Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House, I wish to announce that as far as the business of this House for next week is concerned, we shall follow the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the House last night I was giving a brief sketch of the historical background with regard to magistrates in South Africa. I mentioned the appointment of the first magistrate, as well as the historical development of the separate magisterial districts here in the Cape. It is interesting to note that at that stage, a magistrate received a salary of 288 rixdollars per annum from the DEIC. If one takes into account that every 100 rixdollars amounts to approximately R40 in today’s currency, it cannot be said that magistrates earned a royal salary at the time.

In other speeches yesterday, mention was also made of the fact that a magistrate has too many administrative tasks to carry out today. I must honestly say that I agree with this. However, it is nevertheless interesting to note what tasks the magistrate had to perform for that salary of 288 rixdollars per annum during the years 1685-1827. It is interesting that, apart from his being responsible for the administration of justice, he was also the police officer, as well as public prosecutor for the Court of Justice. Furthermore, he also had to settle land disputes and regulate the sharing of land. He had to look after municipal matters, for instance the building and maintenance of roads, the laying out of towns and the distribution of erven. He also had to see to traffic regulations, water provision, the fire brigade and public health. In the sphere of finance, he had to collect taxes on cattle and products. He also had to act as chairman of the Burgerkrygsraad. He had to administer the oath for officers. He had to look after the defence of the area. He had to act as chairman of the Kollege van Heemrade.

He even had certain functions to carry out with regard to clerical matters. For instance, he had to look after the buildings and finances of the church. It is also interesting to note that at a certain stage a meeting of the church council could not take place without the permission of the magistrate. If a magistrate were to carry out such a vast number of varied functions today, I think the shortage of magistrates would have been even greater than that to which the hon. member for Brakpan has already referred.

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the loss of legally qualified officers. This is a great problem, not only in the Department of Justice, but also in several other spheres in the Public Service. The greatest single input for an officer in the magistrate division, particularly a qualified magistrate, is not his studies—although studies are expensive—but the issue is that a person who is qualified, and has a theoretical background, must first of all be turned into a decent public prosecutor. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I begin to reply to the representations and speeches made by hon. members, I wish to point out that a report appeared in an English-language newspaper recently which stated that it was known that I was anxious to get rid of the Department of Justice and that I should like to have another portfolio in the reconstituted Cabinet. As so many other things which appear in the newspapers these days are, this is also utter nonsense. I want to state very specifically that I am very happy and feel quite at home in this department, that I should also like very much to continue to administer the department in future and that it is an exceptionally pleasant privilege for me to co-operate with the competent officials of this department. It is true that it is not in my nature to wish to act in a dictatorial fashion and that I really do take the opinions of other people into consideration. I realize, too, that I still have a great deal to learn about the department’s activities. That is the way in which I approach my task in this department.

I shall deal with the representations of hon. members in the sequence in which they spoke. In the first place I wish to reply to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had to say. I wish to thank him for the good wishes which he conveyed to me. I also wish to thank him for the good relations which exist between us and for the courteous way in which he treats me. Actually we have so far had only one brief little set to here in this House, and that was when the Publications Amendment Bill was before this House. For the rest we get along very well together.

Of course the hon. member pin-pointed a very important matter when he discussed the staff shortage. As the Minister entrusted with the Commission for Administration, the old Public Service Commission, I want to make it very clear that this is of course a source of very great concern to the commission, and precisely because of this we have begun to apply the system of vocational differentiation in respect of certain technical staff and certain legally qualified officers in the Department of Justice. Quite a large amount has already been made available this year for this purpose on a vocationally differentiated basis, and certain categories, inter alia, magistrates and other persons with legal qualifications, have already received certain benefits. However I would be very dishonest if I said that the problem had been solved, and the hon. member may rest assured that this problem will receive further very serious attention from the department and from the Commission for Administration in the year which lies ahead.

The hon. member also expressed the hope that the Hoexter Commission would make practical recommendations in connection with the overloading of some divisions of the Supreme Court. It goes without saying that this forms part of the commission’s terms of reference. I wish to associate myself with the hope which the hon. member expressed.

The hon. member then raised a very difficult matter, the question of the Attorneys-General, and suggested that as the Minister concerned I should take the decision and bear the consequences of the decision myself when prosecutions were instituted and a case had a political complexion, because an Attorney-General was prohibited from defending any decision which he took in this connection in public. This is a very complex matter, and I cannot offer an instant solution now across the floor of this House. However, I can say with a clear conscience here today that during the time—more or less one year—I have been Minister of Justice, I have in no way interfered with any decisions of the Attorneys-General, and I shall prefer it to remain that way, except of course in one obvious case where I have to intervene occasionally in terms of law and where I order, for good reasons which are not political reasons, that a trial, a prosecution, be transferred from one province to another province. Further than that I am not inclined to intervene. If one, as Minister, has to intervene in matters which have a political complexion, one is of course dealing at once with the problem of defining what is politics and what is not politics. Consequently I cannot give a final answer to the hon. member’s question today, but what I will say is that I think very thorough consideration ought to be given to the status of the Attorneys-General, not necessarily only as far as conditions of service and remuneration are concerned, but also as far as the type of say which they have with the Minister is concerned. I therefore intend to afford the Attorneys-General an opportunity of holding talks with me at least once a year so that they can make direct submissions to me on what they think is necessary. I wish to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall, inter alia, discuss this matter with him as well and see whether one can arrive at a satisfactory solution to the problem.

