Damocles over the heads of our writers, our publishers, our distributors and our artists. We say that until the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of South Africa, on the merits of the case, is restored—the high court being the proper forum with which the right of appeal rests— the long-term impasse that the hon. the Minister has spoken about, will not be broken.

Instead of meeting this fact and instead of dealing with this challenge head on; what does the hon. the Minister propose in this Bill? In clause 9 the hon. the Minister includes, as an amendment to the Act, the right, and if required, the obligation of the Appeal Board, to refer to the Supreme Court a question of law for decision, a decision which shall be binding on the Appeal Board when that Appeal Board delivers its own judgment. Not one single example of what the hon. the Minister has in mind, has been quoted now or earlier.

One thing is certain and that is that this leavening effect on the legislation is minimal, just as the potential scope of the application of this new provision is very limited. There already exists in the law the right of review. It exists in the Act as it stands. When, may I ask, is this right of review, which already exists, invoked? It is invoked in the very rare case when mala fides is at issue. Review proceedings can be invoked where irregularities in the procedures have been alledged, when the Appeal Board’s decision is so patently wrong as to suggest that the matter concerned was not properly considered and, finally, where the Appeal Board has erred grossly on a point of law. Review proceedings revolve in almost all cases of this nature around nothing other than points of law. The recent proceedings which have come before the Supreme Court and received wide publicity, the proceedings concerning the book Magersfontein, O Magersfontein! was in fact such a case where a point of law was argued. This proposed provision which is brought in to allow the Appeal Board to refer to the Supreme Court a point of law does not introduce any major, new element into the Act at all. It does not solve any …

Of course, you are quite wrong on that.

It is meaningless.

I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s argument on this. In my opinion this new provision does not solve any problem of any consequence which has arisen in this legislation.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that it may be a time saver. The points of law now, certainly, might be referred to the Supreme Court before an Appeal Board judgment is delivered, thus obviating the necessity of taking the Appeal Board on review at a later stage.

Is that not an improvement?

It is a minimal improvement, but what I am saying is that it does not get to the root of the problem that relates to the procedures of publications control and to the question of the lack of confidence which the public have in the Publications Act. That lack of confidence is to be found in the fact that this Government has deprived the Supreme Court of South Africa, the proper forum, of the right to hear appeals from ordinary South Africans on the judgments of those who are appointed by the Government as censors. That is the real problem. [Interjections.] It does not extend, for instance, the rights or relief available to an appellant to any degree which is worth mentioning.

I believe there is a second major flaw in the Bill, a second error which the hon. the Minister has made, and on which this Bill is unfortunately silent. This relates to section 47 of the principal Act. Section 47 is the section which deals, inter alia, with the all-embracing definition of that which is considered “undesirable”. A whole work can be banned, can be taken off the market, not because it is found to be offensive in its entirety, but even if only a small part of it is found to be offensive. Furthermore, even that small part need not be found offensive to an entire society as a whole. All that need be found is that that small part is in fact offensive to any single section of the community. Until we had the judgment in the review proceedings in the Magersfontein case, it was taken even further in that it was found that such a small section did not even have to be offensive to an entire section, but in the judgment of the chairman of the Appeal Board it need only be offensive to the average or ordinary reader. This, at least, has to some extent been altered by the judgment in the Magersfontein case. Taking into account the restrictions imposed and the way in which they are applied, I believe it is exceedingly difficult for the imaginative and creative author or film producer to reflect the everyday truth regarding aspects—I am quite serious about this—such as permissiveness and social justice. While an idealized picture of what the Government would like everybody to believe about our society can pass easily, a stark portrayal of fact invites the sanction of a committee. That is the way our publications control operates.

Some while ago the editor of the Sunday Express commented very pertinently on this tendency. I quote—

The wide breadth of the definition of that which is deemed bad and undesirable, coupled with the interpretation previously given by the Appeal Board to that which would offend the average man and not the possible or probable reader, has led to another injustice which is very prevalent in the problems of our writers today. I want to quote the words of Mr. Jaap Steyn who predicted this in an article in Rapport of 17 August 1975, three years ago—

I would like to ask what solution is offered to this problem by the hon. the Minister in this Bill. I want to say that at least the hon. the Minister seems to have tried hard. He has accorded wide powers to the Appeal Board to impose conditions in regard to distribution, display and the sale of publications. In some measure he has taken note of what I would term the “probable reader” and has strengthened the machinery available to the board to determine the method of distribution while not banning the work outright. Various mechanisms towards this end are included in the Bill and will be supported by us, but whether they will prove to be workable, remains to be seen. At this early stage I do not wish to shoot down these new ideas before they have been tried and tested, but it remains my view and that of this side of the House that the real problem lies in the definition clause, which reduces the basic of what is allowable to the lowest common denominator. I believe that in years to come it will be found that it is in this area where an amendment to the Act is required, and that the answer does not lie in the way in which the hon. the Minister is presently conducting the situation.

In clause 7 of the Bill the hon. the Minister is seeking to make available to the Appeal Board a broader spectrum of advice than it has used until now. It is of course interesting to note that the Appeal Board has always had the right to seek advice. Section 35(8) of the Act stipulates the following—

It therefore already has the right to seek advice. In 1977 this section was in fact implemented by the Appeal Board on several occasions. During 1977 three different experts on literature and one expert on law were used by the Appeal Board. In the adjudication of the Magersfontein case opinions were obtained and considered by the Appeal Board from no less than 36 different experts in their field, not that this helped the writer or the publisher in their case at all. I go further. I am trying to show that there is already ample scope within the legislation for the Appeal Board and the committees to seek advice. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act provide for the appointment of special Coloured and Indian advisory committees. Section 5(2) of the Act, relating to the constitution of the committees, states that they themselves require a standard of education and a knowledge befitting the appointees to the duties of those committees. The same applies to the Appeal Board itself. In other words, provision for the accommodation of expertise for the hearing of advice or the taking of opinion is not lacking in the Act at all. The real problem—and here the Act and the Bill before us do not help at all— of the past has not been that advice has not been sought, that advice has not been permissible or that advice has not been available. The real problem is that the advice that has been given has not been taken or properly used. That is where the problem lies. This new method of obtaining advice which is contained in various sections of the Bill will only prove workable if the advice given by the people who are appointed is heeded. In this respect the Bill is totally silent. Furthermore, this obligation to hear opinion will only be of value—let us be quite frank about it—if the hon. the Minister in appointing the panels which are mentioned in the Bill is absolutely objective in the appointments that he makes. In this we shall have to wait and see.

