Mr Chairman, as most hon members probably know, the Director-General of this Department, Mr Gerrie van Zyl, became seriously ill a while ago, and subsequently underwent an operation. I am delighted to be able to report, however, that the operation was successful and that he is at present recuperating. Although he will be out of action for some time, he will definitely be back among us one of these days.

Mr Chairman, he is one of the shining lights of the Public Service. Of course we have many of them, yet I am pleased that I also have one of them in my own department. We are looking forward to welcoming him back among us.

At the same time it was necessary for the department to do more than normal. This department has also taken over the activities of another department, and I want to convey a special word of thanks to everyone in the department for the dedicated service they rendered, and are still rendering.

A few days ago a Bill was tabled here in this House. I am referring, of course, to the Identification Bill. Although I accept that it is not going to be alluded to frequently during this debate, it is so important that I think I must present a number of guidelines contained in the legislation, as well as a number of relevant circumstances, to hon members in order to eliminate any possible misunderstanding about this matter.

It is the Identification Bill which is of course a very important step in the entire process of reform on which this Government has been engaged for several years. The Bill is now being referred to the standing committee. As we are all aware, the standing committee consists of members of all three Houses of Parliament, and all the political parties are represented on it: Like all other standing committees, this standing committee plays a very important part in the legislative process. This committee can for example consider any aspect of identification to which reference is made, and if the committee has any proposals in this connection, the Government will most certainly listen to them and also give consideration to them.

†I also wish to refer to the moratorium which has been placed on certain matters which fall under the control of this department. They involve contraventions of the pass laws of 1952. The moratorium applies in respect of the following contraventions: Where a Black person does not possess a reference book; where he fails to produce a reference book on demand; where he fails to comply with certain provisions, such as compulsory endorsement in reference books in respect of employment and termination thereof; where a Black person is employed without his being in a possession of a reference book; and where a Black person is employed even though the termination of his previous employment has not been recorded in his reference book.

All these provisions have been placed under a moratorium but it is stressed that certain sections of the pass law are still in force. I want to emphasise that offenders against the Act will still be liable to prosecution and punishment when a person tries should they produce a materially altered reference book with the intention to defraud; falsely represent that the reference book has been issued to somebody; represent that the reference book that has been issued to somebody else has been issued to them; forge, mutilate or destruct a reference book.

*I must emphasise that these will still be offences, in spite of the moratorium placed on the other provisions. If the Bill is passed in its present form, and in view of the moratorium, the position will be that a uniform identity document is being issued to members of all the population groups and the Blacks (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, 1952, is being repealed in its entirety. The existing reference book now serves merely as an identity document and remains valid until it is replaced by a new identity document.

Further particulars which may perhaps be interesting are that the new identity document will be the same for everyone, for all the population groups, as far as format and appearance is concerned, as the document at present being issued to Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The document will contain only the identity particulars, and particulars of drivers’ and fire-arm licences. The population group will be indicated in the code of the identity number.

†The department has launched a special programme to ensure that the issuing of the new identity document to the Black population will commence on 1 July. We hope that there will be as little disruption as possible and that they will all be issued as soon as possible.

Applications can be made from 1 May 1986. It is envisaged that all applicants who apply before 31 December 1986 for an identity document will be provided with one by 31 January 1987.

It is estimated that there are 14 million Blacks who are in possession of valid reference books. They must of course be issued with these identification documents. With the help of high-speed printing equipment the printing of these documents should be completed by 30 June of this year. The printed pages will be bound by the Government Printer at the rate of approximately 100 000 identity documents per day.

All persons who are legally resident in the Republic may call at the nearest regional or district office of the department or at a magistrate’s office to complete an application form.

*The completed application form, two recent photographs of the applicant and his present identity book must be presented by the applicant to the office concerned. After the applicant’s identity has been confirmed, his identity book will be returned to him pending the arrival of his new identity document. When he calls for it, his identity book will be exchanged for his new document. Except for the photographs, which an applicant must pay for himself, it will cost him nothing.

Fingerprints will be taken of applicants for identity documents to be included in the population register, but these will not appear in the identity document.

It is interesting that the Population Register was virtually complete in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians at the end of March 1986. Ninety-eight per cent of the Whites who are entitled to identity documents, 85% of the Coloureds and 83% of the Indians have received them.

Naturally the large-scale issuing of uniform identity documents is an expensive process. The project is expected to cost approximately R30 million, but it is primarily a nonrecurring expense.

†The importance of the existing reference book as an instrument of identification as well as the new identity document must be emphasised.

One need only think of the various benefits and the application of this document. I wish to refer to just a few of them. The document can be used for all money and bank transactions, the obtaining of house loans, pension pay-outs, maintenance payouts, for drivers’ licences, motor vehicle registrations, trading licences and the concluding of hire-purchase agreements. The identity document facilitates the registration of births, marriages and deaths and the acquiring of municipal services such as water and electricity, admission to hospitals and the renting of homes. I believe therefore that the new identity document will in fact become its holder’s friend.

Mr Chairman, this discussion on the Vote is the first opportunity the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has had to be accountable for his Vote in his present capacity. I should like to wish him every success in dealing with it and would like to say that I am confident that he will be accessible to those who discuss problems with him in the same way as he certainly has been accessible up to now, and as befits the political head of a department which is essentially a service department.

The Department of Home Affairs is a very important service department which in the past has often suffered under shortsighted decision-making. I think this shortsighted decision-making has mainly been due to the existence of two factors, firstly that no Minister has been allowed to remain in this department long enough to really allow for continuity—and I think this would create a problem for any department—and secondly that the department has often been charged with the implementation of political decisions which were taken by other Ministers who possibly did not have an understanding of the problems which this department experiences from day to day. Because of this I hope that this hon Minister will serve a long enough term in his present position.

I now particularly want to express an opinion on the fact that the hon the Minister’s decisions concerning the affairs of his department are also subject to pressure brought to bear on him by his hon colleagues. Here I am referring to an aspect I have discussed in the past, and that is the use, or the abuse, of the control over passports and visas for some or other political reason. During the course of last year the Government saw fit to refuse applications for passports made by a group of students from the University of Stellenbosch and also to a clergyman who wanted to hold discussions with the ANC.

†I want to say that the refusal of these passports to those students and the clergyman involved, was an act of political spite. It was motivated by party political considerations. By no stretch of the imagination can it be suggested that a visit by a group of South Africans to ANC representatives in Lusaka will in any way affect the internal security position of South Africa. Just because the Government may have felt that they had been upstaged by this particular initiative of these young people did not give them the right to impose such a penalty. The irony is that the ANC itself, I am sure, was in no way inconvenienced by this short-sighted move; it was the students who had to bear the brunt of this violation of their democratic right. I believe it was a violation of their democratic right, not simply in the sense that they had been refused the use of a facility which in my opinion is an intrinsic right of a citizen of this country, but moreover that they had in fact been prevented from holding discussions with whomsoever they wished to do so.

The Government should realise that young people like these students are expected to be in the front line when South Africa is threatened internally or from outside our borders. They are in the front line when there is violent conflict of any kind. The least the Government can do is not to put obstacles in their way when they wish to find out for themselves whether reconciliation between the opposing forces in this country is possible. The arrogant paternalism of the Government which underlay this move is quite and completely unforgiveable. To put it very crudely, but also very clearly, I believe that we owe the young people of this country who defend this country a little bit more than the promise of a military funeral. We owe them some kind of commitment to a peaceful future. We cannot expect them to live in this country if there is internal conflict. We cannot expect them to do that. The younger these people are, the more it is their right to look for alternatives to the present impasse we find ourselves in.

The Government must realise that their own record of dealing with the ANC is an unqualified fiasco. If any citizen of this country wishes to pursue the consideration of alternatives, the Government has no right to stop him. [Interjections.] It is, of course, already clear that the Government is not quite as committed to this attitude as it was at the time these passports were refused. Moreover I believe—and I say this in sympathy with the hon the Minister—that he is the one who will end up looking like an inconsistent blunderer.

I believe the Government’s attitude on this issue has already changed and that it will change even further because, since then, other groups from this country have visited and held talks with the ANC. No less an individual than the Chief Minister of KaNgwane has been there. He has come back and expressed his views and been part of the political debate in this country. All this has been allowed.

I believe the State President has already started to draw a line between the Marxists and the Nationalists within the ranks of the ANC, and I want to suggest that this may be the first step in the direction of conceding the need to negotiate with everybody who represents anything in this country. Moreover, I believe the day will come when he will in fact do so.

I therefore feel sorry for that hon Minister, because he will appear to be the one who has been unreasonable, inconsistent and hyper-conservative—almost paranoid—in the application of the powers of his department. I do not believe he is the only man who should carry the can. [Interjections.]

A second point I wish to raise is that it appears increasingly as if the Government is getting rough with foreign journalists, again by refusing them either visas or work permits or both. I gain the clear impression that in this respect, the hon the Minister is again under significant pressure from his colleagues.

In answer to a question I posed recently, the hon the Minister informed the House that of the total applications by foreign journalists to enter this country dealt with between June and December last year, the number of refused applications almost equalled the number of approved ones. In fact, there were 956 applications, 274 of which have not been dealt with. They should have been dealt with in January 1986. Perhaps they have been dealt with by now. I am sure they probably have. However, of those applications that have been dealt with, 350 have been approved and 332 rejected.

In my view, this is undoubtedly bad news. It is also significant that in his reply the hon the Minister mentioned the fact that since June 1985 statistics of journalists who apply to enter the country are specifically being kept while such statistics are not kept in respect of other occupational groups.

I want to express my earnest belief that if the Government wishes to project a true picture of South Africa overseas, it is going about it in the worst possible way by selectively allowing and refusing men from the media to function in this country. All this is taking place while the hon the Deputy Minister of Information, in a mealy-mouthed fashion, bleats over SATV how committed this Government is to Press freedom. This kind of policy cannot be reconciled with freedom of the Press in any accepted meaning of that concept. I hope that the hon the Minister will take this issue seriously and that he will try to exercise counter-pressure against those of his hon colleagues in the Government who are too inclined to act heavy-handedly when they are confronted with people who do not necessarily favour or sympathise with their point of view. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this is the first occasion on which the hon the Minister is dealing with the Home Affairs Budget, and I think it is appropriate for all of us on this side of the committee to tell him that we are proud of what we have seen happen so far under his guidance. We are looking forward to seeing what is going to happen in future.

The course of history was such that this hon Minister helped to bring about some of the most momentous changes to the political scene in South Africa. We honour him for this, and we thank him. I do not want to deal with the Bill which has been referred to the standing committee; I just want to point out that this is one of the decisions with the greatest historic value which the Government of South Africa has ever taken in the history of this country.

In association with the hon the Minister I should also like to refer to the officials. We wish Mr Gerrie van Zyl a speedy recovery, and we should like to express our thanks to him for the annual report of the Department of Home Affairs. It is, as usual, a very comprehensive piece of work; it is an excellent piece of work of which we, together with the officials, can be proud.

Over the years everyone in this House has come to know the officials of the Department of Home Affairs—with whom we perhaps co-operate more frequently than with the officials of other departments and also owing to the fact that they deal with elections—as very dedicated people. For that reason we should like to thank them most sincerely from the Council Chamber of this country for what we have experienced. We want to wish them everything of the best. They have an incredible amount of work awaiting them, particularly this year.

As members of the standing committee we should also like to thank the officials who assisted us in this connection. I almost think it is wrong to mention names, but as far as the standing committee is concerned, I nevertheless think that it would not be at all out of place to express our thanks to Mr Attie Tredoux, because he assists us consistently and in a very able way on the standing committee. We should like to tell the hon the Minister that there is hope for any machinery of government when one has officials of that calibre.

The hon member for Green Point referred to a few aspects, including visas. I do not want to say anything about that now, because it would be more appropriate for the hon the Minister to reply to him.

By the way there is something I almost forgot. Hon members will see that I have a beautiful red flower in my lapel and there are several other members also wearing them. Hon members may wonder what happened to us. We are not introducing Budgets today, but it is still a big occasion. Twelve years ago, on 24 April 1974, the 1974s were elected to Parliament. Hon members need only look at the men wearing the flowers. [Interjections.] If I am not included, hon members can see that Parliament got a good batch of newcomers that year. I am also referring to hon members on the other side of the House, such as the hon members for Barberton and Umhlanga. [Interjections.] It was a fine group that came to Parliament, and we still enjoy playing a modest part in the activities of Parliament.

Owing to the fact that the Press falls under the hon the Minister for Home Affairs I should like to say a few words on this subject. In the first place I should like to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for his attitude towards the Press in general and also for the Government’s standpoint that the Media Council must be the instrument to which complaints are addressed and that to a very great extent the Media Council must bring about self-discipline in the South African Press.

On the occasion of the standing committee’s activities in connection with publications control the Newspaper Press Union gave evidence before us. The same applies to the people in the periodical industry, who have now established their own association. The standpoint they adopted throughout was that in the interests of a free Press, the Government should allow them to apply self-discipline.

It is true that we in this country quarrel with the Press a great deal. I remember the era of my predecessor in the Innesdal constituency, Mr Jaap Marais, when the Press was frequently blamed for everything that went wrong. I think it is appropriate for those of us in this House—as members of Parliament of South Africa—to express our collective thanks to the free Press in the Republic of South Africa for what it is doing in the interests of, in the first place, the great concept which is of importance to all of us, viz freedom. It is a fact that one cannot maintain a democracy at all unless the Press is a partner in the discussion concerning freedom in politics. One cannot maintain a free market system unless the Press is a partner in the essential discussion of the free market system and its advantages. One cannot exchange ideas on a single social matter unless the Press makes its contribution to the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

In South Africa in general we have a very responsible Press. As far as I am concerned we have—of course with an exception here and there—a very responsible Press. This is one of the reasons why South Africa—in a continent where so many problems exist— stands out as a country of prosperity and development; as a dynamic country. We on this side of the House would like to keep things that way in this beautiful country of ours.

At the moment the Press in South Africa in general is burdened by tremendous problems. There is the agreement with the television service in connection with the M-Net system. One can only hope that one is wrong because it would be a tragedy if that system were to collapse owing to the fact that the SABC cannot get enough advertisements under the present dispensation in any case, and it is consequently alleged that that system is going to fail.

It is extremely important for the Government to try, on its part, to keep on strengthening the Press in South Africa in the interests of the future of this country, and in the interests of the wonderful ideal we stand for. The highest of these is of course freedom. Of course I know that there is unrest in the hearts of some of our people. Peace and freedom are the cries around us. First peace and then freedom, some people say. Others say there must first be freedom and then peace.