The hon. member then raised the important question of the appointment of judges and alleged that the present situation where only one political party nominates judges is unhealthy. I know that by now it is rather hackneyed to refer back to the time of the old United Party Government, but I do wish to say that if one wishes to find really blatant examples of political appointments, one must go back to the time of Gen. Smuts. I do not wish to be self-righteous about the matter, but I wish to state frankly that I have no intention of recommending to the Government that it change the system of the nomination of judges. The basic reason for that is because I have a clear conscience on the matter. It is known that in the appointment of judges I give the respective Judges President and the Chief Justice, as far as his court is concerned, a say in the matter and that a very high percentage of judges who have been appointed in my time, were in fact appointed on the recommendation of the Judge President or the Chief Justice concerned.

You say a high percentage. Thus not all of them?

But of course not! What is wrong with that?

There is something wrong there.

Most of the time I treat the interjections made by the hon. member for Groote Schuur with contempt. [Interjections.]

You made a very strange admission there.

The hon. member said that if the Hoexter Commission recommended intermediary courts, courts to alleviate the task of the Supreme Court, he believed it would be recommended that appointments be made and that the qualifications would be clearly spelled out upon appointment. I wish to agree with the hon. member that they should be spelled out, that the status of the judicial officers should be spelled out and specifically—because this is a sensitive point—that their designation should also be spelled out. I am not in favour … But wait a minute, I should rather not say this, for I would be anticipating the Hoexter Commission. I think the hon. member knew what I wanted to say.

The hon. member for Waterkloof also addressed a few kind words to me, for which I wish to thank him. He also expressed words of appreciation for our system of making old legal sources available. I thank him for his remarks.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Durban Point. He said that he hoped that the Rabie Commission would recommend judicial tribunals to review detentions. My reply is that I cannot, of course, say what the Rabie Commission will recommend, but it is fairly obvious that they will have to give serious attention to the question of preventative detention. Then the hon. member said that civil legislation these days was only for the rich or for the poor, not for the people between those two poles. In this connection, without compromising myself, I must confess that most of us are concerned about this matter. I have just received the report of the Galgut Commission. Unfortunately I have not had time to study it or its recommendations, but I have been informed that they did make certain recommendations in this regard. It is quite possible that the Hoexter Commission also will make recommendations in this regard. I assure the hon. member that I shall most certainly give the matter further attention in the year before us.

The hon. member also mentioned the unreasonable postponements in traffic cases. If he can bring specific cases to my notice, I shall most certainly go into them as I am also not prepared to allow unreasonable treatment of the public in these matters.

The hon. member further referred to the reports of the Secretary for Justice in connection with third-party claims. I shall deal with this matter more fully when I reply to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

*The hon. member for Potgietersrust then raised a very important matter, viz. the disappearance or possible disappearance of magistrates’ offices from the rural areas, the possible centralization of the administration of justice in larger centres and the retention or otherwise of agency services in smaller centres. This matter was the subject of an investigation by the inspectorate of the Commission of Administration, and we received their report on the matter recently. Because I come from a rural constituency myself, and because I have a great deal of sympathy for the rural areas, I can assure the hon. member at once that agency services at smaller centres will not disappear. However, it has been proposed that the administration of justice should be centralized in the larger centres so as to make better use of officers with legal qualifications, and pay them more competitive salaries in order to retain their services. This is a matter which still has to be studied in depth and the entire matter still forms the basis of a further investigation to which the Government will eventually have to give consideration. This is the degree of progress which has been made with this matter.

The hon. member also referred to a matter which he knows a great deal about because he was once a chairman of a Select Committee which had to consider the question of international hotels. He pointed out the success of the system because 59 hotels have already been accorded this status. I wish to tell him that a further 26 hotels recently applied for international status. These applications will soon be submitted to the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

†I now want to turn to the hon. member for Houghton, which means that we will now probably have some fireworks. [Interjections.] The hon. member said she was disappointed in that no progress had been made in returning to the rule of law nine months after the appointment of the Rabie Commission. She also said that security legislation was being misused. She also made some frivolous remarks when she spoke about a gestation period of nine months, and so on.