There are two other points I would like to raise in this Second Reading. The first relates to the hon. the Minister’s much-publicized meetings with the delegation of Afrikaans writers. I am referring to the meetings with the Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde held earlier this year. He has, until now, remained silent on what was asked of him by that most representative group. He has not told us what they asked him to do. I think it is proper, and I now most directly across the floor of the House ask the hon. the Minister the following. Has the hon. the Minister adopted all the suggestions of the delegation, and if he has not adopted all the suggestions, what suggestions have not been adopted? What suggestions put to him by the writers’ guild have not been adopted? Why did he not adopt those suggestions if in fact there were some he did not adopt? The hon. the Minister has expressed the hope that what he calls the impasse will now be resolved. I believe he owes it to this House to inform us what has been accepted by him and what has been rejected by him of the points put to him which gave rise to this legislation. I ask him to deal with that when he replies to this debate.

Lastly, I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens on 17 May 1978 during the debate on the Interior Vote, which is most apposite to this legislation today, and to this debate. I quote from Hansard, col. 7228, where he said—

He was referring to an article by Jack Cope—

He said that on 17 May 1978 and, of course, the hon. member is not wrong. The legislation which is before us today proves exactly what he said. What interests me, however, is that while he pointed to the paradox, to the irony, he did not probe the underlying reasons for that paradox. Perhaps they would not have suited his argument. The actual reasons for this phenomenon are easily discernible, and they are clear enough. Firstly, Afrikaans opinion, which is quoted by English-speaking people, is almost always opinion which is respected by them and which is respected by the person quoting. That, I think, goes without saying. Secondly—but what is not so palatable—is that English speakers—and in this field it is more evident than in others— over the years have come to the conclusion that the only existing way in which an impression can be made on the Government is through the mouths of people to whom the Government might listen. They know full well that they carry no weight themselves. This point is well illustrated by the legislation before us.

Publications control has been under fire from all quarters for several years. That includes English-speaking quarters as well. It has also been under fire by writers, by English-speaking academics, lawyers, theatre-owners, film producers and the like. The criticism that has been brought by English speakers in respect of publications has not so much as sparked off a response from the Government. However, the very minute Afrikaans writers themselves were hit and formed themselves into a body, and then clashed headlong with the Government, doors were opened, red carpets were laid out and within a single parliamentary session legislation was placed before this House.

I want to make it clear that I do not begrudge the legislation at all. I do not begrudge the changes. In fact, I welcome the changes, and I thank the people who have put the pressure on the Government, pressure which has at least brought the Government into a situation in which they are not quite as stupid as they were four years ago. However, let us then not be hypocritical about it.

Let us not be hypocritical about the legislation which is before us. If Jack Cope, if Guy Butler, if other English-speaking academics had come to the hon. the Minister and spearheaded the representations to him, that would not have resulted in legislation being placed before this House. [Interjections.] They would have met a dead-end, and who knows? That is why—if the question is asked by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens —we as ordinary humble citizens often quote Afrikaans-speaking critics of the NP when wishing to drive an argument home. It is sad but it is true.

I regret that I have not been able to be more enthusiastic about this legislation. However, at least the hon. the Minister should be happy that we will not oppose it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate the hon. member for Sandton directed his criticism of this Bill chiefly at clause 9, which provides for the insertion of a new section 38A in the principal Act, as well as at the absence from the Bill of an amendment to the definition in section 47 of the principal Act.

Before I go further, however, I should first like to avail myself of the opportunity, on behalf of hon. members on the Government side, to assure the hon. the Minister charged with this legislation, that we are aware of the fact that he has given attention to this matter at very short notice. We therefore want to congratulate him on the way in which he has dealt with this matter, and also wish him everything of the best.

I now want to come back to what the hon. member for Sandton said. As regards the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill, viz. that a question of law can be referred to the Supreme Court, the hon. member for Sandton is of the opinion that this provision which is now being made, is of no value. The hon. member is dissatisfied with the provision in section 38 of the principal Act, in terms of which the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is abolished. I want to tell him now that our courts themselves pointed this out. I do not want to rehash this matter with him because it was mentioned in the Budget debate that publications control is not a function of our administration of justice. Publications control is an administrative function. It is not a function of a court. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is of the same opinion. I do not want to argue about this again.

But what is happening here now? In clause 9 we say that when an administrative matter like this comes before the appeal board and a legal question arises as arose in the case of Magersfontein O Magersfontein, and ultimately comes before the Supreme Court on review, in the midst of that administrative procedure one of the parties can take the legal question to the Supreme Court for an opinion. On the basis of that opinion the appeal board can then continue to give its judgment and fulfil its administrative function. Surely this is no more than is being said in this clause. Surely it is fair. What more does the hon. member want? Does the hon. member really want us to go back and give to the courts that which they said, through our Appeal Court, that they no longer want?

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. The hon. member knows it too.

The hon. member alleges—and I want him to listen carefully to me now—by means of a statement that he made here that we should have amended section 47 if we had wanted to take a meaningful look at the Act. He made out that they had issued a warning in 1974 that we would come back with amendments. I want to tell him that we shall not come back on section 47. This side of the House has committed itself and we will not tolerate anything undesirable. We will not interfere with that definition. He must accept that from me. The hon. member says that this section as it is being applied by the appeal board now, lays down the norm: “Is it offensive to the average or ordinary reader?”. If a work is found to be so, it is out. He also quotes a certain Mr. Jaap Steyn who wrote in Rapport that this Act now equates the taste of the poorest among us with the norm.