When we look at the realities in South Africa, we realise that it is undoubtedly true that the politics of yesteryear have caught up with us today, but a great number of the people in our country are still living in the past in many respects. There are some White people who are still clinging to the past. There are Black people who are clinging to the past. It is ironic that the Black radicals who want the Whites out of the way in South Africa are living absolutely in the past. Dramatic changes are being introduced by the Government to make this South Africa a totally different South Africa to the South Africa which they are dissatisfied with, but to many of them those changes are still the subject of great resentment and great aggression.

Here, too, the Press plays an extremely important part. If we look at South Africa in 1986 we are justified in saying that the apartheid cow has been completely drained dry by the calves of reality and the calves of human dignity. [Interjections.] We are not ashamed to say that. We are not afraid to say that we would like to get the apartheid cows out of the country’s system entirely—I am now speaking about it in the negative sense—and that human co-existence and the natural group formation of people can go its own way, as it will do in any case.

It is extremely important for us to keep the Press going, so that it in turn can keep the political debate which is under way in South Africa going during the next few months.

There is no doubt that if people stand and stare at each other and growl at each other without saying anything, one has increasing problems. On the other hand it is extremely important for the Press to be used as an instrument for discussion between politicians, between clergymen and between all thinking people regarding the political recipes and answers for South Africa. That is why it is the Government’s standpoint that the Press must discipline itself and the Media Council must act as a kind of watchdog, a sound and very good standpoint.

If we want to destroy ourselves entirely in this country we must attack freedom in the broad sense of the word. Freedom is the father of prosperity and the mother of development. The Black people in South Africa are talking about a “liberation struggle”. We must free South Africa entirely of poverty, tension and the foolish ideas that we can save this country with tension and conflict. In this regard the Press plays an extremely important role. We pay tribute to the Press and I should like to advocate, as far as the State and the Press is concerned that the Government must please look into the matter of … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to wish the Director-General, who has health problems, a full and speedy recovery.

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs of South Africa’s multiracial coalition Government … [Interjections.] … is also the leader of the NP in Natal where he is a very enthusiastic supporter of power-sharing at every level with the numerically strong Zulus. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that some of them are of course the descendants of Dingaan. I just hope that today during the discussion of his vote the hon the Minister will give us far clearer replies than his leader in the Cape did.

We shall deal with certain matters which fall under the hon the Minister’s department in far more detail when the important pieces of legislation which he has tabled come up for discussion. This includes the opening of South Africa to immigrants of all races and the admission of Indians into White areas, inter alia the Free State. We shall also discuss publications control and, of course, the entire matter of the Identification Bill, further.

In his speech during the discussion of the State President’s vote the hon member for Gezina referred to the by-election in Springs and mentioned an incident where the CP reportedly refused to serve coffee to Black policemen.

It was disgraceful!

The hon member says “disgraceful”, but he must listen first and not speak so quickly. When one has been in Parliament this long, one does not speak so quickly.

You cannot think that quickly!

Of course the hon member for Gezina is saying these things for overseas consumption.

It is for internal, not overseas consumption!

He wants to tell overseas countries how bad the Afrikaner has actually been here in South Africa during the past few centuries.

You are a poor example of the Afrikaner! [Interjections.]

The hon member referred inter alia to many good Afrikaners, also people in his constituency, as “self-appointed angels and self-glorified monsters”. We shall meet one another again in Gezina regarding this matter, but I just want to tell the hon member for Gezina that he must not speak so extremely derogatively about the people who sent him here. [Interjections.] The hon member for Gezina is fleeing so precipitately from his own political past in order to get a place of honour among the New Nats that he does not realise what traps he has actually fallen into.

As regards the matter of the Black policemen, I want to ask the hon member why, if what he alleges is true, he did not bring the relevant matter to the attention of the relevant electoral officer. Why did the hon member not come and discuss the matter with my colleague, the hon member for Brakpan, who was at the same polling station either?

I want to tell the hon members of the NP that the CP does not suffer from a chronic Freudian guilt complex as regards the Blacks. Those hon members need not teach us a lesson about good relations. [Interjections.]

If what the hon member for Gezina said was true, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is now his policy that Black policemen will be on duty at polling stations when Whites are holding an election. Do the hon the Minister and his Government want to try to create a certain kind of incident there or does he want Black policemen to act as arbitrators between Whites at their own polling stations?

What were they doing there? [Interjections.]

I also want to ask why the hon member for Gezina did not tell the Committee that one of the presiding officers of the NP had to be withdrawn because a court interdict had been obtained against him on the grounds that he had signed as a witness to the forged signatures of voters and that this cost the NP R1 500.

That is disgraceful! [Interjections.]

Why did the hon member not also talk about the MPC who during the by-election in Stellenbosch was also guilty of similar things?

What about the Minister who registered himself?

Then I also want the hon the Minister to tell the hon member for Gezina how it came about that the hon the Minister and his wife appeared on the Port Natal voters’ roll, and how he had to remove himself from it eventually. How did his signature get on that application form? If we must talk about faults, let us also talk about that matter.

As far as reclassification is concerned, I want to say that it is astounding that during the past three years the NP has declared 2 483 Coloureds to be Whites. They reclassified 100 Black people as Coloureds in 1983; 109 in 1984; and 397 in 1985. [Interjections.] This is the method the Government is adapting to get at the Population Registration Act. Because they want to attack that principle, they are now gradually trying to destroy the Act and remove its underlying elements. As we read again today in the newspapers, they want to turn South Africa into a “melting pot society”. Of course after this Dr Heese will also be able to write a great deal again.

I also want to express my appreciation to the Directorate of Publications for the difficult task they have to perform in our society.

They do it well.

Yes, they do it well, and I greatly appreciate that.

I want to tell hon members on the Government side that there are many people who are very important and who are close to the Government who do not facilitate the task of the Publications Board. There are people close to the Government—they are some of the gurus of the NP—who are not making a contribution to the protection for which the Directorate of Publications was introduced.

I want to refer specifically to the praise, adulation and awards bestowed upon Breyten Breytenbach by Rapport. I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the board of directors of Rapport expressed a viewpoint, but Dr Willem de Klerk, one of the great NP thinkers, knew as well as I and any other informed person in this country did, what the standpoints of Breyten Breytenbach were, what he stood for and what his views on South Africa were. Here comes Rapport, one of the NP’s newspapers, and gives him an award. In his speech he expressed a concentration of contempt and hatred towards the Afrikaner and what the Afrikaner stands for. [Interjections.] I want to tell Dr De Klerk and Rapport that one is known by one’s friends, and I want to tell the hon members of the Government that we are also beginning to know them by their friends. [Interjections.]

The State has the responsibility to govern, and it has the responsibility to adopt standpoints with regard to publications control on the basis of our Christian principles. I think it is high time many of our literary academics, many of our theologians who occupy themselves from morning to night with so-called ecumenical movements and are under the impression that one must simply lump everything together in South Africa and then things will come right, and also some of our cultural organisations that think the only way of ensuring the greatest good is if one throws open one’s organisation to non-non-Whites, to exercise far greater responsibility with regard to these matters, as they should have done in the case of Breyten Breytenbach. People like Breyten Breytenbach are praised to the skies by Rapport and also by Dr Willem de Klerk over the course of many years. As long as the NP looks at those matters with approval, we will not be able to accept them as a government which really wants to endorse the principles of publications control. [Interjections.]

In future this hon Minister’s department is most probably going to be used far more vigorously to promote this open society of South Africa. I want to tell the hon the Minister who is sitting here today with his red flower, that we hold him responsible as the hon Minister who has scrapped this legislation which is of cardinal importance. In our future struggle to achieve the real freedom and justice we want in South Africa, we shall hold him responsible for this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik has seen fit to attack my Natal leader here right from the outset regarding the so-called Natal Indaba. [Interjections.] I assume that the hon member was not speaking in his capacity as the MP for Rissik, because there is no future for him in that constituency. Consequently he did not speak as a Transvaler. I assume that he spoke as the leader of the CP in the Free State. [Interjections.]

The hon member saw fit to refer scathingly to a conference in Natal—the future of Natal. We on this side of the House are not accepting responsibility for that, and we have made no secret about it. We made no secret about our doubts regarding the possible success of this conference, but because we are an open party that does not want to smother the debate on the future of South Africa and the debate on the future of our province, we have our observers at that conference.

Now I want to ask the hon member for Rissik where their representatives are at the Natal Indaba. They cannot object to the composition of the participants in the Indaba. After all, separate group interests are represented at that conference. [Interjections.] What is more important, apart from the fact that according to their own philosophy they cannot actually object to the composition of the Indaba, is that they also have a plan for Natal, or so they say. After all, they allege that they have an interest in Natal.

In October they came and told us there in Durban how they were going to take over the Port Natal seat. [Interjections.] Then the day before the election they telephoned the office of the hon the Minister merely to ask his staff how it felt to be on the losing side! These are the people who allege that they have a plan for Natal.

These are now the people who claim that the White Natalians like myself, the hon the Minister and our Chief Whip, inter alia, must all be bundled into that people’s state of theirs at Morgenzon. These are the people who want to cram the entire Indian population of Natal into the magisterial district of Stanger. These are the people who do not even have the elementary understanding to know that the Coloured people of Natal are not part of the Coloured people of the Cape, and who do not foresee any future for these people in Natal, except presumably in the sea. These are the people who claim that they have a plan for Natal, but who do not have the courage of their convictions to show their faces at a conference on the future of Natal and to say there what their plan is, to justify it and to sell it to the people of Natal. [Interjections.] The voters of Natal will deal with such a party in the same way that the voters of Port Natal dealt with the hon the leader of the CP and his candidate.

I am very grateful to the hon the Minister for making a statement on the Identification Bill this afternoon. During the next few weeks this legislation will probably become very topical. I want to touch on the subject, although I do not want to talk about the Identification Bill as such.

During the next few weeks we are probably going to get a great deal of negative criticism regarding the Bill. We can probably expect a great deal to be said by the Official Opposition regarding the group classification which will remain a part of the legislation. From the conservative groups in this country there will probably be negative criticism regarding the possibility of fingerprints. One does not want to discuss the merits of this because the entire matter is going to serve before the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. The hon members who have divergent viewpoints on this are represented in that standing committee and their parties’ standpoints can be put there.

What I do want to say is that when we talk about population registration, we in this country can be a little more positive. We should take into consideration the fact that population registration is nothing out of the ordinary in an ordered democratic dispensation. A proper population register has many more advantages than merely the combating of crime. I am grateful that the hon the Minister referred in his statement to several of the commercial and other advantages of a good population register. One need only think of the large number of unidentified dead and injured persons and also persons suffering from amnesia, to realise what benefits a good population register has.

As I have done in previous years, I again want to refer specifically to the usefulness to us of the population register in the holding of elections and more specifically referendums over the past two or three years. In 1983 for the first time we held a referendum with the population register as a basis.

I think hon members of all political parties will agree that the way in which the 1983 referendum was held made it far easier for the political parties to put across their points of view. It was also far easier for the entire population to express its opinion than was the case at any previous election based on the old voters’ list system which in its turn was based on the system of general registration.

The one weak point in the drawing up of voters’ lists and in the holding of elections on the basis of the population register is and remains the effective notification of changes of address. I think it is an important matter, since we are on the eve of the potential addition of 4 million Black people to the population register, for us again to consider the necessity of finding ways of getting the cooperation of the public with regard to an effective change of address system in the population register.

Let us just for a moment take, note of the fact that, according to the statement by the hon the Minister, at present the population register is 98% complete with regard to the Whites, 85% with regard to the Coloureds and 83% with regard to the Indians. If this if put into figures, it means that approximately 4,5 million Whites, 2,4 million Coloureds and just more than 650 000 Indians appear on the population register. In other words 7½ million people in our country have already been incorporated in the population register. An additional 14 million Blacks will mean that before the end of the year the population register will treble in size, and consequently the necessity of notifying changes of address effectively will be three times as great. I do not for a single moment want to disparage the tremendous efforts which are already being made to issue identity documents and to notify changes of address.

In November 1985 the entire Standing Committee on Home Affairs visited the Population Registration Office in Pretoria and I believe that hon members had greatly appreciation for the tremendous task being performed there. Hon members probably also found that a great deal could still be done with regard to modernising procedures. But they probably also understood that the department was waiting for this legislation which we already knew was going to be introduced. But the main problem is not the procedures being used in the Population Registration Office itself. The main problem lies in finding ways of motivating the general public to notify changes of address quickly.

My time has virtually expired, but I think that in the days in which we are living, it is important to remember that for many centuries now a country like Switzerland has succeeded in getting four very clearly distinguishable cultural groups to live in harmony with one another. One of the methods which the Swiss use with great success is that they literally hold a referendum for every bagatelle.

Order! I am sorry, but we shall not be able to discuss the Swiss any further. The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon member for Umlazi and I hope that during the course of my address I will be able to reinforce many of the arguments he has put forward this afternoon, because we are very much on the same wavelength.

Firstly, however, I would like to congratulate all fellow flower-children here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I am one of them but nobody gave me a flower!

My congratulations go in particular to the hon the Minister who, although he did arrive on 24 April 1974, took leave of us in order that we could train him for a while in Natal before returning him to this hon House. I congratulate him on his first year as Minister of Home Affairs. I also ask that the good wishes of hon members in these benches be conveyed to Mr Gerrie van Zyl for a speedy recovery. We trust that he will be restored to full health in the shortest possible time.

The hon member for Innesdal made a very important contribution here this afternoon in talking about Press freedom. I believe that this is something at which we must all look in a very responsible manner. For any country to function in a democratic way and according to the sort of norms in which we believe, one of the priorities is an independent and a free Press. That independent Press must at all times have the right to report on and print news, and it must have the opportunity and the right to print its views and opinions. I have absolutely no argument with that whatsoever. I have said this before and I say it again: The Press is biased, and it will always be biased toward a particular viewpoint. That is also it’s right.

However, I do question the right of the media to make their news. There, I think, we must draw the fine dividing line. I question the right of mischief-makers to come into this country of ours with that most dynamic piece of equipment of all the media, the camera, and to start making mischief in our country. If the hon the Minister has good reason to believe that the sort of person who came into our country a little while ago, and made an appalling programme that was broadcast on British television, apparently at the weekend …

Hear, hear!

… then I believe that he has every right to deny that type of person entry to this country.