She probably meant to say it was a miscarriage of justice. [Interjections.]

I want to put it quite bluntly to the hon. member for Houghton that I resent her derogatory remarks about the Rabie Commission. As far as I am concerned, it is a prestigious commission. The chairman of the commission is one of our most eminent and able Appeal Court judges, and on account of her remarks I have decided to read a written statement about this commission.

The Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation was appointed on 29 August 1979. Notice hereof appeared in the Government Gazette of 1 September 1979. Interested parties wishing to make representations to the commission were requested to do so before 30 November 1979. I am informed that the commission received various requests for the late submission of representations and this was acceded to. The commission held its first meeting on 31 August 1979. Thereafter it held various sittings to hear evidence. Evidence was received, inter alia, from academics and from representatives of the General Bar Council, the Association of Law Societies and various security services. I have been informed that the commission has received a large number of memoranda, that are being studied, and that further memoranda are still to be submitted. Up to the end of January this year the chairman of the commission, Mr. Justice P. J. Rabie, still had obligations in connection with his ordinary work as a judge of the Appeal Court. It was only from February this year that he could give his full attention to the work of the commission. The commission is assisted by a full-time secretariat and research personnel. One of the tasks the commission has undertaken as part of its investigation, is a comprehensive comparative study of the security legislation of certain other countries. It will be realized that the commission’s field of inquiry is very wide and of a complex nature. I know the commission is doing everything in its power to complete its task as soon as possible. I hope hon. members will give the commission the benefit of their views by way of memoranda or oral evidence. It would be a great pity if the commission had to report without having heard the views of all interested parties. I fear that it may be futile to expect the hon. member for Houghton to put her views before the commission.

Have I not put my views many times in the House? I want them all repealed; so there is no point in my appearing before the commission.

I am informed that the hon. member said during the Prisons Vote that most of the prisoners serving sentences for security offences are being restricted on release and are thus being sentenced twice. This is, of course, totally untrue.

A lot are, though.

About 26% of these prisoners are restricted on release. That is the fact of the matter.

That is a lot.

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the staff problems with which the department has to contend. I am thankful that hon. members keep on harping on this issue, because it can only help me to bring these matters to the attention of the Commission for Administration. Inter alia, the hon. member suggested a form of penalization for poachers. This is of course a difficult matter. How I must succeed in doing that, I do not know. He also referred to vocational differentiation and asked again whether an allowance could not be paid to officers with legal qualifications, similar to those which are being paid to certain medical practitioners in the Directorate of Health. I have taken note of his ideas, and shall convey them to the department and to the Commission for Administration.

The hon. member for Prieska complained about the condition of magistrates offices in his constituency and specifically about air conditioning in the magistrates’ offices at Prieska. He said that the conditions there are so bad that when he enters the magistrate’s office, all the pretty female clerks from the office throng around him to exert pressure on him. [Interjections.] The department is doing everything in its power to improve the working conditions of its officials. In respect of Prieska in particular there was an item in last year’s building programme, which had been entrusted to the Department of Public Works, for the provision of air-conditioning in the offices at Prieska. But owing to a lack of funds in the department it was not approved. However, this request was again made to the Department of Public Works this year, and we hope that it will be possible to implement it this year. He also asked for the renovation of certain magistrate’s office buildings in his constituency. I am pleased that my hon. colleague, who is responsible for this, is present in the House to listen to these representations.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about a letter in which the writer complained about unreasonable delays in a certain court case. I would very much like to have particulars about that case so that I can pursue the matter further and establish what actually happened and whether the position cannot be rectified.

The hon. member also asked some questions about the progress being made in the departmental training section. He spoke about pay being a problem, said the department was being burdened by additional administrative work and asked how the investigation into the question of agency work was progressing, etc. The training section, let me say, has gained a good reputation far beyond the confines of the Public Service. If it were not for the work done by this section, our staff position today would have been very much worse than it is. The investigation by the Commission for Administration into the magisterial division has been completed and the matter is now receiving the necessary attention, as I said when replying to the hon. member for Potgietersrus. Since this report deals with the question of agency work as well, that matter is also receiving the necessary attention.

*The hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred specifically to Chapter 11 of the report of the Secretary for Justice in which risk liability is discussed. In particular he pointed out the delays in court cases dealing with third-party insurance. The hon. member told me that he could not be present today. However, I want to comment on the idea that we should change over to a kind of no-fault insurance. This is a difficult issue, and I am pleased that the Secretary for Justice, who deals with one aspect of this matter, viz. the question of the part played by the courts in the entire system, reported on this matter. I have been informed—it may perhaps be a completely superficial estimate—that if we were to introduce such a system, premiums for third party insurance would increase by approximately 265%. If that is true, it brings another aspect into prominence, an aspect which will have to be given serious consideration. Actually this matter falls under the Ministry of Transport Affairs, and the Minister concerned has appointed a commission of inquiry. That commission will investigate the matter further. For my part I just wish to say that the Department of Justice, as far as its interest in this matter is concerned, will make a proper and detailed contribution as far as the delay in court cases dealing with third party claims is concerned.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for his continued interest in the deeds office. To my mind he always seems to be a very good conveyancer. I want to thank him very sincerely for the interest which he has always displayed in this part of the work of the Department of Justice. Now that the deeds office is going to fall under the Department of Community Development I hope that he, as a lawyer, will also keep an eye on the deeds office and on the interests of our professional people there, and I am referring specifically to aspects such as their pay and so on.