I want to say categorically, however, that this is not correct. Any person who alleges this, is not telling the truth and does not know what it is about. The issue here is that the appeal board has to determine, in implementing section 47, what is undesirable and it must do so on the basis of the prevailing moral norms of the community. This was the position in terms of the old Act as well. I know that the mass media and certain critics want to criticize this Act by trying to make it ludicrous. They say that an author is now obliged to write for the average person. This is not true. It has never been true. Do you know what the facts are? In the Heinemann case, the Appeal Court decided as follows, in the words of Appeal Judge Rumpff in 1965—

This is what it is all about. That is why one searches for the median man in the South African community in order to determine what the “contemporary taste and sense of decency” is.

It is alleged that South Africa is the only country in the world to solve this problem in such a way and to approach it in such a way, but I can refer the hon. member to what the people in America do. I refer him to an American decision in the case of Marvin Miller v. State of California. On page 420 the following is said—

Hon. members will see that they also work with “community standards”.

As interpreted by the courts.

Yes, the court.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know what it is about. It is not determined as such by politicians. It is applied by the appeal board in this way and the old Act is also applied in this way.

I also refer to a decision in the Canadian court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the decision in the case Regina v. Dechow. The court decided as follows—

Then the reply is given further on, on page 110—

This is what the position is elsewhere in the world. If we in South Africa, however, want to apply the standards of the community to publications control, the standards of elementary decency, we have a fuss on that side of the House. We shall, however, respect the moral norms and standards of the community; we shall not damage them.

As far back as in 1910, G. K. Chesterton said the following—

Then he goes on to say—

This was written by Chesterton as long ago as in 1910, and it is just as true in our community today. It is said that this Act prohibits people from writing what they wish.

This, however, is not true. No subject is taboo for any writer, but there is one thing that that hon. member must take note of. Community opinion in South Africa does not tolerate any writer to present the immoral as right and good, no matter what he may write. That is the first point. Secondly, no matter how good a person’s intentions may be, we will not tolerate that what he writes, should be written in the language written on the doors and windows of public toilets. Therefore that hon. member can shout as much as he wishes, but we shall not tamper with section 47. It was interpreted in this way in section 5 of the previous Act and it is also interpreted in this way in the present Act. It will remain as such too. With these words I want to say that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, both the previous speakers made quite a few contentious statements. I want to say that over the last five years this is the third occasion on which I am the last speaker of the session, or at least the last speaker of my party, and consequently I am not going to try to reply to all the arguments that they raised at this stage.

Hear, hear!

I just want to tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that, in spite of the attitude he adopted towards section 47, we shall still have to look at it in future.

†When the hon. the Minister announced that this legislation would be introduced, he referred to the unfortunate impasse which had developed in regard to publications control in South Africa—those were his own words. I agree with the hon. member for Sandton that this was a significant statement coming as it did, from the hon. the Minister. I refer to the admission on his part that an impasse exists. From the Opposition benches we have pointed out that it was a sad state of affairs. I did so again during the debate on the Interior Vote. On that occasion I pointed to the estrangement taking place in the ranks of the Afrikaans writers. However, I know—and this is why we will be supporting the Second Reading—that the hon. the Minister is desperately keen to break this impasse and is hoping that he will be able to do so by means of this amending legislation. I naturally share the view of those who believe that this legislation, as it stands, is really inadequate if one wants to achieve that. Nevertheless, we will be supporting this legislation and I feel I should briefly explain why we will be supporting a piece of legislation which we still regard as being inadequate overall.

First of all, we regard it as a serious attempt to bring about flexibility in the whole system of publications control and censorship. Once we start looking at the three main principles, we find that in the past a lot of problems arose from the fact that the approach to this matter was very rigid. It was an either/or approach: A decision was either confirmed or set aside. By putting a greater discretion in the hands of the appeal board as well as in the hands of the publications committees they will now be able to stipulate conditions. This relates not only to publications but also to entertainments. I believe that this will bring about a greater flexibility. This is, of course, an enabling Bill. Much will therefore depend on the sort of conditions that are laid down or the situation in which the conditions are applied. We support this Bill because we feel that it will lead to a greater availability of publications. We feel that, if we are to do all we can to bring the publications into the hands of the probable readers, we must support this.

I appreciate that enforcibility is a problem. In this regard I want to ask a favour not so much of the hon. the Minister, but of the Appeal Board and the committees. I want to ask that they must guard against making themselves look ridiculous by setting conditions which can be regarded as impractical. Let me say what the attitude is of impartial people who look objectively at the system of censorship. I refer now to people who believe that there must be a form of censorship. One of the weapons used time and again by the enemies of censorship is to try to make a mockery of anything that can be looked upon as being ridiculous. This is why, when the people in charge think in terms of conditions, they must guard against placing themselves in a position in which they can be mocked or made into a laughing-stock.

I come to the second principle and that relates to the extension of the use of committees of experts. [Interjections.] I feel it would be very good if we could get effective participation by real experts in the literary field. Incidentally, I share the view that one should also try to get people in the fields of the social sciences and the Humanities involved in this. If one can get these people involved in the system, the whole system will benefit. In this respect it is unfortunate that during the last year or so four or five literary experts resigned from various positions. They indicated disenchantment with the system. All I can therefore do is to appeal that people— the experts in this field—should make themselves available. It is also for the hon. the Minister to ensure that when people are appointed or when they are used on committees, these should e balanced committees. I do not want to enter into the legal debate which we have had here, especially not those aspects raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I have not studied law, although I must admit that I have helped in making law for the last ten years. Even if one should refer points to a court of law, it is a very poor substitute for the real thing which would be access to the courts in the normal course of events.

*In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that this matter was summarized in one headline in Rapport of 11 June. The headline reads: “Sensuurwarboel.” In this article it is alleged that the hon. the Minister should rather have kept his legislation in abeyance in order to eliminate this muddle and should then have come up with new legislation. I do not agree with this. I think that, since we have progressed thus far, it is a good thing if one can make such small improvements. I want to concede, however, that they may be important. In this regard, spokesmen of the appeal board are quoted, but I do not know who they are. After the court decision on Magersfontein, O Magersfontein it was clear that there was uncertainty and confusion. According to this article—which I am not going to quote from now—the confusion apparently originated in the appeal board. I believe that the best that we can say of the legislation at the moment, is that, in the interests of censorship in South Africa, it should be a temporary measure only. The hon. the Minister, however, must take a good, hard look at it once again, so that we can do some work next year on some of the underlying reasons which led to the dissatisfaction with this system which prevails in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the hon. member for Durban Central who alleges that there is a muddle. One of the biggest contributors to this muddle is the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He concluded with a threat which he addressed to the hon. member for Sandton when he said that they will never allow a work that does not censure the immoral. He also said that they will not allow a work in which toilet language occurs. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the complaint which is being raised implies that this Bill comes from our side. However, it comes from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is the one who wants to make improvements and the Opposition must not be accused of seeking improvements. To whom did the hon. member for Koedoespoort…

[Inaudible.]