Having said that, I should like to turn now to our visit to the department last year. We visited, among other places, the factory—if I can call it that—which was turning out the hated passbook. Obviously, at that time, we realised—and I agree with what the hon member for Umlazi has said—that change was coming. I do not want to pre-empt the proposed legislation but I do want to say that I trust that the amalgamation of the departments under the ministry which we are debating now—the division of the old Department of Co-operation and Development which dealt with the passbooks and the division which dealt with the identity documents as we know them—is going to make for a speedy, ongoing process in order to ensure—I am now talking about the existing identity document—that in this new issue of identity documents for the Black population of South Africa we are not going to have a backlog building up again. I think we must avoid that at all costs because, like the hon member for Umlazi, I believe that a population register is one of the most vital things in our community today. We must have a population register.

There are many reasons for having it but one of the most important reasons of all is to ensure that the democratic process can be properly implemented. That is necessary so that people’s names can be taken onto voters’ rolls, as well as the information about where they live, so that they can vote.

What the future will bring, heaven alone knows but the fact remains that even in the future it is going to be the identity document and the updated information contained in the identity document which is going onto the voters’ rolls and which will update the voters’ roll. I do not believe that elections will ever be properly conducted until our voters’ rolls are correctly maintained. [Interjections.] That is only going to be achieved through the identity document, and that is going to require—the hon member for Umlazi pinpointed this accurately—education— voter education. We have introduced this identity document, but we have not educated people as to the vital necessity of keeping the information contained therein updated. We therefore have to make the population of South Africa aware of the fact that it is tremendously important to ensure that their personal records are kept up to date.

In case of a change of address, it is their responsibility; they must do something about it—they must immediately advise the department. The slip that is contained in the identity document is returned to the individual and it tells him of that change, and that is proof of the fact that he occupies that address.

However, like all things, there is one problem. One may easily say, well, let us introduce penalties to ensure that this is done. However, one cannot introduce penalties— Mr Chairman, congratulations on your flower too!—if one does not have a clean slate oneself. In order to do this we have to ensure that the department—this amalgamated department—is updated and that there is no delay. Once it has that level of efficiency it can then rightfully turn around and say: Right, if you people do not want to listen to what we say then a penalty will be imposed for not doing it. This is the only way, through this education and through the imposition of a penalty.

In the short time still available to me I should like to discuss for a minute the brain drain.

Weekly advertisements are appearing in the upmarket financial journals in this country as well as in the business sections of the weekend newspapers. One can see display advertisements encouraging qualified young South Africans to leave this country. This is falling on fertile ground. We have a number of young people who believe that the grass is greener on the other side. I think the time has come where we have to start countering this campaign with a campaign of our own, because as sure as the night follows the day, the economy in this country is going to turn around, and if this brain drain is allowed to continue, we are going to find ourselves in an appalling mess because we are going to face a new future without the necessary skills to do the jobs and the people to occupy the qualified positions that are going to be so vital. We cannot afford to lose those skills, and I think what we have to do is to start encouraging immigration, because I sincerely believe that there are skilled people in many areas of the world that would like to come to South Africa.

Let us not believe that we are all that bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. There are many countries, believe me, with their own problems and people there still look upon South Africa as being a place they would like to go to and possibly earn a living. Are we doing enough to make those people aware of the fact that we have the opportunities for them in this country? I think if we embark on an immigration campaign we can encourage people of skills into our country at a rate beyond our expectations. This is something I would urge that we look at because our economy is going to turn and we have got to be ready for it when the day comes.

In conclusion I would like to say to the hon the Minister that he has a difficult task … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, although I do not agree with everything the hon member for Umhlanga had to say, I do think he made a good contribution. He will probably excuse me if I do not follow his arguments any further.

I rather want to respond to the speech made by the hon member for Rissik, who made one of his tirade speeches again today; speeches we have become used to by this time. I want to ask the hon member for Rissik whether he does not realise yet that we are engaged in reform in this country, and that therefore we cannot continue in the way we went on previously. I want to ask the hon member whether he does not realise that a new dawn is breaking in this country …

It looks more like an eclipse of the moon!

… that we are establishing a new South Africa—a new South Africa in which all population groups will have a chance to continue to exist, the Whites too.

Are you sleeping with all your doors open yet? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, last year the discussion of this Vote was dominated to a great extent by a debate about the report on the prohibition of mixed marriages and section 16 of the Immorality Act. You will remember, Sir, that on that occasion the Conservative Party almost had a fit because the Government accepted the recommendations of the report and removed the two said measures from the Statute Book. The hon members for Rissik and Koedoespoort ranted and raved at the so-called Cape liberals to such an extent that one would have sworn the Whites had reached the end of the road in this country, and that every other future marriage would be a mixed marriage. I should like to give those members the opportunity to tell us how many mixed marriages have taken place since those two measures disappeared from the Statute Book. If these hon members were so concerned about the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, surely they would have known this. It seems, however, they do not know even that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I took the trouble to get the relevant figures from the department. I shall give them to the hon members now. From 19 June 1985— the date on which the measures officially disappeared from the Statute Book—until the end of December 1985, there were only 313 mixed marriages in a total of 57 582 marriages. [Interjections.] That is just over 0,5%—0,54%, to be precise.

If we add the few months afterwards—and hon members will see in a moment what I am getting at—until the end of March, it appears there were only 414 mixed marriages in a total of 89 793 marriages. [Interjections.]

Do you have figures with reference to section 16?

Order!

The percentage is just less than 0,5%. Until and including December it was just above 0,5%. If we calculate it to date, it is below 0,5%. This indicates, therefore, that the number of mixed marriages is decreasing gradually. For further clarity—and also to substantiate my argument—I supply the figures … [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot continue in this way. Hon members must give the hon member Mr Kritzinger an opportunity to make his speech.

To bring this point home properly, I shall give the House the figures from December 1985 to date. Although we still had 64 mixed marriages in December, there were only 44 in January. In February there were only 37, and in March only 20 mixed marriages. This indicates, therefore, that immediately after the relevant legislation had disappeared from the Statute Book, there was a great number of mixed couples who wanted to get married. That was to be expected, naturally. I believe these figures prove, however, that the Conservative Party’s fears that large-scale miscegenation would take place in South Africa, were totally unfounded.

When the Standing Committee on Home Affairs considered the Electoral Act Amendment Act recently, it was suggested that a select committee be re-appointed in order to go through the Electoral Act with a fine-tooth comb for weaknesses and defects. To tell the truth, the standing committee was quite unanimous in its opinion that a select committee should be appointed. I had the impression that the Coloured and Indian members of the standing committee were concerned in particular with the large-scale intimidation that had taken place at the time of their respective elections, while we—the members of this House of Assembly—were of the opinion that the whole Electoral Act had to be scrutinised for weaknesses. Whatever the case may be, Sir, we shall welcome it if the hon the Minister complies with such a request. In fact, I am asking the hon the Minister formally to establish such a select committee. It is a fact that the Electoral Act, which is an immensely comprehensive piece of legislation, has been amended often in the past. Every time one thinks that Act has reached perfection. Just as soon as another election is held, however, new shortcomings and defects are discovered and the Act has to be changed once again.

Allow me, just in passing, to point out a few aspects of the Electoral Act which, in my opinion, should receive the attention of a select committee. In the first place I refer to the question of keeping voters’ lists up to date, to which the hon member for Umlazi has just referred. I think the hon member for Umhlanga made reference to it as well. I know of a number of other hon members who have strong views on this too. Possibly they will refer to it later when they take part in the debate. In addition, the preparatory arrangements with regard to an election, including the arrangements in connection with the handling of postal and special votes, should receive attention. I am thinking of the arrangements at the polls, arrangements in respect of misdemeanours and malpractices, and the penal provisions for offences, to name only a few.

I do not want to discuss all these aspects today. Time does not allow me to do so in any case. Yet I cannot miss the opportunity to put in a word now for a matter I feel very strongly about.

For quite a while now there has been talk, particularly in the opposition parties ranks, that because the Electoral Act provides for special votes, the postal votes can be abolished. I readily concede that in constituencies—rural constituencies in particular—in which there is not a large number of absent voters, the special vote works well. In emergencies, too, for which the special vote, if hon members remember, was originally meant, for example in cases in which a voter has to leave suddenly before the election day, the special vote is the obvious answer. [Interjections.]

When one has to deal with large numbers of absent voters, however, in the urban areas for example, the postal vote is eminently more practical. [Interjections.] This is true for the simple reason that in the case of the special vote, the voter has to make a trip to the magistrate’s office to cast his vote in 99% of cases, whereas in the case of the postal vote he can make his cross in the privacy of his home. It is my experience that it can easily take an hour to fetch a voter in Oranjezicht, for example, to take him down to the magistrate’s office, to have him cast his vote, and to take him back to his home again. This takes even longer if the voter is a woman, because often she wants to put on another dress or powder her nose. In that hour one could very easily have delivered six or eight or even more postal vote application forms to the homes of other voters, or received postal votes from them if they had been issued already.

The postal vote is easier and more convenient for the voter. It is easier and more convenient for the party worker to let the voter vote at his home, and in addition one saves money and time.

There is another thing that bothers me and which should be rectified. That is the fact that special votes can be cast before the first postal votes are issued. Special votes can be cast from the seventh day after nomination day, whereas postal votes can only be issued from the 21st day before election day.

I am of the opinion that the position should have been reversed, because what happens in practice? The moment we hand our postal vote application forms to the returning officer, the opposition parties have a look at them. They write down the new addresses of the voters involved and try to persuade them to vote for their party. [Interjections.] We trace the voters, often with great difficulty and expense, and then the opposition parties try to lure them away. [Interjections.]

What I have realised to an increasing extent recently, is that these voters often simply receive a telephone call in which they are informed that the votes they have applied for have arrived, and that they must go and vote at the magistrate’s office. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with two issues in the time at my disposal today.

The first one deals with race classification. I have in front of me here a reply to a question that was put to the hon the Minister earlier this year. It is question No 789. I must tell hon members that if it were not true, it would be quite funny because it makes extraordinary reading. There are instances here of Coloureds being reclassified as Whites, Chinese reclassified as Whites, Whites reclassified Indian, Griquas reclassified Black, Coloureds reclassified Black, and so on. There are about 30 different categories of people who get reclassified. Of course, one must ask oneself why this is so. These people do not go to sleep one night and then wake up the next morning with a changed skin colour—I presume that is the criteria we use to classify them in the first place. Obviously there must be some advantage for them in doing this. Of course there are advantages and that is the problem with the country we live in. There are advantages as to where they live, whom they freely want to associate with, where they can go to school and other issues like that. This is just another of the many, many arguments which show how stupid it is to force or compulsorily classify people into different groups. They should be free to associate with whom they wish, and that is the standpoint that this party has always had.

For the Government policy to work it is of course necessary that people should be classified and put into groups because they believe that each group has the desire to exercise its right to self-determination. That is what the hon the Minister says. However, I want to put it to him that I have never in my life seen any evidence that the population groups in South Africa have actually said that. I put it to him that he would never make it the subject of a referendum among Coloureds, Blacks or Indians as to whether they want their political futures to be determined on the basis of how they are racially classified. I put it to the hon the Minister, if he did put it to them, I suspect that they would say they want a system based on voluntary association with whichever group they choose.

One Act which is administered by the hon the Minister and which will have to go—it is clear and patently obvious that it is going to go—is the Population Registration Act. The only thing I do not understand is why we have had to go through years and years of argument, turmoil and agony in this House before it eventually goes, because go it will and go it must. [Interjections.]

The goal of “separate but equal” is impossible, and I would like to tell the hon the Minister that there are many ways of protecting groups on a non-racial basis. One does not have to classify people into groups to protect them.

Firstly, those groups can be protected by protecting certain of the values they stand for—one can protect their language, their culture and their religion. It is also possible to protect voluntary groups by other means such as ensuring that democracy operates, ensuring there are regular elections, freedom to associate with whichever party they want, freedom to organise for their party, freedom to participate in party-political work and the protection of the law to do so.

Tied in with this are, of course, the various constitutional mechanisms by means of which we can also protect groups, eg proportional representation, devolution of power, minority veto and a bill of rights. All I want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon is whether we cannot get rid of the Population Registration Act. Groups can be protected and there are other ways of protecting groups which are non-racial.

It is quite extraordinary that we sit here at this time in this House arguing about removing discrimination in our country when what we should really be talking about is how we are going to share power with other people.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I would like to touch on one issue which was dealt with by the hon member for Umhlanga this afternoon and that is the alarming figures of people who are emigrating from this country. I know we do have a positive balance and we should be thankful for that but what we should be doing is to try to ensure that those many people who are leaving for many different reasons, do not leave.

I would like to make an appeal to those people who are leaving. They must know that their leaving is not going to help us to solve our problems here. In fact, by leaving this country, they make the situation even worse. In the future our country is going to need their skills and it is going to need …

You are frightening them.

No, we are not frightening them. The NP and its policies have driven them out of this country for different reasons.

I make an appeal to those people to stay because we need them here and we need their skills. Their leaving makes it all the more difficult for those of us who do represent forces for change in the country.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member for Green Point for his good wishes. He referred to the measures that I took regarding the passports of the Stellenbosch students in particular. These were the measures that I took to disallow them from going to meet the ANC. The hon member also referred to certain clergymen. I want to tell the hon member that he need not feel sorry for me for having to carry out unpopular measures. I am convinced—as is this Government—that it is not the function of people like students, clergymen and others to hold discussions with a militant ANC.

How can you say that?

It is a militant ANC in the sense of its killing many people daily in this country. Speaking to them is a futile action and in taking the steps that I took, I most certainly wanted to indicate the strong objection of the Government to the naive action taken by those persons.

There is no change of view in this regard. The Government still considers it to be totally wrong for people to hold discussions with those who murder and destroy in this country.

If there are members of the ANC who do not subscribe to this militancy they must come forward. At this stage, however, it is quite clear that as a movement its attitude is militant.

If necessary I will repeat my action. Obviously I am not going to play policeman and stop everybody. Obviously I will not know how to do that as people do have passports. A passport is of course the right of a citizen but it is also the right of a particular country to withdraw it as hon members well know. The principle is therefore quite clear: We oppose it strenuously.

The hon member also referred to the Chief Minister of KaNgwane who is the leader of an independent national state.

No, it is not independent!

I am not going to interfere with what the Chief Minister is doing in that regard. However, I want to assure hon members that I am not under pressure from the Government as far as this is concerned and neither am I under pressure in regard to foreign journalists to whom the hon member referred.

I will not hesitate for one moment to withdraw the residence or work permits of foreign journalists who misbehave. I mean it in the strong sense. I have done so in the past but I have also in particular cases requested these journalists to come and speak to me. I also do that.