I also wish to thank him for his kind words on the proposed construction of a new Justice building in Port Elizabeth.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. In the first instance he dealt with the question of delays in the passing of deeds. My information is that there is no undue delay in the deeds offices and that problems caused by increased economic activity have been dealt with as they arose. I must stress that. I am satisfied, from statistics at my disposal, that deeds are overall being processed efficiently. If the hon. member still has complaints, he will of course have to speak to another hon. Minister about that after 1 June.

The hon. member also dealt with a number of pertinent aspects of the administration of justice and gave interesting views on these matters. Most of these matters, if not all of them, will be dealt with by the Hoexter Commission, and they will most certainly take notice of his comments during this debate.

I now come to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. It is a pity that he is not here, because I have a few important announcements to make in respect of the matter he raised. Firstly, he said that we must tread warily when considering changes in court structures. As far as that is concerned, I can assure the House that proposals emanating from the report of the Hoexter Commission will be discussed with the judiciary and relevant professions before any proposed legislation in this regard will be submitted. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also raised another very important matter when he made representations for higher pro Deo fees. The position is that pro Deo fees were last raised in 1975 as the result of representations by the General Bar Council. As far as can be ascertained, the council submitted no representations since. I agree that the time has come for considering an increase in these fees. I wish, however, to pose the question: Why should pro Deo counsel be paid a higher fee in the Cape Province only? Should there not be uniformity throughout the country? I should like to hear the comments of the General Bar Council on this issue before I raise the matter with the Treasury.

*The speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort was unfortunately cut short owing to the time limit. In the first part of his speech I think he wanted to emphasize the importance of the office of magistrate, something with which I sincerely agree. I am always trying to vest the magistrate with the high status which he deserves in his specific area. In the second place the hon. member said that the treatment meted out to high officials in the form of pay and conditions of service should be aimed at retaining their services. I can give him the assurance that magistrates fall under that group of officials in the Department of Justice, on a vocationally differentiated basis, who will receive special attention so that we can make and keep them happy and retain their services.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his detailed reply. Obviously I cannot deal with them all, but I nevertheless thank him for his replies to the points I raised myself.

There is only one matter arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply which I wish to pursue further. Although the Department of Justice is losing the deeds office, one of the fields that will still fall under this department will be the conveyancing handled by the State Attorney’s office. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a field in which, owing to the shortage of personnel, greater use could be made of private legal practitioners. If one looks at the report one finds that, during the period 1977-’78, there were 6 815 deeds, bonds, etc., registered, of which 699 were handled by private practitioners. The following year, although the number had gone up to over 7 000, only 102 were given to private practitioners to register. This is a field in which private practice is fully equipped to undertake the task. In view of the fact that such an excessive work-load does exist, I believe, that burden could be lessened by allowing private practitioners to undertake some of these registrations. I am sure private practitioners can easily handle this sort of task without strain.

The matter I wish to deal with now affects the report that was tabled, and the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the supply of liquor in Black metropolitan areas. I welcome this report. It is comprehensive, and covers the field extremely well. I do think, however, it is unfortunate that it was done on a part-time basis, which meant that it took three years to compile. In those three years the problem has escalated. I want to refer to the fact mentioned in the report that in one quarter alone, during a period of three months last year, there were over 1 000 prosecutions. Furthermore 61 vehicles and 36 000 litres of beer were confiscated in a period of just three months. One can appreciate how many people have been prosecuted over the period of three years, and what the total number must be. Therefore, I believe it would have saved a great deal of hardships and unnecessary difficulties if the report could have been completed sooner. That does not detract, however, from the value of the report as such, and I should like to compliment the chairman, the deputy chairman and the other member of the Liquor Board on a very carefully done investigation and a clear exposition of the situation. I also welcome the attitude and the approach displayed by them in connection with their task.

As I read the report I could not help remembering that my predecessor, the former hon. member for Umhlatuzana, Mr. Cadman, raised this question long ago. I remember him talking eloquently about the question of why the townships could not have their corner pubs as they have in other countries. This is what it really amounts to. It is the creation of a facility within the society itself. The report has also confirmed the shocking situation which exists at the moment. When one thinks that there are 75 000 identified shebeens in the Black townships of South Africa—4 000 in Soweto alone—the magnitude of the problem becomes clear. This is the result of a situation for which the Government and the Administration themselves are responsible and I welcome the fact that at long last we are coming to grips with this problem.