I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Langlaagte would be quiet for a moment.

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

No! [Interjections.] My question is: To whom did the hon. member for Koedoespoort address these two conditions?

To the hon. member for Sandton.

Under no circumstances, and in no way directly or indirectly, did the hon. member for Sandton ask for works which approve of the immoral to be allowed in South Africa.

He said that we should do away with section 47.

Nor did he ask for toilet language to be tolerated in any published work.

This matter, however, goes back much further. In all respects, I want to ask how the hon. the Minister comes by the idea that there is an impasse. As recently as 17 January this year the Government, via its spokesmen, said that there was no need to make any amendment in this regard. On 16 January 1978 The Argus wrote the following—

How does this hon. Minister come by the idea that an impasse now exists between the authorities and the writers? What happened in the period between 16 January and today that made this amendment Bill necessary? In Die Burger of 18 January 1978 we find the following—

They are referring here to the Publications Act. Where does the Government’s sudden change of attitude come from? I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us why, even before the Supreme Court had given its decision and even before there was a possibility of a reversal of the appeal board’s decisions, policy and interpretation of the legislation, he said here in the House that an impasse existed? He used this word three times. The hon. the Minister who dealt with this matter previously, had every reason not to come to this House with amendments, because the impasse to which the present hon. Minister is referring, was initiated by that hon. Minister. Apparently as a result of a lady who made a remark about a book—which in Rapport, in the report which the hon. member for Durban Central quoted, was pointed out as possibly being the best work in its specific category in Afrikaans—at a party congress, he summarily proceeded to direct the appeal board to re-investigate this matter. What did the appeal board have to re-investigate? It had to re-investigate the decision of the committee of experts, under the chairmanship of Prof. Scholtz, who is soon to become the dean of the Afrikaans/Nederlands department at the University of Stellenbosch, that the book was not undesirable. The book then appeared before the appeal board and the experts there were of the same opinion. Thirty-five people were questioned. The minority decision says, however, that it is a fact that…

You do not know what you are talking about.

I am not surprised that hon. members on that side of the House do not know what I am talking about. It was said in the past by one of the literary men that they wait in vain for NP MP’s to do something when authors and artists are criticized. They say that they always have to look to the PFP for this. [Interjections.] That is why the hon. member over there does not know what I am speaking about; of course he will not know. [Interjections.] Sir, may I have the opportunity to complete my speech? I think all the hon. members are very keen to go home as quickly as possible. [Interjections.] I shall not keep the hon. House one second longer than is absolutely necessary. [Interjections.] I just first want to make a few points very clear so that the record is clear. [Interjections.] The lighthearted, almost flippant way in which the matter is being approached by some hon. members on the Government side, is an indication to me, proof of the general approach that is being adopted to this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to see the House continuing to deal with the Bill in a normal way. This Bill is just as important as the first one which the House discussed this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Johannesburg North allege that the speakers on the Government side are approaching this Bill in a flippant way?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] If the hon. members want to spend a long time here tonight, I am prepared to keep them busy. [Interjections.] They must just say so. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg North must continue with his speech in the normal way.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the experts who served on the Appeal Board …

Who are they?

The experts who were appointed to consider this specific book, said that the high literary quality of the book meant that the book was written with a sense of responsibility, truth and balance. This is very far removed from what the hon. member for Koedoespoort had in mind. Furthermore they said—

These are the words of Prof. Alwyn Grové, one of the co-workers of the Publications Board and the dean of the Human Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. Now the hon. member for Rissik, who asked who the experts are and does not know the meaning of the word “plagiarism” … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Johannesburg North make such an allegation about me as a member of this House? May he say that I do not know the meaning of the word “plagiarism”?

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg North must withdraw the words that he imputed to the hon. member for Rissik.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. [Interjections.] I think perhaps I owe the hon. member for Rissik an explanation.

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

No. [Interjections.]

Are literary merits the only consideration?

Does the hon. member for Koedoespoort really think …

Can one be so pleased with oneself!

… that one can merely reply “yes” or “no” to that question? The hon. the Leader of the House naturally knows just as little about these matters.

How can one be so pleased with oneself?

Have you read the book?

I am quoting what is stated in the decision of the Appeal Board. If the hon. the Leader of the House now wants to say that the Appeal Board itself is delighted with it, he is of course correct. [Interjections.] The experts who assisted the Appeal Board, went on to say that many of the 35 people who were consulted by the Appeal Board, expressed misgivings. Some of them asked questions, but the fact remains, say the experts, that approximately two-thirds of those people did not want to see the book disappearing from the bookshops.

The appeal board felt that it had to reject all this expert advice, because the board attached a specific interpretation to the existing law. I do not have the least reason to differ with the appeal board. This is not my function. I just want to say that if the law is as the appeal board says it is, it is wrong and undesirable and gives rise, as the hon. the Minister said, to an impasse and concern about the future of Afrikaans literature in particular. These are facts. The hon. the Minister himself said so.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I just want to say that the shortcomings in it were set out very well by the hon. member for Sandton. I do not therefore want to dwell on it any longer, except to say that if the Bill is applied as it reads at present, it will in fact be an improvement on the position created by the existing law. The improvement that will emanate from the Bill, however, will be minimal. Most important of all is that it does not ensure the credibility of the appeal board and a sympathetic protective attitude of the Government towards creative works …

What do you mean by credibility of the appeal board? Surely you are casting a reflection on that board.

I do not mean it in an unfavourable sense at all. I meant that since the public and the artists have lost confidence in the appeal board, this Bill will not serve to restore confidence as the hon. the Minister seems to hope it will. The establishment of advisory committees, the right of review and the deciding of questions of law are but trivial methods of bringing this about.