I want to refer to one instance concerning the very important foreign correspondents’ agency namely CBS News. Their top people visited me after I had indicated that I would withdraw the work permits of their representatives here. We signed a statement and I am going to read part of it:

It was a very satisfactory discussion in the end and the particular journalists were allowed to stay. I feel that we now understand each other better. South Africa is no worse off and neither are they, but the fact remains that television in particular has given us a terrible image. We have received so many applications from foreign journalists wanting to enter this country that we have had to take some strict measures in order to avoid an overemphasis on unfortunate circumstances.

*I just want to refer to the hon member for Innesdal whom I want to thank sincerely for his good wishes. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs I rely on him a great deal and really do appreciate his advice, net because we both are from the 1974 intake but because he has the kind of experience on which I can regularly depend. [Interjections.]

He spoke of that very important matter, the Press. I agree with him and the hon member for Umhlanga who also spoke about this, as far as this matter is concerned. I have no fault to find with any of the statements made by the hon members. Specifically to indicate the importance the Government attaches to the Press, I just want to complement what the hon members for Innesdal and Umhlanga said by referring to certain matters concerning the relationship between the Government and the Press.

The accusation has been made that the Government’s concept of a free Press is that the Press is free to publish what it likes, as long as it is not critical of the Government or the NP. This view is completely unfounded, and I want to link up unequivocally with the often stated standpoint that the Government is not opposed to criticism as such.

What does the Government expect of the Press? I have been told that someone once asked the former Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, that question. This was his reply:

That was in the good old days of Die Transvaler!

That of course is the ideal newspaper, but I shall try to be practical. The organised Press of South Africa, known as the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa and the Conference of Editors, have created the Media Council to which the hon member referred. This council which incidentally is entirely independent of its creators and of the Government, has laid down a code of conduct in regard to the standards reporting, comments, etc have to satisfy. This is a fine code of journalistic ethics worthy of emulation. Before its institution approximately two and a half years ago, it was discussed with the Government which leant it its approval. The Government still stands by its decision. In other words, we shall be satisfied, although perhaps not always happy, if the Press in its reporting and comments maintains the norms as prescribed in their own code of conduct.

†I wish to refer briefly to a few guidelines in this code of conduct, and I quote:

Ask John Wiley if he believes that.

He does, I know. The hon the Minister does believe that.

I want to quote a rule from that code which is of particular importance in our present situation in South Africa:

[Interjections.] These are the rules appearing in the code which the Media Council and the media have agreed to.

Now, the norms laid down by the code are indeed commendable, and I am grateful to say that they are being applied with responsibility by a large section of our Press— the hon member for Innesdal supported this. However, there are still a number of unsatisfactory features. One only needs to refer to the continually negative reporting in certain newspapers. One sometimes gets the impression that those newspapers report from the premise that only that which the Government for some or other reason would not like to see in print, is news.

* People in the Press like to say that a newspaper is merely the mirror of a community. This may be so, but surely a mirror does not reflect only the negative things, because it would then give a warped image. I want to state that some sections of the Press are so selective in their choice of themes and news, and so fastidious in their presentation of facts, that only the negative aspects are emphasised time and again. [Interjections.] In this way an incomplete, and therefore also a twisted image is presented to readers. I repeat, we are not against criticism as such. We do not ask recognition for and approval of what we are doing. I fully realise that opinions on news and perspectives will always differ according to the angle from which reality is being viewed. That is why it would be completely unrealistic to expect uniformity of perspective. What we do expect, however, is balanced presentation; which shies away from polarisation. Balance is essential due to the opinion-making Press’s unique role of moulding perceptions of reality. There should especially be a balance between the transmission of information and the propagation of a specific cause on the one hand, and on the other, responsible behaviour in the fluid reform situation in which we find ourselves, in which the reform generates its own tension and in which the flames of violence and revolution could easily be fanned.

The Government appreciates the efforts the Media Council makes to apply the code of conduct. But there is a need for the public to be better informed on the availability of the council. It is also essential that the process of settlement should take place as rapidly as possible. The necessity also exists that the Press should of its own accord do more to take care that the standards, as laid down in the code of conduct, are maintained. I am pleased to see that last Thursday the Media Council decided to establish a monitoring committee which on its own initiative will institute investigations into every matter of public interest regarding the good behaviour and reputation of the media. Recently active steps were taken to make the council better known to the public, and I also want to thank the Media Council for this.

While dealing with the media, I also want to draw attention to a recent disturbing phenomenon, the tremendous increase in the publication of literature of protest in the so-called alternative media and in what is called “knock-and-drop” publications which are not members of the Press Union, and are therefore also not subject to the jurisdiction of the Media Council. These publications are characterised by their tendency to the politicisation of particular target groups, and by their conspicuous attempts to create a climate of resistance against the existing state set-up. According to my information the publishers of these publications are sceptical about the conventional media and regard their institutions, for example the Press Union and the Media Council, as irrelevant. There is often absolutely no question of a balanced presentation of news and comments in accordance with the code of conduct of the Media Council. This matter now requires urgent attention.

Another aspect which I want to refer to in passing, is that of the lack of formal structuring which exists in the profession of journalism. I know of all the objections that have been raised in the past in regard to the idea of the professionalisation of the journalists, for example that this is not the case in any respected country in the world, and that such a step would mean the end of Press freedom. But I cannot summarily accept the objections against the structuring of the profession. However, I do not want to enlarge on this now, excepting that I do want to point out that in-depth attention must again be given to that particular matter. In the nature of things consideration should also be given to the position of the electronic media in this context.

Now, Mr Chairman, I want to turn to the hon member for Rissik. He also referred to the election. Of course, I cannot understand how people who have received such a severe thrashing, can be so verbose about elections.

We made a very strong impact! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in Port Natal the Conservative Party claimed long before the time that they were going to win that seat. Their hon leader specially paid a visit to the constituency of Port Natal late that night, with the expectation of course that his party would capture the seat, but what happened? They came a poor third. [Interjections.] They really did not even come second.

And the Progs came a poor second! [Interjections.]

The hon members of the PFP, who are sitting next to the CP over there, came second, and the poor Conservative Party came a poor third. [Interjections.] And believe it or not the hon member for Rissik refers to the fact that I apparently …

You have no reason to be so satisfied! We shall see!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik made a typical political speech. He had absolutely nothing to say that could improve the administration of my department. It was a typical political speech.

Since when may we not speak politics? [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to the registration of my wife and I as voters. One of his hon colleagues in the CP has also referred to it. But all that happened—and incidentally the said hon colleague of the hon member for Rissik spent four months in Durban, and in spite of that could not achieve anything in Port Natal—is that I, with regard to the registration of my wife and I, was advised that because I was moving from Pietermaritzburg and was living temporarily in a flat in Durban, I could transfer my registration to the Port Natal constituency because I did not have a permanent private place of residence at that stage. When the particulars accordingly appeared on the voters’ list, I asked the department of my own accord whether this was in order. Two days later they informed me that they did not think it could go through like that. And so I told them to remove my name. It was not necessary for the hon members of the CP to ask for my name to be removed. And so there was no reason for them to make such a fuss about it. [Interjections.] They in any case lost more than 2 000 votes. What difference would those two additional votes have made? They would really not have benefited by it, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

As far as police action at certain places is concerned, Sir, this is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. But I do want to express an opinion. I think the hon member is really so obsessed with race that he wants to bury his head even deeper in the sand. In any case, my duties dictate that no other population group, excepting the White population group, is allowed into polling booths. No one else is allowed within the polling stations where voting takes place. I think that if the hon member were to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order he would also give him a reply to that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, I do not have much time.

The hon member also referred to the fine work done by the Publication Board, and it gives me pleasure to accept the hon member’s praise.

He also referred to Breyten Breytenbach. What Breyten Breytenbach said, I of course do not approve of either. What he said would after all make any South African’s hair stand on end, but one should also take it like a man. The more radical that hon member’s party becomes, the more they want to hide from other views and criticism. [Interjections.] We are quite prepared and willing to listen to any criticism without it going to pieces.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to ask if the hon the Minister may allege that the CP is a radical party? [Interjections.] If he may in fact make this allegation, he should show enough courage to try to prove it.

Order! The concept of radicalism or the word radical is not unparliamentary. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

I have spent enough time on the hon member for Rissik.

I want to thank the hon member for Umhlatuzana sincerely. That hon member replied to many of the questions of the hon member on the opposite side. This hurt and that is why the hon Whip over there is carrying on like that. [Interjections.]

The suggestions given by the hon member regarding the effective listing of changes in address, the motivation of the public and so forth, are well motivated. I am sure that we shall find the opportunity to discuss this further when the amending Bill on the Electoral Act is discussed at a later stage, perhaps next week. I thank him for the suggestions he gave.

†I thank the hon member for Umhlanga for his good wishes and I shall also convey them to the Director-General. I have already agreed with his view that there must be an independent and a free Press. It is of considerable concern to this Government that that should be the case and I am glad that he also highlighted that issue.

He also referred to this appalling film which, according to news reports, recently appeared on channel 4 in England. It is a television film that was made here and we are still ascertaining the facts. It is quite clear, however, that the person who entered the country and made the film came here under false pretences and most certainly not as a journalist in this particular field. I do not as yet have all the facts, but I will reply to the hon member in due course on that issue.

I also thank him for his advice in regard to the various voting measures and no doubt we will have the opportunity of discussing them at a later stage. I quite agree that we must keep the ID up to date and we will see what can be done in this regard.

In regard to the brain drain which was mentioned, I want to tell the hon members for Umlazi and Umhlanga that I have already given instructions to my department that the radio, Press and television must be used to call on people to notify the department of new addresses. We are thus starting on something, and hopefully the system will be improved after further discussions.

*The hon member referred to the fact that we are losing qualified people. And so I just want to mention a few facts concerning immigration. Even in the year under review, which in this case is 1985, which was probably one of our worst years as far as our economy is concerned, and in which there were also conditions of unrest, South Africa’s immigration programme was such that more than 17 000 immigrants were accepted by us, notwithstanding all the adjustments that had to be made to the policy to scale down immigration. Although almost 11 000 people emigrated, we still had a gain of 5 800.

An analysis of the emigration and immigration figures of 1985 on professional, technical and related workers, which amongst others include engineers, doctors and dentists, indicate that as opposed to the 1 659 people who left the country, 2 273 people came into the country. Therefore there was a “profit” of 614. These are encouraging statistics. It can therefore not be stated generally that South Africa has come up against an exodus of brain power on a large scale. In some professional groups South Africa in fact in the present economic climate, which unfortunately is also accompanied by a relatively high unemployment figure, has an oversupply of workers. As far as the private and public sectors are concerned, recruitment campaigns overseas have been curtailed. Nonetheless 24 recruitment campaigns were undertaken in 1985 by employers in the private sector. They informed us that they have had satisfactory results.

I also want to thank the hon member Mr Kritzinger for the advice which he gave. I can tell him that in principle I am fully in favour of his suggestion that a select committee be appointed. I think we shall be able to discuss this in greater detail when the amending Bill of the Electoral Act is considered one of these days. I want to thank him in particular for the useful information and advice which he gave concerning that. I know he will in all probability have an interesting discussion with others on the relative excellences of postal and special votes. It should certainly be a very interesting discussion.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South obviously referred to his party’s political philosophy, namely that of voluntary association instead of statutory classification. I do not wish to enter into a debate about that now but we will have the opportunity to debate the relative merits and demerits of the two systems at another time. I and my party believe firmly that racial classification is not discriminatory. In our opinion it forms the basis of the political rights and structures which we have established and which we will continue to establish in the future. In the limited time at my disposal I cannot do justice to the hon member’s arguments at this stage and he could not do justice to his arguments either, but we will be able to discuss this matter fully in later debates when that particular Bill is considered.

He also, very positively, made an appeal to those people, particularly the professional people, who are leaving the country, and I agree wholeheartedly that those people should not do that. I may, however, inform the hon member that many of them are returning after a year or two. I have interesting statistics in this regard and I would be happy to show them to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, before I take part in the debate, you will probably give me the opportunity to refer to a worthy gentleman in the gallery who came to this House in 1953. He later became the Administrator of one of the leading provinces in this country. Naturally that province is the Free State. I am delighted to have him with us today. I have great appreciation for his services to the country. I had the privilege of serving in his executive committee for a number of years. Although he was a hard master, I want to say he rendered excellent service to this country. That is why I should like to make mention of his presence here today.

Order! I did not want to interrupt the hon member, but I must point out to him that it is simply not done to refer to members of the public in the public gallery. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling, but nevertheless I am grateful for the opportunity. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has already spoken about the matter which hon members of the opposition parties referred to. I should like to return to the matter concerning the Press and should like to remark that the Official Opposition is always very concerned about certain sections of our Press and about foreign journalists. They usually defend those people who are actually on the side of the radicals and the left-wing elements. What I cannot understand, however, is this shortsightedness. They could have learned the lesson elsewhere in Africa, that those very people they are defending so fervently, simply silenced the Press in those countries where they took control. In reality the Press became part of those governments; it was virtually nationalised. I find that strange. Newspapers such as the Cape Times, which are always defending these groups, know that if those groups were to take over, they would be silenced as well. One simply cannot understand that organisations can act in that way. We have experienced it, however; we live with it and we simply have to accept that that is the nature of people’s conduct.

Reference was made to the people who are leaving our country. It is a pity it is happening, but I want to say I do not know, with reference to those people who have no confidence in the future of this country perhaps some leave the country for other reasons; I do not want to generalise— whether it is a very great loss when they leave the country. I do not think we can rely very seriously on such people in times of crisis.

I should like to refer to a more positive matter, viz immigration. I do not want to object to the way in which these people are selected. There is a problem, however. In the first place I want to refer to the composition of the Immigrants’ Selection Board. This selection board—and I do not have the time now to discuss it in great detail—is composed of officials and former officials. In saying that, naturally I do not want to imply that those people cannot perform a task properly; on the contrary, I believe the people who serve in that Board are very capable. In addition, I have no objection at all to their having been or their being officials. I do believe, however, it is wise—and I seriously want to ask the hon the Minister to consider this—to have people from the private sector appointed to that board too, so that they can also make a contribution there. I truly believe this can only facilitate this board’s task.

When people apply for the right to settle in South Africa permanently, they have to comply with certain requirements. I find no fault with that either. In fact, I understand that that selection board and those who are involved in these affairs have a difficult task. A problem for the political representative, however, is the fact that people who are living here often go to their political representative and request him to make a recommendation in favour of friends or relatives of these people who would like to settle here permanently, to obtain a work permit, or whatever. The experience is that such an applicant often does not succeed. He may even submit a second application, and still not succeed. Then, at a later stage, the political representative hears out of the blue that the stranger from abroad is here already, and in addition is quite happily settled.