I agree with most findings, but I doubt whether the proposed solution is going to be totally adequate. I recognize the Administration Boards’ dependence on income from liquor, but I believe that this is a most unhealthy situation. I do not think one can look to an evolutionary change of that system. I believe more immediate steps will have to be taken. I should like to suggest that Administration Boards should be responsible for the manufacture of beer and for wholesale distribution only and that on-consumption and retail sales of liquor should as soon as possible be transferred into the hands of private entrepreneurs. The Administration Boards will then have a manufacturing and a wholesaling function, but not a retailing function. That will, of course, mean that other sources of income for these boards will have to be found.

I now want to refer to the recommendations concerning on- and off-consumption. If one just looks at the statistics in the latest report of the Department of Justice, one sees that a vast proliferation of types of licences already exist. It runs into 26 different types of licences for which people have to apply. On top of that, there are applications for females to be in restricted areas and in ladies’ bars, applications for females under 18 to be in restricted areas and applications for females over 18 to be employed in the sale of liquor, etc. In this report there are five pages—I shall not go into the detail—listing types of authorities, licences and approvals that have to be obtained. I do not believe that the liquor board is the right body to deal with a new series of types of licences for Blacks which is now being added, because their activities concern a different type of liquor trade. I believe that we are going to have to have a much simpler system of the granting of licences in which the Community Councils themselves will be recognized.

In my statement I said that I foresaw that.

The hon. the Minister foresaw the nomination of Black persons to the liquor board.

No, I said that consideration would have to be given to the licensing powers being transferred to the

That I welcome. As far as on-consumption is concerned, there will obviously have to be some conditions, but once again the whole trade is so different from the White liquor trade that I want to plead that those conditions should not be the sort of conditions which apply to the hotel licences and on-consumption licences generally. They will have to be very much adapted to suit the circumstances for which they have been designed. I think that it would be, for instance, quite unreasonable to say that no person may live on the premises. We should rather take the other line, referred to in the report, that the premises where liquor is sold should be sealed off from the residential portion of the property. Because the family is involved in the work, the premises should, for security reasons, not be converted into an area exclusively for trading purposes—exclusively for on-consumption purposes. The liquor trade in the townships centres around the family businesses with the families living on the spot. I should like to urge that the only restriction which should be laid down, should be that liquor should not be served in the actual rooms where people live.

That is a condition I laid down in my statement.

It was not as clear as that in the report.

Lastly, I should like to refer to the question of on-consumption. I do not believe that on-consumption needs will be properly served if bottle stores, or whatever they are called, have to operate within normal business hours. The emphasis of the report is that the cause of shebeening is that people leave for work very early in the morning and come back late in the evening. The introduction of normal trading hours is a recommendation in the report, but even if such hours are to be the same as those for Administration Boards, they will not serve the needs and there will still be illegal selling of liquor. Unlike for Whites, who can buy their supplies for a week or for a month and store it, most of the sales are done on a daily basis. They buy their packet of juba or whatever they are buying as they go home. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my speech is progressing in fits and starts, bit by bit. When I spoke last, I dealt with the office of the magistrate and the main requirements involved. I thank the hon. the Minister for what he has already said about the office of the magistrate and for his assurances in this regard.

When I spoke last I mentioned that the biggest input as regards a magistrate or a legal officer, is not his studies, but the tremendous practical training that that person must undergo, in the first instance to become a prosecutor and later on to qualify for filling the post of magistrate. Such a person undergoes an intensive training at Justice Training in Pretoria in the first instance and after that he is given the opportunity to carry out his duty in court for the first time. The result is that they are valuable officers that must be utilized as advantageously as possible, and even more so in view of the tremendous shortage that prevails.

When I say that those people must be properly utilized, I am thinking amongst other things of an aspect that I have mentioned in the past, viz. the question of mechanical recording equipment. There are too many offices in South Africa where a magistrate has to take down both civil and criminal court cases in longhand. The time of those highly qualified officers can be put to better use by investing more money in recording equipment. The annual report refers to the wonderful recording equipment that we are using already, but I want to suggest with respect that this should be used more extensively.

The magistrate’s chief function is to administer justice, but there is still too much administrative work that a magistrate must carry out. If we look at the figures set out on page 49 of the annual report, we note that in the period 1978-’79, there were 1 493 938 criminal cases and 762 056 civil cases. Over and above that administration of justice that must be exercised, there are approximately 20 other aspects to which the magistrates division must give attention. There are too many agency services that be carried out by men who are qualified to administer justice. There are too many statutory provisions that convey a variety of powers to the magistrate of today. I want to make a request for the time of these highly qualified people to be put to better use.