This party, the Official Opposition, feels that there is one essential provision that should have been included in this Bill. I have already raised this on a previous occasion and the hon. the Minister then rejected it with a rather scornful gesture. What we therefore want to see is that the probable reader should be a factor in determining whether the work is undesirable due to immorality or due to indecency on religious grounds or not. The Supreme Court found that the probable decisive factor was the former.

That is not true.

But it did not find that a probable reader should be taken into consideration as regards religious offensiveness. In order to explain briefly what I mean, if some of the old Latin poems that were presented to the students with dots because they felt that there were obscene things in them that should be hidden, had to be published in their original form in South Africa today, they would have to be banned in spite of the fact that only 1% of the South African public can read Latin. As one of the newspapermen said, if something that was religiously offensive should appear in Portuguese, offensive, for instance, to the D.R. Church, in spite of the fact that no member of the church could read it, it would nevertheless be objectionable and therefore be declared undesirable because the test is absolute. If this probability factor is not included in the legislation, the ultimate result means nothing when it comes to the protection of the creative arts in South Africa.

We support the Second Reading, but this must not be construed under any circumstances to mean that we feel that this legislation is the way out of all difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, all I can say is “Johannesburg North, Oh Johannesburg North”. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the Opposition know me as a person who never stoops to the personal level, but the hon. member for Johannesburg North overstepped the mark in this sphere tonight and he made an accusation here which I think is an extremely unfair one. He used words to the effect that it is a well-known fact that writers, literary men and others have to turn to the PFP if they want any concessions or change as regards publication control. That hon. member and the other hon. members of the Official Opposition must take their medicine if I stoop to the personal level too. I want to tell the Afrikaans writers and literary men of this country that as far as the members of the PFP sitting here are concerned—one can exclude a few of them, for instance the hon. member for Johannesburg North and one or two other members, but I am speaking of the rest of them—I would be able to put the Afrikaans books in their possession in a school suitcase.

You have no grounds for saying that. [Interjections.]

I am saying it. It comes from a party which, except for a few members on that side, read a minimum of Afrikaans books and take the very minimum of interest in Afrikaans literature. I am saying this to the Afrikaans authors and literary men tonight.

If you do not withdraw that we shall not give you all the stages of this Bill. [Interjections.]

I shall not withdraw it.

Right, then you do not get your stages.

I shall not withdraw it for the hon. Chief Whip. He is a man who has made himself known this session for the type of behaviour which he has now exhibited once again.

You have lost your Bill. [Interjections.] You have two minutes to think about it. [Interjections.]

I shall not allow myself to be threatened by the hon. Chief Whip on that side of the House. I am not interested in any deadline of his.

Right, no stages!

Now I come to the hon. member for Sandton. Firstly, the hon. member remarked that the most important shortcoming in the principal Act is the absence of provision for appeal to the Supreme Court. With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the hon. member had a great deal to say about the principal Act, which was not relevant at all. [Interjections.] It is an amending Bill that is being discussed at the moment. I am obliged, however, to react to what the hon. member said. In the discussion of my Vote, as well as on other occasions, extracts from what appeal judges Rumpff and Williamson said in the Heinemann case were repeatedly quoted. I do not, however, want to bother the House with all the details all over again. It was put very clearly, however, on that occasion that the learned appeal judges did not consider publications control as the function of a court. What better authority do we have on this subject in any event than the hon. member for Johannesburg North himself? I do not want to quote him too now. In the commission that investigated the legislation under discussion …

On condition! [Interjections.]

The hon. member still owes me an explanation as regards that condition. It is true, however, that the hon. member for Johannesburg North himself proposed an Appeal Board. The hon. member for Sandton went on, however to make the ridiculous accusation in regard to the legislation under discussion that: “One man dictates.” This is a ridiculous accusation. It is not worthwhile replying to it. This legislation is extremely democratic. Firstly, there are autonomous committees. I shall explain how autonomous these committees in fact are. Wilbur Smith’s book Where the Lion Feeds was turned down by the Appeal Court. After the period of two years had elapsed, the same book was referred to a committee. The committee passed that book and it can still be found on the bookshelves in all the bookshops throughout the country today. Where does the accusation of “one man dictates” come from? In the case of an appeal it is not one man either, but a full Appeal Board that hears the appeal and makes a decision on a majority vote. It is therefore ridiculous to speak about “one man dictates”.

Then the hon. member for Sandton and other hon. members mocked the road which is now being opened to the Supreme Court. It is said that there is review in any event, but usually there must be at least an indication of irregularity before something can be reviewed. In the administration of justice it is merely a question that an interpretation of the Act is desired, and in any event, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort correctly pointed out, there is an extension in the sense that the Appeal Board, for its part, can reserve a question of law, which will save a great deal of time and expense in this regard.

Consequently I submit that it is a definite, additional advantage that we are creating to the benefit of literary men and authors.

The hon. member also pointed out that, under the present dispensation, the Appeal Board can hear the evidence of experts. This is true, but what we are doing here now, is to grant statutory powers to a specific committee of experts. We are granting statutory recognition to these people to show to what extent we take literary merit into consideration.

The hon. member for Sandton then comes along … Is the hon. member interested in my replying to him or not? The hon. member for Sandton then comes along and says that I must say in the House what the Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde told me. The hon. member should just have read his newspapers. The Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde did not send a formal delegation to me, but members of the Afrikaanse Skrywersgilde came to me. Before the interview they asked me whether they could publish everything that was relevant after the interview. I told them: “My dear people, if I do not give you that right, you will say that this Minister is again applying censorship to this meeting as well.” I told them that they could report everything we discussed. They did so, and the hon. member should simply have read his newspapers at that time. I shall spell a few cardinal things out to the hon. member. They asked for full tolerance to be granted to literary merit. I said that I am not prepared to do so. They asked for literary men to have the sole right to decide on works of literature. After Chief Justice Steyn’s decision, as well as other decisions and opinions, I said that I am not prepared to do so. Later on, by way of correspondence, I was asked to change section 47(2). I said that I was not prepared to do so because it was clear from the decisions of the Appeal Board itself that the Appeal Board itself could show some tolerance as regards works of literary or artistic merit. This, in brief, is my reply to the hon. member for Sandton.