I do not want to argue here that when a political representative makes a recommendation for the admittance of someone or for the granting of a permit to him for permanent settlement in the country, it must succeed, but I do feel that certain aspects should be taken into account. We must keep in mind that the representative involved is normally not familiar with the applicant or his circumstances. He makes his recommendation purely on the grounds of his knowing the local man well. I do not want to maintain that irregularities take place. That would be irresponsible of me. I get the impression, however—and once again I emphasise that I do not want to make a random assertion— that in exceptional cases permission is granted without the matter being conducted through the proper channels. If I am wrong in making this statement, I should like to be set right. That is why I want to make a request to the hon the Minister. I want to ask him, when an MP has made a recommendation and the foreign applicant has been rejected repeatedly, but is admitted later, to inform the MP involved. He should be informed on which circumstances have changed in the meantime, that job opportunities are now available for the relevant person or that, for whatever reason, he can now be favourably considered for admittance to the country on a permanent basis. At least then the MP can be brought up to date concerning the changed circumstances. In my opinion it is simply not good enough, however, for someone to have been rejected repeatedly and then suddenly to have his application succeed. I do not believe it is fair and just—it causes embarrassment for the political representative involved.

Things of this kind cause misunderstandings, and also create the impression that this procedure is not quite in order. Sometimes one even finds that accusations of this kind are made. I do not want to put things in that harsh light, however. I do believe, though, that we should act in such a way that people are given no opportunities to make such assertions.

In addition, Sir, in the short time still at my disposal, I should like to refer briefly to the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. This company does good work, and in my region in particular—I am talking about the OFS goldfields’ branch of the organisation, which is in Welkom—we have great appreciation for the work they do. I should like to place that on record. They make an exceptional contribution to the happy settlement of those new citizens of our country. I definitely have great appreciation for that.

According to the remarks made here this afternoon, there appears to be a difference of opinion in respect of the question of fingerprints. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Welkom because I cannot react to his speech. I have a specific matter I want to advocate and my limited time is scarcely enough to do so.

Before I come to the matter I want to advocate, I must tell the hon the Minister and a few of his contemporary colleagues that an ironic piece of symbolism came to mind this afternoon. It is contradictory for them to wear red on their chests. It is a pleasant day for the hon the Minister and the other hon members who are celebrating the anniversary of their election to this House. That is why they are wearing red on their chests. I want to tell them there are thousands and thousands of White voters in South Africa today whose minds are red with disappointment and fear. Good people, brave people, can also become panic-stricken. When one loves one’s child, and one’s child is in imminent danger of losing his life, one becomes panic-stricken too.

I now want to refer to the pamphlet advertisement that appears in today’s Press. I know the hon the Minister is not solely to blame for it, but he did talk about influx control and the Blacks’ passbooks, and I link my argument to that. The first point in this advertisement is that influx control has been removed. I want to ask the Government why they always see fit to invite people of colour to come and displace the Whites and inundate them in their own area. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Minister the Blacks will never—nor must they, for it is not necessary—invite the Whites to displace them or trample on them in Soweto. Nor will we Whites do so. We cannot do so, and nor do we want to. [Interjections.]

The Government has developed a method now to christen an evil danger with a fine name. The abolition of influx control has now got the fine name of orderly urbanisation. Orderly urbanisation is nothing but the displacement and treading underfoot of the Whites in their own world. [Interjections.] If orderly urbanisation is to take place, that is as far as housing etcetera is concerned, who is going to pay for it? I say the Whites are going to pay for it once again.

Order! I do not want to restrict the hon member too much, but he must rather not elaborate on this theme. The hon member may proceed.

I have finished dealing with that point, Sir, but I want to conclude in that respect by saying I have two comforting thoughts. The first is that I know there are sufficient hon members on that side of the Committee who are worried about this too. The second comforting thought is that the Government and the voters will have to settle this matter. [Interjections.]

The matter I specifically want to advocate concerns equal treatment as far as voters in South Africa are concerned. Every voter wants the secure knowledge, as far as his own vote is concerned, that his vote’s value is 100% in comparison with that of any other voter in any other part of the RSA. I am going to refer to this with reference to provinces today. I refer to equal treatment when it comes to the provinces in the RSA.

As indicated by the latest statistics—contained in the department’s most recent annual report—the RSA had 2 948 292 voters on 30 July last year. For the sake of time I shall use only round figures from now on. These voters were distributed through the four provinces as follows: Cape, 827 000; Natal, 345 000; OFS, 292 000; and Transvaal, 1 546 000. These 2,948 million voters cast their votes in 166 constituencies. Each province has the following number of constituencies: Cape, 56, Natal 20, the OFS 14 and Transvaal 76. If we divide the 2,948 million voters by the total number of constituencies, we find there should be an average of 17 700 voters per constituency. Because of the time factor, I shall discount the argument of loading and deloading. If we divide the total number of voters in each province by 17 700 to get the total number of rightful constituencies—I emphasise “rightful number of constituencies”—this is the picture: If we divide the Transvaal’s 1,546 million voters by 17 700, we see the Transvaal should have 87 constituencies. At present it has 76.

That is the same speech …

I shall speak about this every year until the next election, and if it is not rectified by then, I shall speak about it again. I want to tell the hon member that we shall rectify it in the interim. [Interjections.]

At present the Transvaal has 76 constituencies. If we divide Natal’s 345 000 voters by 17 700, we get 19½—let us say 20—constituencies. In other words, that remains as it is. They are a nice group of people and I have no objection to things remaining as they are. If the OFS’s 229 000 voters are divided by 17 700, we get 13 constituencies, while at present they have 14. I want to make it very clear this afternoon that I am not covetous, and will not be covetous in future, in depriving any province of its existing constituencies. I say, however, that equal treatment should be applied throughout. Let the provinces keep what they have at present, but let justice be done to the Transvaal too. [Interjections.]

I give the House further interesting proof which I obtained from the department’s publications and from economic reports. The number of taxpayers coincides to a great extent with the number of voters, and the figures I am quoting in this connection are further proof of the importance and dominance of the Transvaal’s share in the South African economy and the important role the province should play in South African politics. Of all White taxpayers in South Africa, 52,7% are in the Transvaal. More than half of all White taxpayers in South Africa are in the Transvaal, therefore of all the tax paid by Whites, 60,2% comes from the Transvaal. Natal has 12,9% of the White taxpayers and they pay 12% of the total tax. The Cape has 27,4% of the taxpayers, and they pay 22% of the total tax. We in the Transvaal are grateful that things are going well and we do not want to compare ourselves to other provinces, but we simply ask for the vote of each Transvaal voter to be worth just as much as that of every other voter in the country.

I know the hon the Minister is a just man, and although we do not want to deprive Natal or any other province of anything, we simply ask for fair treatment for the Transvaal in that respect.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Meyerton about the essence of his argument. I think it is logical that an imbalance arose because of the present distribution of people. I agree with the hon member about the constituencies, but the matter is receiving attention. The hon member began his speech by referring to basic differences between the CP and the NP, and I should like to come back to that later.

On a previous occasion this hon member—I cannot remember his precise words— said something to the effect that the NP does not really have its ear all that close to the ground and other hon members are constantly shouting that an election should be held. Yesterday there was a city council election in that section of Alberton which falls under the constituency of the hon member for Meyerton. Mr Louw du Toit, a well-known Nationalist, was a candidate, as was a certain Mr Jack Dormehl, a well-known ringleader of the CP who actually does organisation work for them. The result of this election was that Mr Louw du Toit received just over 80% of the votes and Mr Jack Dormehl just less than 20%. [Interjections.]

I want to speak about citizenship and the franchise today, and I want to be a bit philosophical about it. Part of the philosophy is reality, however. The introduction of the book Wes terse Politieke Tradisie, edited by A M Faure and others, was written by Prof E H Murray, a very well-known retired professor here in the Cape. I think he is also a mentor of the hon the leader of the CP. He discussed what philosophy really is and then said the following on page 12 of the book:

The hon member for Rissik also attended Tukkies. I now want to suggest to him that we should use our brains. When an hon member argues here as the hon member did today, and he speaks about Rapport as the “National Party newspaper”, surely he is lying. That is not true, and he knows it.

Of course it is true!

It is not an NP newspaper! The hon member has his facts quite wrong. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon members to argue on a proper level, one that is worthy of us. [Interjections.]

If I take philosophy as a framework or basis for a discussion of citizenship and the franchise, I want to quote to the Committee from a Unisa working paper. The heading is “Die regte van die mens in die politieke gemeenskap” and I quote what is said on page 71 about the acceptance of the intrinsic and inalienable dignity of man. Hon members must keep in mind that my topic is citizenship and the franchise. The Unisa document says:

That is the inalienable dignity of man.

I want to tell the hon members we must not merely talk about whether or not we should give coffee to Black policemen. I want to ask the hon CP members something. What do they say about the political rights of the Black policemen who are dying today? Do the hon members want to tell each of the Black policemen who live in Alexandra that they must uphold their political rights in kwaZulu or Ga-Rankuwa or somewhere in that vicinity, or do they want to tell them, according to the realities of the day, to uphold their rights in South Africa?

The CP is very fond of referring to the old NP and then saying they are the old NP, but that is not true at all.

As the Minister of the Interior, Dr D F Malan introduced a Bill in this House on 25 May 1926. His speech is included in the book South African Parties and Policies by Prof Dr D W Kruger of the University of Potchefstroom. Hon members will find the speech in Hansard too. I merely want to read a few sections to illustrate Dr Malan’s philosophy on citizenship and nationhood. The hon CP members are fond of saying their standpoint is that of Dr Malan, but that is not true. [Interjections.] On the topic of the Bill, Dr Malan said:

Later he says he wants to prove “that we exist as a South African nation”.

I continue to quote:

I want to remind hon members that the Blacks received Union citizenship when the Whites did. The citizenship Dr Malan was talking about, was in fact the citizenship also granted to Blacks. In other words, he was talking not only about White citizenship, but about South African citizenship and South African nationhood. What else does he say? [Interjections.] Perhaps their ears were not open enough when the hon member Mr Van Staden spoke, so hon members can listen again. [Interjections.] Dr Malan said:

In addition he said “franchise laws” and “nationality laws” must be brought into coordination with one another, but then added something that was terribly important:

Hon members can go and read that speech in Hansard. Dr Malan’s standpoint was that the South African citizens make up the South African nation. He had no other standpoint. [Interjections.] If hon members hold other opinions, they are not telling the truth.

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Kuruman. He asked cursorily across the floor of the House whether we would develop this citizenship. I am referring to the Identification Bill we are dealing with now. He also asked whether the franchise qualifications of people of colour would be the same as those of the Whites. I replied that that was probable. Does he want a White man to get the vote at the age of 18, but a Black man at the age of 18 years and eight days? What is his argument really? I answered his question with the words “yes, probably”, because it is virtually self-evident, but if the hon members of the CP in Morgenzon were to begin something and get their vote and congregate under a maroela tree and elect their man by a count of hands, they would have the right to do so, just as any Black group has the right to follow its method. That is why I said “yes, probably”, but it is virtually 100% self-evident. [Interjections.]

I see time is catching up with me. I merely want to make two quick remarks. Just in passing, I want to pay tribute to the great part immigrants have played in this country, something other hon members referred to as well. Since many aspects fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister in accordance with Act 44 of 1949, I want to ask the hon the Minister not to use his discretion too lightly. If, for example, someone plays Bingo in an old-age home we must not decide that he has gambled and is therefore not suitable for South Africa. I am actually saying that perhaps we should adapt our standards somewhat compared with what they were in earlier years.

In conclusion I should like to use an example to clarify the basic difference between the policies of the CP and the NP. This concerns citizenship, the right to vote and many associated matters. A park was built many years ago. The people took a bulldozer and flattened the area. They immediately erected terrible hedges there with few gates and large locks. Then they removed everything that had been there and began to plant trees and grass. Little notices on the grass said “Keep off the grass”. There are people in South Africa who are building new walls too; in other words, they are trying to keep people out and to protect themselves by isolating themselves.

Order! I am afraid I am never going to hear what the difference is, because the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the content of this debate thus far has demonstrated the very significant fact that the hon the Minister’s portfolio has taken on a new lease on life. The subject matter under debate has been largely dominated by the issue of the White Paper on Urbanisation which was issued yesterday and many of the changes proposed in this policy document will affect his department and cause his portfolio to become very much more involved and much more important. We have actually been able to hear the beginnings of this development today, in that hon members have been dealing with a much wider range of topics than has been the case in the past.

It is quite interesting in a way, because when one looks back at the old co-operation and development empire which, not more than 4 years ago, controlled everything to do with a Black’s life from the time he opened his eyes on this world until the time he was no longer with us, one sees that in a short space of time that has been transferred in many ways via the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to other departments. This is a very laudatory process. In fact, coupled with the announcement on influx control and the issuing of that urbanisation document which, as I say, affects the hon the Minister’s portfolio so much, this is one occasion when I think we on these benches would like to say “well done, Sir.”

It is a package. It is not an ad hoc thing and it has given impetus to the first announcement. Certainly, we find it has a more welcome tone and is a better way of doing things, instead of being just a small, fragmented output. It brings to mind a whole new set of thoughts about the hon the Minister’s department and I think he is going to start vying with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for who is going to have the most departments, or rather, the most sections in his department. When one looks at home affairs in the United Kingdom …

I can’t compete with him!

You cannot? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning might be pleased to pass some of them on to you.

I am going to. He does not know what is waiting for him!

When one looks at the Home Affairs Department in the UK for instance, one sees that it involves law and order as well as the many other facets such as immigration, sex discrimination, race relations, a lot of local government, press and broadcasting and many others which we already deal with ourselves in this country under this portfolio. I think we are witnessing tremendous changes in the portfolio responsibilities. I think the hon the Minister’s portfolio is one which is going to gather responsibilities. It would be a way of rationalising out some of our departments. Just as one can envisage the Department of Education and Training and Development Aid and those departments falling away in time and being apportioned to other portfolios, so it could be an opportunity for other portfolios to fall away and come under home affairs.

Talking about electoral legislation, the hon member Dr Vilonel or one of the previous speakers spoke about Blacks on the voters’ rolls. I should like to say that there is a vast amount of work to be done in respect of that particular subject. I should like to take this opportunity to mention one or two points which we believe are of cardinal importance. Unless they are talked about early enough, and debated and people begin to think adequately about that field—and we want to get people involved in the democratic system—we finally run up against the lack of a mechanism. It is a fact that many of the people who live in the urban areas might still want to retain their tribal rights. They might want to retain their grazing rights or their traditional links with whatever place they come from. We believe that they should have an option to retain those rights.