A great deal is expected of the magistrate in society. People look up to him. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the excellent qualities that a magistrate must have. A moment ago I spoke about Justice Training, and a colourful person who was at the head of Justice Training for many years, was Adv. J. C. Ferreira. Quite by chance he comes to mind and I recall an anecdote that he was fond of telling at Justice Training. Many years ago, when he acted as magistrate for the first time at Warmbaths, a young advocate also appeared before him by chance that day. They were equally inexperienced. Mr. Ferreira said that this man was so nervous that instead of addressing him as “Edelagbare” he called him “Edeldierbaarste”.

I do not know whether it was the hon. member for Warmbaths.

Where is Warmbaths?

The hon. gentleman J. C. Ferreira elaborated on the demands that are made of magistrates. He pointed out that the magistrate is not only required to be knowledgeable, and that he should keep this knowledge up to date because jurisprudence is continually developing. He also needs characteristics like integrity, reasonableness and impartiality, and all these things must be found in one man. The magistrate must be part of the community. He cannot be seen in the wrong places. He must pass judgment, and this is a very important function. He must weigh up the interests of two parties correctly. A magistrate’s decision cannot be allowed to be of such a nature that people feel that the matter has not been properly weighed up or that he has not given attention to what was put before him in a balanced way.

I do not think the office of magistrate can be valued highly enough. That is why I am asking for better conditions of service to be considered in many respects. The hon. member for Brakpan has already given attention to salaries. Professional differentiation has already been referred to by the hon. the Minister. The conditions of employment of these people are very important. If mechanical equipment and all those aspects can be looked at, I believe that legal costs can be saved. These matters compliment one another.

I pay tribute to what the magistrates do, and I trust that the department will look with greater appreciation at what is being done by the magistrates in future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodepoort has made a very interesting and I think a very good speech in regard to magistrates, their duties and training. Does he consider that the extensive training they go through is necessary to enable a magistrate to dispense justice in a reasonable and educated way? Yes he does—he nods in agreement. I agree with him.

Consensus.

It is completely necessary, in order to have justice dispensed properly, to have your people properly trained. Therefore I think the hon. member would in all probability agree with me that if he perceived a trend towards allowing untrained people to dispense justice in South Africa—and I am not talking about the homelands, but about urban South Africa—this was not to be desired. He again nods his head in agreement, and so we have it on record that he agrees that any trend to move towards a system where people dispense justice who are not properly trained, would not be a good move. I refer him to a Bill which appears on the Order Paper from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, from which it appears that a system similar to that employed in the homelands, where unqualified people are going to be entitled to dispense justice, is one of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to a Bill which appears on the Order Paper but which has not yet been discussed in the House?

I shall not refer to the subject further.

Firstly, I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Justice because the liquor boards are moving across to another department. I do not believe that it forms any part of Justice. A great deal of dissatisfaction exists in regard to the liquor boards, so I believe that it is a very good thing that Justice no longer has to do with that particular facet of South African life.

In the debate on the Justice Vote last year I mentioned certain items in regard to the provisions of the Liquor Act as it pertains to international hotels. Of course the words international hotel”, which was referred to by an hon. member earlier in the debate, is a complete misnomer. The situation is that an international hotel is simply the mechanism whereby the Government allow people other than Whites to utilize the facilities of hotels in White areas. In no shape or form does it have to do with the fact that they are international in the true sense of the word. It is purely a racial situation. I put to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor the case against double licensing fees as in terms of form 66. I also put to him the case against the admission to any bar on licensed premises which had a public entrance from outside and to which only White males have to date been admitted. The Act says that it shall remain restricted to White male persons only. It is one of the conditions of the licence, and that is ridiculous. As regards dancing, only White people are allowed to dance in an international hotel. In this day and age it is a ridiculous provision. Further, only bona fide guests are allowed to swim in the hotel’s swimming pool. Therefore, if one had to invite Black guests to an international hotel, they are not entitled to swim in that swimming pool. The final provision, which is the most ridiculous, is the fact that at an international hotel the Government limits the number of Black people who are allowed to stay at that hotel. They are limited to 15% at most. I can see no sense in this provision. I do not believe that it serves any purpose whatsoever. If we accept the principle that we are going to allow Black people into these international hotels, why should they be limited to 15%? What is the point, other than perhaps a discriminatory act?

I want to refer to the Liquor Act and the way it is used in South Africa. I believe that the Liquor Act is not being used only to control liquor, but is also being used politically, racially and to build up empires. I want to give an example. The sort of question asked by the liquor boards of prospective licensees is, first of all, whether the applicant is a South African citizen. We must be aware that people who come from Western Europe are very often highly trained in the hotel business, and when they come here they very often want to go into the hotel business, so, when applying for a licence, they are first of all asked whether they are South African citizens. If the reply is “no” they are asked whether they intend to become South African citizens; if not, why not.