I want to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who knows the Act inside out, for a very staunch and valuable contribution. I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central very much for his party’s support. I want to tell him, since he spoke about the question of co-operation, that this question of a literary advisory committee is already an attempt on my side to obtain more co-operation from these people. I shall go out of my way, for the sake of serious writers, literary men and artists, to establish a balanced panel from which ad hoc committees can be compiled.

Mr. Speaker, with these few words I feel that I have replied to everyone.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

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

1. (1) On page 9, after line 59, to add:

1. (6) The advice referred to in subsection (1), together with minority opinions if any, shall, during the examination referred to in the said subsection, be made known to the parties concerned in the examination and shall form part of the documents in which reasons are furnished by the Appeal Board in terms of the provisions of section 36(5).

1. (2) on page 11, in line 3, after “in” to insert “social sciences, philosophy”.

In the first amendment it is proposed that when a committee of experts is appointed, the advice of such advisory committee or committee of experts be submitted to the parties for consideration and discussion before the Appeal Board. The documents, viz. the recommendations made either in a majority report or in a minority report, must then also form part of the documents in which the Appeal Board furnishes the reasons it is obliged to furnish.

My learned friend, the hon. member for Sandton, will have more to say about the second amendment. The amendment proposed in that regard is that the social sciences and philosophy are being added as disciplines in regard to which special knowledge and experience is required of experts in an advisory capacity.

Mr. Chairman, before I specifically speak to this second amendment, I should just like to address one remark to the hon. the Minister. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister made a remark which I think many of us on this side of the House regard as quite offensive and nasty.

What about the remarks of the hon. member for Johannesburg North?

Would the hon. the Minister please just allow me to make my point about this.

I shall repeat them as well.

I honestly think that the remark which was made was an unnecessary remark.

And unjustified.

I also think it was unjustified.

And unkind.

I do not think it was in the spirit of this debate. I want to say that hon. members on this side of the House were upset by his remark, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would reconsider his remark and perhaps mention the subject again.

What was the remark? Specify the remark.

The hon. the Minister knows what remark I am referring to.

If he does not know what remark, let us come back on Monday.

I want to speak to the second amendment and say that a large number of titles … [Interjections.] … of academic relevance were affected by the decisions of the Publications Board before and after the 1974 legislation was passed. Let me just give an example. In the area of Marxist philosophy alone, and also that of neo-Marxist theory, over 187 titles of academic relevance were banned up to the end of 1976. Other areas in which books have been banned—and I am discussing political-type books now—are books relating to African studies, South African politics and history, the study of revolutionary movements, Black consciousness, Black power and Black theology. The bannings in these fields and the overall bannings, particularly those relating to possession, have created grave difficulties and we have received representations from various academic authorities concerning the difficulties that have been created. It has created great difficulties for teaching in relation to the availability of text books, and for research in relation to access, and even to material required for the publication of academic papers and the like. I have been told by the several academic authorities and universities, including Afrikaans universities, that have approached me that these difficulties are only partially resolved by the granting of exemptions to universities, libraries and scholars.

Secondly, the Publications Board’s decisions in the areas of political science and the like have in fact been somewhat erratic, and have indicated several anomalies. In several cases precisely similar publications to banned titles are in fact freely available, and sometimes highly respected academic works have been banned. Expert academics in these fields quite frankly do not have total faith in the judgment which has been shown by the board to date. There are in fact very few social scientists or political scientists on the committees of the Publications Board at the present time. In comparison, literature, the arts, have been represented much better than the proponents of political science, the social sciences and the like. Writers and academics of national stature have served on some of these committees, whereas the same advice has not been had from the other disciplines. In the light of this, we believe there is an urgent need for independent and recognized experts in the fields of social and political science and philosophy to assist and advise the Appeal Board in these areas. If the hon. the Minister—if he is interested in what I am saying—would consider the argument I have just put, he would find that it would place him in a situation to receive far better advice from a panel which he himself will construct by including the possibility of appointing people who are experts in the social sciences and in philosophy. That will give him a broader spectrum from which to select. I therefore support the amendment put by my hon. colleague and I ask the hon. the Minister in all humility please to reconsider that remark of his that has caused a certain amount of upset in this House.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I want to say that I intimated to the hon. member for Johannesburg North before the start of proceedings that I accepted his first amendment. As far as the second amendment is concerned I just want to say that I have already informed the hon. member for Johannesburg North that I do not see my way clear to accepting it, for the very simple reason that if we were to extend the number of professions involved here, there would be no end to the professions we should have to include. One could motivate the inclusion of dozens of other professions. The reason we included men of letters, authors and artists in the committee of experts and limited it to them, is that in the first instance, the works they produce are what is at issue. However, to a certain extent the hon. member answered his own question. In his Second Reading speech he referred to the wide powers vested in the Appeal Board to call for evidence from a wide spectrum of experts. That is the first point. In the second place I could draw his attention—taking philosophy as an example—to the fact that two members who are recognized philosophers serve on the Publications committees, viz. profs. P. S. Dreyer and Marais. Both have been designated as chairman of publications committees. Two members serve on the Publications Appeal Board, one of whom is a full-fledged philosopher whereas the other has knowledge of philosophy. They are Dr. K. S. Van Wyk De Vries and Prof. A. P. Grové. Therefore the people who have to give rulings in this regard are in many instances people who are academically and technically equipped in this regard. For this reason I see my way clear to accepting amendment (1) only and not amendment (2).

Next I want to deal with the call made on me. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is responsible for my having reacted in that way. I am not a person who gets angry easily, but this is the end of a long session. I therefore think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was responsible for unnecessary provocation. Without withdrawing anything, I want to inform Afrikaans-language artists that their interests can best be served by not allowing Prog politics to isolate them. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to go further than that.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to try to help. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that what was offensive was his allegation that apart from one or two members on this side, the others were not interested in the Afrikaans literature?

Mr. Chairman, I shall make an agreement with the Official Opposition. If the hon. member for Johannesburg North will withdraw his insinuation that Afrikaans authors should only go to them for help … If he withdraws that, I shall withdraw the words that the PFP cares nothing for Afrikaans literature.