The Whites too?

I think the hon member has opted for that. [Interjections.] If they opted to retain those rights, they should be precluded from voting in the democratic Western system. This would also mean that those who opt to be permanently involved in the urban population would be forfeiting the traditional right which they might have. That could be quantified. It is very easy to quantify their grazing rights in terms of the number of cattle they are entitled to. In quantifying it, perhaps it could be transferred to a right to own land in terms of a plot or some other form of ownership in an urban area where they live.

In that process, one would obviously be looking at a very difficult situation in regard to the question of ages because, as we all know, a tremendous number of the Black population—one hears figures of 40% or 50%—are under the age of 18. How then does one actually identify those who should have voting rights? The whole process of sorting out voters in respect of age and qualifications and registering them on a voters’ roll should also involve an opportunity for them to opt either for the retention of tribal and grazing rights and a vote in that system, or for transferring that right into the system in which they are now going to get freehold title rights. We must quantify it and allow them to exercise their rights in that way.

The debate on the whole question of Black participation in our system must be pursued in such a way that people will be able to understand that in some of the homelands, national states and independent states there are structures and traditions which those people do not want to give up. There is no party which has the right to say to them that under a federal system of government they may have any form of government they like, provided that their state conforms to certain norms such as having a common voters’ roll, proportional representation, acceptance of a bill of rights etc. One cannot say that. It is not our right to say that or to take away their tribal traditional way of doing things. However, one should acknowledge that there are those who are part of the Western society who would well like to exercise an option in this matter. We must not miss the opportunity of that option being spelt out to make it clear that they have a right in terms of their traditions …

Do the Whites also have that option?

We exercise our tribal traditional rights here. We are doing it now. That is exactly what we are doing.

That aspect of the Electoral Act which falls under the hon Minister’s portfolio is going to become a very important one. Rather than fearing that concept, we should get down to it, because we do not know how many Blacks are entitled to vote in an urban situation and who will be represented in this Parliament in whatever form is negotiated. People mention various figures—nine million, ten million Black urban voters …

Do you think the Nats know?

Nobody knows. The Nats are also bodies. Nobody knows.

The fact of the matter is that we have to start implementing the process of finding out how many there are. If there are nine million people who fall into this category, there might eventually be three or four million voters who qualify to vote in the urban areas. That is something we would like the hon Minister and his department to give a lot of thought to because it is going to be a long and complicated process.

On the same tack we wish to point out that because home rule involves authority over communities in the form of local government, the Electoral Act is relevant and automatically the Constitution as well; while I know this is a little wide of the mark, we believe that the hon Minister might well find that in implementing his portfolio he becomes more involved in dealing with the operation of the Constitution inasmuch as the Electoral Act in its amended form ushers more people in as voters.

We in these benches think there is a wonderful opportunity in South Africa at this moment for the Government to allow joint debate in this House on matters of joint concern, such as the Budget and the State President’s Vote. In the House of Commons there is accommodation for only half its members. For the major debates members sit in the aisles between the benches. They listen to the debates on the Votes and each member who is going to participate in the debates takes a seat in a bench. That means there is a coming and going of people. That way they can accommodate nearly double their numbers.

Then the House doesn’t look so empty! [Interjections.]

The point is that we can in fact usher in joint debate on matters of critical importance today. It would redound to the credit of the Government if that were done. There is no reason to say we have to wait for the new building to be completed. We cannot wait that long. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town made an interesting speech, and although one cannot of course agree with everything he said, one would like to take another look at its contents.

This afternoon elections and voters’ lists were examined from various points of view by the Committee. I do not want to bore hon members with them now, but I should nevertheless like to bring a few matters pertaining to the problem which exists at present in regard to voters’ lists to the attention of the hon the Minister. One of the best arrangements that we were able to make was to compile voters’ lists on the basis of population register. That led to every voter being on the voters’ list, but voters are not informing the department of a change of address on their part. As the position is at the moment, it therefore happens that the voters’ list ends up in a rather chaotic state.

I have made it my task over the last few days to ask people whether their name was on the voters’ list. Someone whom I asked said for example that he thought so, whereupon I enquired what the last address was that he had given. He did not know. When I asked him whether he had given notification of his last change of address so that his name and residential address could appear correctly on the voters’ list, he asked me how and where he should do that. The conclusion I arrive at is that voters are not aware of the fact that they must give notification of their change of address, or that they do not make a point of doing so because they do not know how they must do this or to whom they must direct it.

There is, in my opinion, an easy and reasonably inexpensive system according to which this can be done. I think that the voters’ lists must be brought up to date once a year. If we proceed on the assumption that we are going to do it on 30 June every year, we must make an arrangements by means of which every house in the country would receive a form prior to 30 June upon which the inhabitants must fill in their name and identity number and then return the form. How does one do something like that? One can …

Do it on 16 June.

The hon member for Krugersdorp says one can do it on 16 June. [Interjections.] One could include it with the electricity account, because—I am speaking only of Whites now— about 100% of the White population in this country are electricity consumers. I have been told by Escom that there are approximately 70 000 farmers in the country, 20 000 of whom do not yet have electricity supplied by Escom. By the end of this year, however, that 20 000 will be reduced by more than half. The result is that every household in this country receives an electricity account every month.

If we were to reach an agreement with the various organisations that send out these accounts, such as the city councils, the Peri-urban Areas Board for in the Transvaal and Escom itself—I have spoken to these organisations, and they are prepared to do what I want to propose—namely that at the end of May they could include such a form in the electricity account whereupon the owner or the head of the household must provide the full name and identify number of all those eligible to vote or in possession of identity documents in his household, and then send in the completed form together with the payment for the electricity account, the organisation concerned could then forward them to the regional office of the department, and so by the end of June we could therefore have an adjusted voters’ list which would be 95% to 98% up to date.

I said that various city councils and Escom were prepared to co-operate in this regard. What is more, if there were to be a by-election in the constituency of the hon member for Rissik in a few months’ time for example and we wanted to bring that constituency’s voters’ list 100% up to date, the city council of Pretoria—after all, the city council knows who lives at every address in that constituency and I am thinking of the occupants of flats, houses and the managements of institutions such as hostels and old-age homes who have such information available—need only send a form with the electricity account, on which the full names and identity numbers of those inhabitants must be indicated. When those forms have been returned we shall have a voters’ list for Rissik which would be 100% up to date. [Interjections.]

I should like to propose this to the hon the Minister; perhaps he would like to investigate this possibility further.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hercules raised a number of problems relating both to the holding of elections and to the Electoral Act itself, as indeed a number of other hon members have done today. I was sorry that when the hon the Minister last spoke, he did not take the opportunity to announce the appointments of the Joint Select Committee on the Electoral Act that we have been discussing in the standing committee for some time.

Be patient.

I am patient. I have been patient for a long time. However, I hope it will not be long before he does make that announcement because it is obvious that a large number of amendments to the Electoral Act are urgently required.

A point the hon the Minister did respond to, however, was the question of visits to the ANC in Lusaka. He said that people were naive to travel to Lusaka to talk to those people. However, I believe it is wrong to label those people who are concerned about the future of South Africa as naive because they are not aware of the views and the direction of that organisation due to the ridiculous ban that is placed on the views of those people and to the fact that all we know about them is gleaned from what the hon the Minister of Law and Order occasionally allows to be published.

In his earlier address to the Committee, the hon the Minister made an interesting announcement about the Identification Bill. That followed the publication of the White Paper yesterday on the Government’s policy of orderly urbanisation. That in itself is a very interesting document and I join my colleagues in welcoming the measures that have been mentioned in that White Paper. In passing, however, I simply wish to note that the emphasis of Government policy appears to have shifted from one of naked oppression to one of simple domination and discrimination. I mention that simply in passing.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. Last Thursday in this Committee, the State President told us a fascinating and interesting story about people who were travelling to Southern Africa from Athens. He mentioned that a group of Libyans had reportedly arrived in Athens with South African passports. He then went on to tell us that in fact the 12 people concerned were South African citizens, nine being from the Western Cape, one from Guguletu, one from East London and one from Johannesburg. I found the story that he told us last Thursday, very interesting. However, I very much regretted that he did not finish the story. He did not tell us what had happened to those people, and I wonder whether the hon the Minister, as the Minister responsible for the issuing of passports, is aware of what has happened to those people and whether he would like to finish the story on behalf of the State President.

There are three matters I wish to raise with the hon the Minister, all of which concern immigration. The first concerns journalists. This issue has been raised by my colleague the hon member for Green Point and others, and I want to go back to last Monday, when the hon the Deputy Minister of Information advised us that foreign journalists who had been approved and who had work permits issued by the Department of Home Affairs, were automatically accredited by the Bureau for Information. He advised me in his reply to a question that I put to him some weeks ago, that there were only six journalists awaiting accreditation. Some of them were South Africans—I am familiar with some of their names—but the others were foreigners.

I just want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a feeling among some of the journalists working for foreign newspapers and magazines that attempts are being made to put obstacles in their path, and I would like the hon the Minister to address himself to this problem and, if possible, to make a statement to the House when he replies to the debate later on today. It is a very serious matter and it is causing a great degree of concern among the more than 150 foreign journalists presently working in South Africa who are concerned about their security and their future. He did advise my colleague, the hon member for Green Point, that last year he had approved 350 applications for journalists to work in South Africa, and that he had rejected 332. The hon the Minister also says, because we have such a bad image overseas, he had to restrict the number of overseas journalists in South Africa. However, by shooting the messenger one does not bury the message. What the Government has been doing of late is absolutely unforgiveable. Its activities sent the world into a frenzy of activity and resulted in action being taken against South Africa by most of our remaining friends. The action of stopping the journalists added to our problems. Bad images will not be eliminated by banning journalists. They will only be stopped by fundamental, far-reaching changes in South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs last night or the night before announced in Germany that an agreement had been reached with the West German Government that visas would no longer be necessary for West Germans to visit South Africa. I would like the hon the Minister to advise the Committee as to whether that will apply to journalists. I have mentioned the anxiety the journalists have and I think he owes it to all concerned to make a statement about those waiting for work permits so that the matter can be cleared up.

The second matter I wish to raise is an incident in Namibia. In March 1986 there was an application by 16 people from the American Lutheran Church to visit Namibia. This was approved of by the Deputy Minister of Civil Affairs and Local Government, Dr L de Vries, and was referred to Pretoria for the issuing of visas. Apparently this was approved on 16 January after which it was sent off to Pretoria, and on 13 February communication was made to the Deputy Minister in Windhoek that the applications had been refused. Could the hon the Minister explain the reason for refusing the applications for visas when they had been approved by the authority in Windhoek? If it is the policy of the NP to promote own affairs, surely if the authority concerned had approved the applications for the visas, there should have been no obstacles put in their way.

I also want to discuss with the hon the Minister the question of the granting of a work permit to somebody who has been described as a rogue, a rotter and a crook. This is someone who is a leading member of the NP. I refer to Mr Frans Esser. He is, as I say, a leading member of the NP; he is a recent immigrant to this country from Germany. Until recently he was the chairman of the Johannesburg North constituency of the NP. According to press reports—and there have been many—Mr Esser’s list of convictions in Germany include rape, coercion, assault, continued fraudulent turnover tax evasion, fraudulent income tax evasion and fraudulent trade tax evasion. [Interjections.] Complaints have been received that he is ripping off unsuspecting Black customers by selling them broken-down, second-hand motorcars. He is operating as a used-car shark, preying on unsuspecting Blacks. He paid admission of guilt fines totalling R3 540 on 118 counts of contravening the Price Control Act in 1984 alone, and he has several other charges pending against him in South Africa.

May I please ask a question?

No, not at the moment. Perhaps later on, if I have the time.

There was a headline in The Sunday Star a few weeks ago reading: “Who let this crook into South Africa?” I also want to say that I have a copy of a warrant of arrest that was issued for him in Munich on 11 December 1980. I should like to know what is going to happen to him. I am told that he has photographs of various Cabinet Ministers on the walls of his house, including those of the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I know people who have visited his house and they have described him as undesirable. Yet, this man has become a South African citizen, and I want to ask if he made a large donation to the NP.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

That is a pity, because I would like to ask if he is another Chiavelli.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North attacked the Government for imposing certain restrictions on journalists. However, he did not indicate how unfair some of those journalists were to this country. I want to suggest that when he broaches this matter, he should also discuss its merits.

The hon member also spoke about—as he termed it—the “ridiculous ban” on the opinions of the ANC, while he knows that those opinions, if allowed to be freely disseminated, are at this stage going to lead to flagrant violence. I therefore maintain that only an unrealistic and irresponsible government would allow something like that at this juncture. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon members for Welkom and Umhlanga, as well as the hon member Dr Vilonel, who referred to immigration.

†I want to tell the hon member for Umhlanga that I agree with him completely when he says we should do more in order to attract immigrants at the present stage, so that when the economic upswing comes we can have the manpower we so desperately need. I would wish to go even further and say that we are not doing enough right now to accommodate those people who are already applying to come to South Africa.

*The hon member for Welkom dealt with the problem of the unsuccessful applications that were made repeatedly and subsequently approved. He referred to the persons involved who addressed representations in that regard without receiving notification of what was happening. Of course it could also mean that proper attention was not given to the merits of such applications when they were initially submitted. The hon member Dr Vilonel argued that the criteria in regard to immigration ought to be applied with greater flexibility. In that respect, too, I wish to associate myself with him.

Last year, the Press kicked up a fuss about the tremendous exodus of people from the Republic. However, this is simply not in accordance with the facts. This was also pointed out by the hon the Minister. In 1985 we had a positive influx of 5 883 immigrants. When we look at the separate months of 1985, it appears that only in July and December was the flow negative. The hon the Minister also mentioned the total number of emigrants. The figure was 11 000, while the figure for the total number of immigrants was 17 000. There was in fact a decrease in the immigrant gain in comparison with the previous years. In 1983 our gain was 22 000, and in 1984 it was 20 200. This decrease, however, was to a great extent the result of a reduction in the number of immigrants, and not the result of an increase in the number of emigrants.