Is that wrong?

Yes, it is wrong in terms of carrying out the provisions of the Liquor Act. It is totally wrong. Would we, as South Africans, like to be dictated to by a Government overseas if we have a work permit and are entitled to live there? Do we want to be limited as far as our commercial activities are concerned by the fact that we are not a citizen of the country we want to work in? I do not believe that is equitable at all. The main question is what this has to do with the supply of liquor. I do not believe it has anything to do with the supply of liquor. If the Government wants to place legislation on the Order Paper to prevent people who are not South African citizens from carrying on certain businesses, or being involved in certain enterprises in South Africa, they must go ahead and do so, but they must not hide behind the Liquor Act to prevent people who are not South African citizens from obtaining liquor licences and in that way entering the economic life of this country.

The next problem I want to raise is that there are not sufficient guidelines for people who wish to obtain liquor licences. For example, a hotel may want to obtain a liquor licence, not for the purposes of having an off-sales or to allow it generally to serve liquor to anybody, but purely to cater for the needs of the guests at the hotel. They may go to a certain amount of expense. They have to employ an attorney, they have to draw up plans of the hotel and in order to comply with certain requirements they probably have building and alteration expenses in order to get the hotel in a fit state to receive a liquor licence. They then with great excitement appear before the liquor board with their attorney. They present the form correctly filled in. They have studied all the regulations and they have complied with them. Then, suddenly, the request is turned down for a reason which seems to come right out of the air and which does not appear to be in any legislation at all.

I am aware of an instance where the owner of a hotel who went through this procedure in applying for a licence, was told that he was not allowed to have a liquor licence because not every bedroom in the hotel had a private bathroom. Really, Sir, I ask you: What does the fact that the hotel did not have a private bathroom for every single bedroom have to do with the supplying of liquor? This was not a new hotel. It had been in existence for quite a number of years.

The point I am trying to make is that, if this hotel owner had been told clearly beforehand that there had to be a private bathroom for every bedroom, he would have had the additional bathrooms built or he would not have applied, he would not have gone to the expense. I am also told by attorneys who appeared before the Liquor Board that when they ask where they can find all these things out, they are told that that is their own affair. I want to make an appeal that the Liquor Board should publish a complete list of all the requirements before a hotel can become a licensed hotel, irrespective of whether it concerns a wine and malt licence or a full licence. I believe it is the duty of the Liquor Board to publish exactly what their requirements are—and I am talking of all the requirements and not just some of them.

It is an arrogant board.

It appears that this particular board, in its dictatorial and bureaucratic attitude, suddenly seems to pull reasons out of the air for refusing licences. This is not equitable and it costs people money. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go into all the aspects of the speech by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I should like to refer to just one aspect, namely his question as to why it says on the above-mentioned form: “Are you a South African citizen?” The granting of liquor licences is a concession given by the State to the citizens of the country or to specific persons. Because the concession is given by the State, it is surely to be expected that the State should give preferential treatment to its own citizens in this connection. In any event, this rule is not applied as an absolute rule by the Liquor Council in the sense that foreigners are unable to obtain liquor licences in South Africa. It is essential that the following question also appear on the form: “If you are not a South African citizen, do you intend to become a South African citizen?” If the applicant replies “No” to that question, he has to answer the following question: “Why do you not want to become a South African citizen?” Only then, I believe, can the Liquor Board form a proper judgment as to whether this is a person to whom the State as such should give a concession. I think the present policy of the Liquor Board in this connection is the correct one.

I should like to refer to certain matters raised by the hon. member for Houghton in her speech yesterday. She referred to the security situation in South Africa. We know that we have some localized trouble spots in South Africa at this stage. We know that the unrest is taking place against the background of a specific social and political dispensation. One thing is clear, and that is that neither the Opposition nor the Government wishes to retain the status quo in South Africa. The appointment of the Schlebusch Commission on the Constitution, the proposed appointment of the President’s Council, etc., constitute sufficient proof of this. The Government wishes to negotiate and discuss this and it wishes to bring about a different dispensation in South Africa.

There is unrest at present. We on this side of the House and the Opposition should now see whether we have any common ground on which we can debate this matter. I wonder if we have the following piece of common ground: Does the Opposition believe that the present unrest in South Africa, the stone-throwings and the boycotts, should be stopped unconditionally and immediately?

Naturally.

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton …

Naturally, you silly man.

The hon. member for Houghton says I am a silly man. So as one silly hon. member to another silly hon. member, I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton …

I am not here to be interrogated by you.

… what she has done to try to exercise some influence to put a stop to the unrest that is going on at the moment. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Let us examine the conduct of the hon. member in this House.

[Inaudible.]