Mr. Chairman, what I said in the midst of the stream of interruptions and interjections was the following, and I do not take it amiss of the hon. the Minister that he perhaps understood me wrongly. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I said that there was and is a man of letters—and I can give the hon. the Minister his name in private—who said in a newspaper, in public … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

If hon. members do not want to hear my explanation I shall not give it. It must be very clear. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please make no further interjections.

It was due to interjections that the misunderstanding arose.

The hon. member may proceed.

I said—and I shall repeat it ab initio—that a literary man, a professor in Afrikaans literature, said in public—it was published in a newspaper— that it was a pity—I think the word was “pity” (jammerte), but I cannot find the cutting—that when Afrikaans literary men had to plead their cause … [Interjections.] I was speaking about that specific report. If the hon. the Minister does not want to accept that, then I shall leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, tempers seem to have risen quite high and I must say that we were surprised at the hon. the Minister’s reaction during the course of the Second Reading debate. Hon. members of the various parties can accuse one another in regard to their willingness or not to defend either the English or the Afrikaans literature. This is fair game in terms of the political argument, but whether it is accurate or not is another matter. The hon. the Minister went further and in order to try to isolate us and in order to try to show that we had no feeling whatsoever for the Afrikaans literature, indicated that apart from the hon. member for Johannesburg North, all the members on this side of the House would not have enough Afrikaans books in their possession to fill a school satchel. I want the hon. the Minister to know that this is incorrect. I do not mind whether he used it as a simile or not; the fact is that it is incorrect. I would argue that the hon. members for Parktown, Rondebosch, Green Point and others perhaps have many more Afrikaans books on their shelves than many hon. members on that side of the House. Many of us who are English speaking also have Afrikaans books on our shelves. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister must stand up and show the good grace to admit that where we say that statement is incorrect —and I believe it is incorrect—that in the heat of the moment he overstated his case and that he does not stand by his statement. This is important in order to ensure that this measure goes through with the maximum of unanimity.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quoting me incorrectly. I did not insinuate that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was the only person in that party who possessed Afrikaans books. I said expressly: “The hon. member for Johannesburg North and a few other hon. members on that side of the House …”

Withdraw that generality.

I have the interests of the Afrikaans author and the South African author at heart, and for that reason and not for the sake of the hon. Chief Whip on that side of the House, I withdraw the words—if I said them—“the PFP cares nothing for Afrikaans literature”. I withdraw the words for the sake of the authors but I am not prepared to withdraw anything else.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

The aim of the amendment is that when a plaintiff or an accused is involved in a case in which a point of law is referred to the Supreme Court, an order for costs cannot be issued against such a person unless that person himself requested that the point of law be referred to the Supreme Court. This therefore only concerns the case where the directorate or the Appeal Board itself causes the adjustment to be done. It therefore seems to me a reasonable amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As I worship in the Methodist Church it is a great privilege for me to be able to introduce this Bill. As hon. members will note, the Bill has a very long preamble which broadly sets out the history, development and expansion of the Methodist Church in South Africa. The object of the Bill is virtually confined to what is said in the concluding paragraph on page 7 of the Bill.

The history of the Methodist Church in South Africa presents a striking parallel with the growth and the development of our own nation. Methodism, which in fact, is a replica of the early Christian church modified to meet the changed conditions that take place from decade to decade, is possibly the second largest Protestant creed in our country, with adherents from all the different nationalities in Southern Africa.

In order that the House may appreciate the objectives of the Bill, it is necessary that I briefly sketch the history of the church and the background to the two Acts which this Bill repeals, as stated in clause 1. The provisions of these Acts are consolidated in the Bill.

Some 240 years ago the great evangelist John Wesley initiated the movement, the Methodist revival, which was one of the greatest forces in the history of the 18th century. It did, in fact, change the face of Great Britain of that day. Out of that movement there rose, in the course of time, three great Methodist churches: The Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Primitive Methodist Connexion and the United Methodist Church. We are concerned only with two of these, i.e. the Wesleyan Methodist Church and the Primitive Methodist Connexion. The first Wesleyan Church adherents arrived in South Africa when the British took the Cape in 1806. A converted soldier of that day, Sgt. Kendrick, held the first services for the benefit of his comrades in the army of the occupation forces, and built in fact the first Methodist Church in South Africa which was later destroyed by the British Commander of the day because it was believed at that time that a good soldier could not really be a good Christian.

In 1816 the first Methodist Church minister arrived, and with the arrival of the 1820 settlers a further minister arrived. At the time of the arrival, in 1842, of the first Methodist minister in the area, Natal was being occupied. In 1851 the first minister was appointed to what was then known as the Free State.

The work of the church flourished and grew over the years, and in 1880, at a conference held in Queenstown, it was decided that the South African Conference be formed so that the church should govern itself in South Africa and not by the Conference which at that time still controlled it from Great Britain. This South African Conference was eventually held in Cape Town in 1882, and it covered only the then known church districts in the Provinces of the Cape Colony, Natal and the Free State. In 1872, 10 years before the establishment of the South African Conference, the Church established its first ministry in the Transvaal. It then operated as the Wesleyan Church in this province, and it continued in the Province of Transvaal to be governed by the Conference in England of that day. In the meantime the Primitive Methodist Connexion also established itself in South Africa with missionary zeal. This was the missionary arm of the Methodist Church. It went under the name of the Primitive Methodist Mission.

That was the position during all those years until 1927 when this Parliament enacted the legislation of 1927 which provided for two things as far as the interests of the Church were concerned. It made the South African Wesleyan Methodist Conference an autonomous body in South Africa. It furthermore provided for the union with that body of the Transvaal Wesleyan Methodist Church. From 1927 the conference embraced all the districts of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in South Africa.

The Act of 1927 did not make provision for the incorporation of the Primitive Methodist Missions. After 1927 the three great Methodist Churches in the United Kingdom decided to amalgamate under one separate Conference. After negotiations the South African Church decided to do the same. The differences were concerned with church government and were certainly not in any way concerned with church doctrine.