The number of immigrants, in comparison with the previous year, decreased from 28 000 to 17 000, which therefore amounts to a decrease of 11 000. The number of emigrants only increased from 8 000 to 11 000— an increase of 3 000. When one compares the figures with those of previous years, 1985 was in fact a good year. The immigrant flow, however, is not positive in all years; sometimes it is also negative, for example in 1924, from 1941 to 1945, in 1950, 1960, 1977 and 1978. In all the other years the inflow was positive. Very recently, even, we had very good positive inflow figures. In 1981 there were 41 000 immigrants, which was a gain of 32 000 and in 1982 there was an immigrant inflow of 45 000, which represented a gain of 39 000.

The allegation in connection with the so-called “brain drain” is not supported by the facts either. I should like to refer to this in detail. As far as professional workers were concerned, there was a total immigrant inflow of 2 273 during 1985, compared with an emigrant outflow of 1 659. The inflow figure in regard to administrative workers was 720, while 480 people in this category left the country during the same period. The number of clerical workers who entered the country in 1985 was 1 200, compared with 700 who left South Africa. The figures in regard to salesmen and women during the same year was 540 immigrants and 350 emigrants. The same applies to all the other categories except the category known as unclassified workers. Here the inflow was the same. There was an outflow of 434 and a reduced inflow of 412.

If anyone deduces from this that I am entirely satisfied with what the department and the Immigrant Selection Board is doing in respect of this matter, they are wrong. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied.

Unfortunately the Immigrants Selection Board and the department can only be judged by the results of specific applications of which a person has personal knowledge. Further knowledge is not readily available. Consequently I should like to argue a few matters in this connection, and I am going to mention only a few examples of which I became aware during the last few months.

A young English girl, with a degree and a teaching diploma, who is engaged to a South African, applied for a work permit. It was refused. After representations it was approved. If the application had not been successful, however, she and her fiancé would have left the country.

Another example is also that of an English girl who was offered a job by a family who have their own business and who consequently would have created employment for her. Her request for a work permit was refused.

A member of a family, who had been employed in the same job for nine years in Germany, who had very strong family ties in South Africa and whose wife had been in South Africa for two years, was also offered a business opportunity in this country by his family. This person did not have excellent qualifications—I grant that—but he was going to be economically active; he was going to occupy a house; he was going to buy a motor car, and he was going to create work in his own business undertaking. Nevertheless he was refused.

A managing director of a large undertaking met a Canadian. He invited the Canadian to come to South Africa. The man was keen to remain here. The managing director consequently created an employment opportunity for that man in his undertaking. Nevertheless the man’s application was rejected.

The examples I have mentioned are only a few of which I have personal knowledge. In not one of these cases are these people going to deprive South Africans of employment. The facts are quite simply that in spite of our having an increased outflow and a reduced inflow at this juncture, 770 applications for permanent residence were turned down. That represents a considerably greater number of people. In 1985 alone 977 people coming from European countries alone were turned away.

I am painfully aware that at this stage we have a very high unemployment rate in this country—far too high! The fact of the matter, however, is that we have a very great need for entrepreneurs. In addition it must be taken into consideration that entrepreneurs are not necessarily highly trained. Furthermore, immigrants from Western countries have never, to my knowledge, caused unemployment. On the contrary they have created work through their initiative. In this instance I think the USA is a very good example. That country became economically strong as a result of the initiative of immigrants.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon the Minister, particularly because he is my leader in Natal—and a very good leader too. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I want to ask the hon the Minister and his department, as well as the Immigrants Selection Board, to consider these applications with greater circumspection, particularly in view of the fact that we are suffering from a shortage of entrepreneurs—and a shortage of entrepreneurs also means a shortage of manpower. They must also take into consideration, therefore, whether or not an applicant is a potential entrepreneur. Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that immigrants, through their needs and through their employment circumstances, create employment opportunities.

Mr Chairman, in the short time available to me there are a few matters I should like to raise. In the first place I shall refer to the matter of reclassification. The hon member for Rissik referred to it very briefly at the beginning of his speech.

I should like to refer the hon the Minister to page 10 of his annual report. There the statistics in connection with the reclassification of people from one race group to another are furnished. When we look at the two columns it is out of all proportion, noticeably so, how many Coloureds are reclassified as White in comparison with the reclassification of any other population group. [Interjections.]

That is understandable.

It is not understandable; I can understand that the twisted mind of the hon member Dr Vilonel finds it understandable, but it is out of all proportion when we compare it with the figures for the other population groups.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that another member has a “twisted mind”?

Mr Chairman, if it troubles you I shall withdraw it.

I would prefer the hon member to withdraw the statement because it is in my opinion a borderline case.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning holds the record in this regard. In one year when he was Minister of Home Affairs 722 Coloureds were reclassified as Whites.

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs said this afternoon that these applications were very carefully considered, that very clear evidence must be presented and the whole process was quite watertight. I should like to tell him however that these statistics demonstrate that the matter is very much suspect. It is not sound and I think that the hon the Minister must look into the whole matter very carefully. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with the gradual infiltration of Coloureds into the White race group. In the last five years there were nearly 3 000 cases of this nature. That is totally unacceptable to the CP. [Interjections.] If the NP want to persist with this course, they will create an impure White race. Fortunately the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was very quickly removed from that portfolio, otherwise the situation would have been far worse today. [Interjections.] We must not allow the try-for-White aspiration among the Coloureds to force us to allow a lot of Coloureds, who do not belong to the White race, to infiltrate the White race. When one looks at reclassification, it is really conspicuous how many adults apply successfully for reclassification. They were classified as Coloureds for years and lived in the Coloured community. Then they apply for reclassification, are reclassified, and become Whites overnight.

That is not true. These are compassionate cases.

Those are the facts, and we do not have to argue with one another about them.

Pursuant to this I should like to raise a matter which we think is going to create problems and that is the question of uniform identity documents on one central population register. The hon the Minister and his department will have to handle this matter with great circumspection. In this regard we are going to have a duplication which is going to create problems for us. We shall have to maintain the utmost vigilance to ensure that this matter does not promote the Government’s integration plan. Our identification of the separate population groups must be sound.

This matter must be read in conjunction with the White Paper on Urbanisation which has just been given to us, in which it states on page 58:

One of my hon colleagues said that this document was an epitaph for separate development and not a White Paper on Urbanisation and I agree with him.

The hon member Mr Kritzinger referred to the question of racially mixed marriages and he said he found it very strange that the CP had not asked any questions about it yet. He was lucky to have spoken before me otherwise I would have raised the matter in any case before he discussed it. It surprises me that this hon member speaks of between 300 and 400 mixed marriages and then he says “only”, as if it were nothing. He speaks of it as if it is something which one merely refers to in passing; just a little something to which one need not pay too much attention. I should like to tell the hon member that we are going to watch this matter very carefully. In the time of the old United Party the late Jan Hofmeyr said in this House that there were 800 racially mixed marriages and then the late Adv Strijdom told him that the number was not 800, but that he was already aware of 2 000. I should like to tell the hon member that we are going to pay very careful attention to this “only”, since 300 or 400 such marriages have already been consummated since the repeal of the relevant legislation. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer quickly to voters’ lists which were compiled from the population register as from 3 June 1985. I agree that immense problems are being experienced with voters’ lists which have been issued and which are not correct. There are many people who appear on the wrong voters’ list because they failed to give notification of their change of address. We shall have to pay very serious attention to this matter, otherwise we shall end up with the old pattern again where political parties would have to bear the responsibility of ensuring that voters are registered in the constituencies in which they live. That is because people fail to give notification of their change of address.

Various methods exist to deal with this. With reference to what the hon member for Hercules said I should like to say that I do not know whether including the forms with people’s electricity accounts and then expecting them to complete and return them is really going to succeed. My personal conviction is that we should rather leave the forms with the municipalities. When someone comes to apply for his electricity to be connected he can complete a form for everyone in his household who is already eligible to vote. He does not merely complete the form for himself but also on behalf of his wife and his children of voting age. From time to time the municipalities must then send those forms to the Department of Home Affairs. Perhaps we should try this way of rectifying the situation.

Since we have the radio, television and Press media, and since they are so abundantly at the disposal of the Government, I should like to suggest that the Government should launch a campaign at a certain time every year to make people aware that they must be registered in the correct place and must give notification of all changes of address. Today there are very few people who listen to the radio but everyone watches television and I think we should use that medium to encourage people to reregister.

Personally I have many problems with the postal vote system. I was sorry that the hon member Mr Kritzinger’s time expired before he could complete his speech on this subject because he was teaching the other parties in this House a few wonderful tricks for dealing with a postal vote. It is a great pity that he was interrupted and was unable to tell us about all the tricks. [Interjections.] I would be pleased if he were perhaps able to put it in writing so that we could all read it. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to refer to the matter of publications control. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the panic-stricken hon member for Koedoespoort will pardon me if I do not react to his speech.

The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the administration of certain laws. It is true that the life of an individual is regulated from the cradle to the grave by laws. This department administers the legislation for births as well as deaths. From my point of view, I should like to wish the department well with the immense and responsible task which it performs in our country.

This afternoon I should like to speak about publications control. The Government has the responsibility of ensuring that the inhabitants of South Africa are protected against a flood of pollution. The Government still endorses the credo in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa that Almighty God is the Master of the destinies of South Africa and its people and our responsibility before God. Because that credo is included in our Constitution, the way in which problems are dealt with must also be imbued that spirit and attitude. It is the Government’s serious intent to conserve and protect by the means at its disposal the characteristic religious and conservative character of the South African society against the spirit of permissiveness and moral decay which has become rampant throughout the world and which is also being brought into South Africa by the communication media.

The Government places a high premium on the freedom of communication and the presentation of entertainment, but when undesirabilities appear in publications, films and public entertainment, which harm the spiritual welfare of South Africa, weaken our spiritual defences and erode our people’s inner values and do so at a time when we need more spiritual strength and purpose, the Government must act in accordance with the protective measures contained in the Publications Act.

The people themselves control their publication and entertainment within the framework of a Christian view of life and one need only look at the annual report of the Directorate of Publications Control. This afternoon I should like to convey my personal and sincere appreciation to the Directorate and to everyone who supports them in an immense and responsible task.

In the past few months we have heard a great deal about the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa as well as the extent of the unrest, violence, loss of life and damage to property. We have heard about the nature, extent and origin of sophisticated weaponry which is being used for the attack on the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] So little is said, however, about the spiritual attack on the people of South Africa.

Like Breyten Breytenbach!

In my opinion this is one of the most important aspects of the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa and its people.

The pavilions of our country are overflowing with people who are only prepared to be onlookers but who are not prepared to become involved in finding solutions in a peaceful way in order to ensure peace, safety and prosperity for South Africa and all its people.

Publications control is not only the responsibility of the Government. The church must also co-operate in this. In the same way as the State has a commission so too does the church. The duties and responsibilities differ, but the sphere of activities is limitedless. Both are consequently working in the same sphere. The State is responsible for the military preparedness of our people while the church is responsible for the mental preparedness of our people.

This afternoon I should like to refer to a report which appeared in the Die Burger on 26 July 1947 in order to demonstrate that the church has become involved from the earliest times. A delegation under the leadership of late Dr Wim Nicol, representative of the Council of Churches went to the then Minister of the Interior. Members of the delegation were Rev A M Meiring, Chairman of the Federale Raad vir die Bestryding van Maatskaplike Euwels, Rev D F B de Beer, Secretary of the Federal Council and Rev A C Stegmann, representative of the Gefedereerde Sondagskoolkommissie. In this way I should like to point out how long the church has been involved.

The general convocation of the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk begins its triennial session shortly. Two items on its agenda drew my attention. The first one was the liaison between the church and the authorities and the second was publications control in South Africa. This proves that the church is prepared to become involved. The church is represented in the community by its members, and it is to those people that I should like to make an appeal today for them to give their co-operation as well in this regard.

After all, publications control is not merely concerned with the written word. Publications control must also be applied in the home because things are carried into the inner rooms, into the family rooms by means of radio, television and videos. Today I should like to ask the parents of our children whether they really have and exercise control in their homes. Do parents still go and look at what appears on the wall of their child’s room and do they look at what the child is watching on television, inside the home? Are parents interested in the videos which are being shown at school? I should like to make a serious plea that our parents should awaken in order to ensure that our people are not polluted. Let us all stand guard together over the spiritual well-being of our people. In that way we can ward off the spiritual onslaught on South Africa.

I should also like to refer to a final aspect. The State President announced at the end of last year that 1986 was the Year of the Disabled. Since there are more than 2 000 people working in this department, I should like to ask the hon the Minister today whether he will not undertake to ascertain whether there are no posts in that department which could in fact be filled by disabled persons. That was one of the objectives which was stated when the State President announced that we must create employment opportunities. Let us see if we in the Department of Home Affairs cannot also create employment opportunities for our country’s disabled. In addition let us ask the hon the Minister to see whether all the offices and all the buildings in which the offices of his department are accommodated are in fact accessible to disabled persons.

Mr Chairman, to start with just a short appeal which I should like to address to the hon the Minister. It also concerns a matter which has been raised before in this debate, namely the spouses of people who reside in South Africa either as citizens of the country or as permanently established people. I am speaking under correction, but I think South Africa is one of the few Western countries in whose immigration control legislation no provision has been made for the position of a spouse of a South African citizen or of a person who establishes himself permanently in this country. I think—and I say this with all due respect—that this is a situation which ought to be rectified. If we were to make the necessary provision in this respect, I do not think it could give rise to any appreciable measure of abuse. The situation at the present stage, however, is quite untenable.

The simple effect it has is that if a person should want to marry a citizen of another country who is also resident in that country, he is in effect obliged to make his choice of a marriage partner subject to the provisions, not of the Department of Home Affairs, but of the Immigrant Selection Board. In this specific regard—in these very narrowly prescribed circumstances—it could, I believe, have an extremely unfair effect.

When we speak about people getting married this does not necessarily have anything to do with working conditions or employment opportunities. Very often it is a situation of a person who has studied abroad or who has had trade connections abroad. The world is becoming a small place and such marriages occur frequently. I therefore think that we really ought to make an arrangement to make the situation for such people a little easier so that it is not simply left to the discretionary powers of the Immigrant Selection Board. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister reacted a moment ago with reference to the discussion on the Press, and in the few minutes that were spent on it we did not touch on all the points. I should therefore like to elaborate on the point concerning the State’s interference with and its assistance to the Press.

It is generally known that the Press in South Africa, the English-language Press as well as the Afrikaans-language Press, are going through incredibly hard times. I know that politically speaking this is a good thing and that it is easy for us to say that newspaper X or newspaper Y has gone under, but when one considers the important role that the Press plays in the country, I want to ask very politely that we must not be insensitive, whatever newspaper goes under.