At the same time it was decided to drop the prefixes of “Wesleyan” and “Primitive”. A further Bill was introduced in this House in 1932. As an Act of Parliament it gave legality to these decisions of the South African Conference. For the first time the Church was then called the Methodist Church of South Africa and there was a consequent devolution of all the Church’s property being vested in the Conference. Since that time the work of the Church and its missionary activities in spreading the word of the Gospel in Southern Africa have flourished. With the increasing political independence of the various national groups within the boundaries of Southern Africa and the formation of new nationalities in Southern Africa, the Church at its synod or conference decided in 1972—it stands in the Bill as I already have pointed out—to change its name to the Methodist Church of Southern Africa so that the Church’s districts in all these different countries and areas could have representation in the Conference and so that Methodists throughout Southern Africa could share a feeling of fellowship in the work of the Church. The Conference felt that it was more appropriate that the name of the Church should reflect the fact that there is a wider area involved rather than simply South Africa itself. These decisions of the Church are reflected in clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill.

I think I should add a brief word about two further clauses. Clause 10 is important as it provides for safeguarding the doctrines and religious usages of Methodism. Hon. members may wish me also to say a word about clause 11 as it would appear as merely being a pious aspiration in the Bill. I do not think so as I believe that church unity is the aspiration of many Christians. I may point out that the provisions of clause 11 exist in the same Act of 1932. I emphasize that it is not merely a pious statement or aspiration of many Christians. The world, and our country in particular, is threatened by the godless, political doctrine of communism. On the political front we may take all the necessary legislative steps to combat its evils, but I believe, as the Church believes, that it is only the acceptance by all our peoples of Christian beliefs and principles and the Holy Word of the Almighty which will conquer communism.

In the ranks of the Official Opposition there is a member, the hon. member for Pinelands, who at one time held a high position and distinction in the Church as chairman of the Methodist Conference. He had the additional distinction of being president of the Conference for two consecutive periods—this does not occur often. I believe, too, that he was the youngest president of the Conference that we have ever had in this distinguished position. I refer, as I say, to the hon. member for Pinelands. I am quite sure that he can contribute to the debate in a much more informed manner than I can as a mere layman. However, I do wish to say that in being able to move the Second Reading of this Bill I count it a very great honour indeed. I hope it will have the endorsement of this House and that it will also carry from this House a message of goodwill to the united body of Methodists in South Africa, and that it will be an encouragement to them to offer an even worthier contribution to the welfare of our nation.

I should like to conclude by quoting the last few sentences of the hon. member who in 1932 moved the Second Reading of the Bill that day, because what he said then was as appropriate then as it is to our conditions of today. He said—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill before us, made reference to my own links with the Methodist Church of South Africa, and I think they are fairly well known, judging by the number of references which come to me from time to time from hon. members on the other side of the House. I shall therefore not dwell on them, except to say that the Methodist Church in South Africa has, I believe, made a very valuable contribution to the whole life of South Africa. John Wesley, who was the founder under God of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, once described his own mission as “the world is my parish”. When the Methodist Church started in South Africa it is interesting to note that its first preacher, when he arrived here, was forbidden permission to preach and decided that there were too many heathens amongst the Whites in South Africa to continue. He therefore went across to Ceylon. I think it was our loss in this country. Methodists from time to time have always had their problems in South Africa.

The other point I want to make is that I want to underline the nature of the Church rather than the historical character of the Church, the nature of the Church as has been determined over the years, not by the Methodists, but by Scripture, which emphasizes the holding together of the whole man. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs would describe it by saying that if the Church cannot speak to the whole man it cannot really in essence speak to a part of the man. I would agree with that and think that that is exactly the approach the Methodist Church has tried to adopt over the years. This can be borne out, not only by the number of members and the number of church buildings, but also by the number of hospitals, the number of schools, the work in social welfare, the holding together of the body and the spirit as one in essence before God. Therefore the Methodist Church has served the peoples of South Africa over the years. It is not always known that the largest Black membership of any Church in South Africa is in the Methodist Church and that the largest combined membership of any Church is the Methodist Church in South Africa.

In the early 1970s, and even before that time, we began to see from the Methodist Church’s point of view that there were going to be very serious problems as the Church continued its ministry in Botswana, in Swaziland, in Lesotho and in Mozambique and one could also, of course, foresee some of the developments taking place in South Africa itself. When one went into these countries representing the Church, again and again we were asked why it is that the Church is called the Methodist Church of South Africa rather than the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, which would hold together the total region in which the Methodist Church was serving. From that time on there has been the desire, the determination, to have this change of name. Therefore we shall obviously support the Second Reading of this Bill because it embodies a decision taken by the Church. We do so in the belief that the Church is far greater in essence than individual members thereof. I believe that is very important for us to remember. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a privilege for hon. members of the NRP to associate themselves with the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis and with the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. We appreciate the fact that this legislation is being introduced at the wish of the Church. At a Conference of the Church held in October 1975 it was resolved that the name of the Church be changed to the Methodist Church of Southern Africa.

If one reads the preamble of this Bill, one becomes aware of the whole history of the Methodist Church. One certainly becomes aware of the vast amount of missionary work which has been undertaken by the Methodist Church, particularly in South Africa and in Southern Africa, missionary work which has converted many people to Christianity. This is indeed something to be grateful for. One can certainly be proud to find a church which has been so successful in winning people over to Christianity. We in these benches support this Bill wholeheartedly. It is indeed pleasing to see that it is a measure which will receive the wholehearted support of all hon. members of this House. We associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by both the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Pinelands in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

There remains very little for me to say other than to express my appreciation for the support given me by the PFP, through the hon. member for Pinelands, by the NRP, through the hon. member for Umbilo, and also by hon. members of the NP. Finally, I should just like to point out that I do not very often find myself in agreement with the views of the hon. member for Pinelands. However, there is one respect in which I do find myself very much in agreement with the hon. member, viz. in his statement that when we deal with matters of this nature, we have to remember that the Church is far greater than any individual member thereof.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 19h39 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I should like, with the leave of all parties, to express a word of thanks to you, the Deputy Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees and to the staff of Parliament and I also want to inform you that a proclamation will be issued convening Parliament again on 1 February 1979.

I now move—

I should like to thank the hon. the Leader of the House for his words, and I say farewell to you all.

Question agreed to.