The fact of the matter is that never in history has there ever been a political topic on any aspect of life which we in South Africa should have discussed more openly with one another than this one.

It is a fact, if we take the average Afrikaans-speaking voter or even the average White voter as an example, that there is an abysmal ignorance as far as Black politics and its momentum, as well as the feelings of Black people, their thoughts and political aspirations are concerned. The Afrikaans as well as the English-language newspapers have in recent times made a substantial contribution in this regard.

It is also true that in the past we have criticised many newspapers while many of the matters we criticised them about were in fact at fault. I can give a very good example of this. We have now abolished the reference book system, the so-called pass law. When one takes a look at the newspapers over the last few years and you read the tirades against the Government, as well as the heart-break stories with all their accompanying emotions, one realises that examples of injustice often give rise to such stories. It also leads to an exaggerated reaction from those people—in this case perhaps the English-language Press—who want to destroy our party. That is why one is grateful that the governing party is prepared to change these things.

Everyone who turns a deaf ear to criticism, from whatever source, undermines democracy in his thoughts. Everyone that turns a blind eye to the goodwill which is shown him, in fact undermines his own vision on the road ahead.

That is why I should like to make a serious plea to the hon the Minister today on behalf of the Press, in view of the fact that there is a world-wide “collapse”—if one could call it that—of the Press. Big cities in the world, such as New York, London and others have but a few newspapers. It is also true that electronic media have made enormous progress and that this has had an effect on the Press.

In South Africa we have SABC-TV which is a monopoly in a certain sense. SABC-TV has taken a huge slice out of the advertising cake in South Africa. If an economy is, in general, growing, then the Press would of course also benefit from the increased growth-rate.

Another related aspect is the tax which is imposed on advertisements. My feelings for a newspaper are the same as the hon member Mr Vermeulen has for stamps. Over the years one becomes almost infatuated with newspapers and one reads a lot. If I may mention this in all modesty I should like to say that at this stage I probably have approximately 300 000 newspaper cuttings which I have collected over the years. It makes one realise what vast source of knowledge newspapers are.

Often I say to someone who is hypercritical of a newspaper that he must simply take that newspaper—he does not have to like it, nor does he have to read it in detail—and read it from A to Z. All he must then do is ask himself whether, after having read it, he has become more knowledgeable or more ignorant. The problem is that most people do not read any further if they do not like what they are reading.

I want to suggest that there are a few things we can do. For example we could allow the news media to have a greater slice of the advertising cake. We could also consider the continuation of these advertising campaigns by Government departments. I believe that the country could in the long term save an enormous amount of money if they were to rely to a greater extent on advertisements in respect of the projects in which they are involved. I am thinking for examples of health projects and many other aspects. In that way we could give the Press in South Africa further assistance.

I also think we should look to our schools. We must make our children more aware of reading than they are. We must above all, as Government in this country, impress upon the public, old and young, the importance of newspapers so that that gem of democracy, namely a free, lively and relevant Press will always be preserved because I believe that it has a place alongside the medium of television. Eventually television and related media will no longer be able to deal with serious matters; nor do they have the time and the place for it. The Press therefore has an important role to fulfil, and we should like to request the hon the Minister to give attention to this matter as well.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to follow up on the speech made by the hon member for Witbank on the Publications Board. In order to do this I should first of all like to express our deepest gratitude to Professor Coetsee, the Director of Publications for the tremendous work which he and his staff are doing here in their head office in Plein Street, Cape Town. We also thank Professor van Rooyen, Chairman of the Publications Appeal Board, who has his office in Pretoria. Then there is also the office we have in Durban. We also express our thanks for the important work which is being done with the help of 217 ladies and gentlemen across the country, who are appointed to preserve and look after the moral codes of our people. These 217 people are divided into 1 211 ad hoc committees, of which 189 concern themselves with the publication of objects; 932 with cinematographic films, and video tapes; 14 with public entertainment and 77 with SABC television material.

Hon members would understand the importance of this more fully if I were to present a small item of statistics arising from the work of these people. During the year 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 alone, 1 347 films were presented to the Publications Control Board. Of these 1 347 films changes had to be made to 553 films. The Board had to cut them or impose an age restriction, and if it were not for this Board then everyone would have been exposed to the total content of these films. What is far worse, is that 147 of these 1 347 films were rejected out of hand. As a result of the content, these films could not even be shown to adults.

Upon closer examination of the statistics one finds that among others the following persons made submissions to the Board: The South African Police made 635 submissions; customs officials, 376; the directorate itself, 168; publishers, 64; and from members of the public of South Africa—and here I associate myself with what the hon member for Witbank said—35 submissions were made.

I was moved by these statistics because they make one realise—the hon member for Witbank also made this point—that the State, and especially the Directorate of Publications, are the custodians of the moral codes in South Africa. These people indeed ensure that what eventually reaches the general public is suitable. They are held responsible for the maintenance of the norms and standards which must be complied with as regards the published material, videos and other film material which is made available to our people.

It is a pity that as far as this point is concerned as well the most vehement criticism is sometimes levelled at the Government in respect of the quality of what is available in our streets and in our business enterprises.

I say candidly there is one thing we must not overlook this afternoon and I say this on the basis of the 27 years which I devoted to teaching. There is a specific market for this sort of thing and it meets a specific need. There is something I must get off my chest. The fact is that this kind of rubbish—that is all I can call some of these things—is to some people’s taste and the fact that there is a demand for it is an indictment of human morality. If there were no demand, surely people would not have supplied it to see if someone wanted to buy it.

Unfortunately it is a fact that this onslaught is directed at our youth. In the developing world, this onslaught is made possible by the improved technology and improved methods of making copies, for example. The spirit of the young person develops and becomes more scientific, creative and inquisitive about the world in which he lives. Therefore we must not summarily blame the child if he has this sort of thing in his hand for when the opposite sexes become more aware of each other, a whole new world opens up for them and they investigate this rubbish because they want to get to know the new world.

It would be a good thing if all hon members of this Committee, and our public as well were to pay a visit to Plein Street to go and have a look at what is available to our young people there.

It is the Government that allows it to be there.

When the standing committee recently paid a visit to that place we also had the opportunity of seeing the latest kind of rubbish, the so-called greeting cards. It is the most vulgar form of pornography, and a boy can send it to a girl or a girl to a boy in order to exchange good wishes! I am honestly of the opinion that these things can easily occur in a home without the parents knowing about it.

If one takes a look at what has been submitted to the Publications Board, one sees that there were only 35 submissions from the public. For me this emphasises how unguarded our homes and family units are as far as this onslaught on our youth is concerned. When one sees to what depths the video tapes have sunk to and one bears in mind how easily copies can be made, I should like to make an appeal from this House to the public that our society must be made aware of this onslaught.

I think Professor Coetzee of the Publications Board and his personnel are doing brilliant work. I should like to emphasise it here in the House—he has also confirmed it to me—that they are available, upon invitation, to inform people about precisely what goes on in our country. I should also like to emphasise that they are greatly dependent on the vigilance of the public. I should like to conclude by expressing our deepest gratitude to them and the 217 people throughout the country, who serve on the panel of the Publications Board, for their contribution in the interests of people whose task it is to ensure that this rubbish does not fall into the hands of our young people.

Mr Chairman, I want to keep my reply as brief as possible. Without referring to any specific points, I want to tell the hon member for Welkom that I noted with appreciation the fresh breeze from the Free State which blew into this Chamber.

The hon member for Welkom, the hon member Mr Schutte and other hon members as well, whom I shall come to in a moment, referred in particular to our immigration programme, structures and policy. I want to state unequivocally that an obligation rests on this Government to ensure that those that are already here within the borders of the Republic receive preference as far as employment opportunities are concerned. For quite a number of years now we have been experiencing an economic recession which, as hon members know, has caused a real scarcity of work. Consequently there is a shortage of employment opportunities. Hon members must therefore be aware that this Government will take the principles and the policy associated with that situation into consideration, and that any representations hon members may make will be assessed according to that criterion.

At the present moment we have a selective policy because we are dealing with large unemployment figures and must make provision for people in South Africa who are unemployed. Hon members will simply have to accept this.

Immigrants are selected according to requirements laid down by the Act. We are interested in quality, rather than quantity. We do not apply the open policy of Canada and Australia, who also ensure of course that certain undesirable people do not gain admission. However, they have an open policy. In South Africa we have a protective policy in the interests of the local workers, and priority is therefore given to their training potential. This must indeed receive priority. Our policy is also objective. Immigrants are selected individually and must, without exception, comply with the same standards of selection. These are flexible. The numerical intake is controlled in accordance with the country’s economic situation at any given juncture. Hon members referred to individual cases and have also on occasion come to see me in my office. I dealt with the matters they raised.

I do not like the insinuation that the department adopts irregular procedures—no matter how hon members may try to justify what they said. I believe that hon members, if they know of a particular case in which they think irregularities occurred must, as functionaries of this House, look into the matter and bring it to my attention at the earliest possible opportunity. Sometimes there are good reasons for an application being approved on the second or third occasion. For example, many of these applications for permanent residence are incomplete, and if hon members should perhaps react to them, we furnish the department and the Immigrants Selection Board with the more detailed information. The previous decision may then be reconsidered. I want to request hon members, however, to deal with the stigma of irregularities in an objective way and to bring specific cases to our attention. I give hon members the assurance that the necessary steps will be taken.

†In this regard I want to refer to what the hon member for Johannesburg North said about Esser. What he said reminded me of jackals sitting around a carcass, jumping in and finding a bare bone. I issued, and the department issued, full statements in this regard, stating the facts, and the hon member could have obtained all the particulars. I am, however, going to read part of it to him now. Part of the statement was published in the Sunday Star, and I want to quote it to him:

My response came a fortnight after the first newspaper article appeared, denying that prospective immigrants could buy permanent residence permits and South African citizenship at a price from the Immigrants Selection Board and the Department of Home Affairs. We also denied that I had refused to deport Franz Johannes Esser, that the officials of my department and I had ignored Esser’s unsavoury past and had accepted that he was a political refugee. I object to the fact that reliance is placed upon allegations made by Esser to the journalist of the Sunday Star in order to place the Department of Home Affairs in a bad light, while, at the same time, this newspaper states unequivocally that Esser is a fraud and a crook.

Although I refrain from commenting on a fait accompli, I am nevertheless of the opinion that the facts clearly indicate that both my department and the Immigrants Selection Board acted bona fide in this matter.

When seen retrospectively, however, certain recommendations can possibly be questioned. For example, the department unfortunately erred when in its submission to my predecessor it based its recommendations on the fundamental misconception that a South African court had found that no grounds existed for Esser’s extradition, whereas the court’s decisions were based upon technicalities.

The impression created that permits for permanent residence and South African citizenship could be acquired at a price, even though Esser says so, is a serious and unfounded attack on the officials who dealt with this matter, and is denied in the strongest terms.

I do not have time to deal with the matter any further, except to state that this issue is the subject of a complaint I am lodging with the Media Council, for the reasons I have indicated.

*I want to request hon members who also discussed immigration to bring every case which comes to their attention, to my attention, even if hon members have to do so themselves.

The fact of the matter is that we receive many applications from people who are established here, applications on behalf of a brother or a sister who has no livelihood abroad and who therefore wishes to seek a livelihood with the brother, or sister, or whoever it may be. That person has no educational qualifications, however, or any qualifications that can ensure him being given preference over the unemployed in South Africa. I therefore ask hon members to accept that this department will really consider the matter objectively. Nevertheless I have taken cognisance of the particular complaints which the hon members had.

Because he knows that I am an unprejudiced person, owing to the fact that I come from Natal, and because he does not wish to deprive Natal of a constituency now, I shall tell the hon member for Meyerton that these matters which he mentioned are at present being thoroughly investigated. Perhaps we will be able to tell him something in this connection by next year.

Early in the year, or later in the year? [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Vilonel referred in an expert way to the interesting matters of citizenship and the franchise. He gave a well motivated explanation of the basis of these important matters. I want to tell the hon members, however, that such expert, well-motivated matters are lost on the hon members in that party. They are merely looking for superficial banalities which they can publish in their little journal. Nevertheless I thank the hon member sincerely for his participation.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for King William’s Town for his contribution to the debate. Many of the points which the hon member raised will obviously be discussed when the citizenship legislation is considered by this House. We shall then be able to discuss it in full.

*I have definitely taken cognisance of the hon member for Hercules’s interesting suggestions in regard to voters’ lists.

†I wish to repeat to the hon member for Johannesburg North that I do not intend apologising for the action that we are taking in respect of foreign journalists. When permits are renewed now they are considered in the same way as new applications. I make use of a monitoring system because of our experience in the past. Foreign journalists are welcome in South Africa if they give a balanced view of what they perceive. However, I invite the hon member to come and watch some of the films which are shown on television overseas. That is all I can say to him at this stage.

Journalists from West Germany, like journalists from all over the world, will have to apply for visas. The fact that tourists and businessmen from West Germany will not need visas will not affect the position with regard to German journalists at all.

It is a fact that the Lutherans were refused entry into South West Africa/Namibia, but that would also have affected South Africa. It is their business but it obviously also affects this country. That was why I decided that they could not be allowed into the country.

I have dealt with the work permit of Esser.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question about Esser?

No, I do not have time to answer questions now but I have all the correspondence on that matter here. The hon member can visit me and I shall let him have a look at everything.

*I want to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort that reclassifications occur in terms of the Act. That is how reclassifications occur; there are no sinister intentions. None at all. [Interjections.] If the hon member would consider what has happened in the past, he would see that the trend in the past is being maintained. There is in no way a deviation in any of this. [Interjections.]

I took cognisance of the hon member’s suggestion concerning the Electoral Act. I also took cognisance of his recommendation in regard to publicity on the radio and on television. I have already issued instructions to the department in this connection, and we are pleased that the hon member feels the same way about this.

I also thank the hon member for Witbank for his contribution. We shall definitely investigate the matter in regard to disabled persons, and see in co-operation with the Commission for Administration and the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs what purposeful action we can take in this connection. I want to thank that hon members, as well as the hon member for Brentwood, sincerely for their expert presentation of the activities of the Publications Control Boards. It is greatly appreciated, and I personally am also proud of the work those people are doing.

In conclusion I should also like to thank the hon member for Innesdal for his contribution. He touched upon a matter which is causing the Government concern. For example there is the overconcentration of ownership in the Press industry. This is a matter which is causing the Government some concern too. We have taken note of it, and the hon member may rest assured that the Government will in fact give attention to this matter.

Finally I thank all the hon members for their contributions, and for the positive way in which they stated their case.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h00.