What is the first thing we should look for? We should see whether she has risen here and said that she appeals to the Coloured people and the Black people to put a stop to the unrest, or whether she has not. [Interjections.] Why has she not used her position as a member of Parliament by making an appeal to them?

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Does she really believe that the unrest should be stopped immediately? [Interjections.] Does she believe it should be stopped unconditionally, or does she simply not care? [Interjections.] She does not really have to reply to those questions, because when we look at a previous speech of hers, we see that her actions speak for themselves. Yesterday she said certain things in her speech, and we must examine them and ask whether or not they contributed to putting a stop to the situation of unrest in South Africa. I quote from her uncorrected Hansard speech. She said—

Then she went on to say—

These are the powers that the hon. the Minister has—

What reason does the hon. member have for making a factual statement here to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Justice is going to abuse the powers he has under the law during the recess? Why does she make such a statement? What gives her the right to do so?

From experience.

How can she tell the world in these times of unrest in South Africa that the Government, or the hon. the Minister, is abusing its powers?

Yes, they do, though not this hon. Minister necessarily.

This Minister is the Minister of Justice, and she says she has to say that the powers will be abused.

Yes, they will be.

On what grounds can she say that the hon. the Minister of Justice will abuse his powers?

He is not the only one who uses them.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton a question. If she seriously wishes the riots in South Africa to come to an end, does she think that this kind of thing is helping to end them? Does she think this is the language of a person who wants to have peace in South Africa? Does she want peace in South Africa? [Interjections.] No, she must spell out her intentions more clearly. What she says shows clearly what she wants, and we on this side of the House, and I think every right-thinking person in South Africa, condemn the conduct of the hon. member for Houghton. I quote from her unedited Hansard speech of yesterday—

And you are doing it.

What grounds does she have for saying that this Government will jail all Coloured and Black leaders it can lay its hands on?

Have you read the papers lately?

It is an absolutely disgraceful remark. It is absolutely disgraceful to tell the world that every Black and Coloured leader the Government can lay its hands on will be jailed.

It is true.

But it is untrue.

It is not untrue.

I am telling her that it is factually untrue.

It is not untrue.

You know it is untrue.

It is factually untrue.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to say that another hon. member said something untrue knowing it to be untrue?

Order! Who said that?

The hon. member for Kimberley South.

Order! Did the hon. member for Kimberley South say that?

Yes, I said it was untrue.

What else did you say?

Order! Did the hon. member say the hon. member for Houghton knew it was untrue?

If I said that, I withdraw it, but it remains untrue.

We need not hide behind fine words here. Surely not all the coloured leaders and Black leaders are in jail. Surely it is untrue to allege that.

A great number of them are.

Surely the hon. member for Houghton knows that they are not in jail. Surely she knows that the police can in fact put them in jail if they want to. So it has been proved to be factually untrue to allege that the Government will jail all the Coloured and Black leaders it can lay its hands on. This kind of talk is not conducive to peace in South Africa. [Interjections.] I will not allow myself to be intimidated by the hon. member for Houghton. She can intimidate the Black and Coloured children into doing things they should not do, but she cannot intimidate me. [Interjections.] She said—

Do you deny that?

The Government of South Africa, every Government in the world, has a certain duty, and that is to protect the security of the State. In this connection, the duty of the Government is the same as the duty of the bonus paterfamilias, or the good father of the family. Just as a good father of the family has a duty to protect his children, the State has a duty to safeguard the security of the State. In this connection the State has to take preventive action. A good father and a good mother will not wait until the integrity of the family has already been violated before starting to protect the family. Similarly, the Government will not wait until there are really major riots before trying to prevent them. One cannot maintain security in South Africa only by acting and taking people to court when offences have been committed. One also has to take preventive action. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point raised the question of conveyancing done by State Attorneys. I take it that this will be a matter that will be discussed by the relevant law associations and myself. I shall raise the matter with them to see what can be done about it. I cannot compromise myself now across the floor of the House. The hon. member also dealt with the delay in submitting the report. He said that it took about three years. I must say to the hon. member that I myself, when dealing with confiscations on appeal, was depressed when I had to confirm those confiscations from time to time. Of course, I did not have any option according to law. I had to approve it if it was in order. I must be realistic, however, and point out to the hon. member that, in spite of legalizing the shebeen trade to a great extent, there will still be illegal trading, and confiscations will still take place in future, although on a much smaller scale. I am pleased that it will be on a much smaller scale, because it will help promote goodwill to a very great extent between especially Black people and the police. As far as the delay is concerned, my information is that the committee had difficulty in obtaining comments and witnesses from the Black areas. They decided at a very late stage, only towards the latter part of 1979, to volunteer to give evidence. That is actually the reason for the delay. I regret, of course, that the matter was delayed a long time.

Then the hon. member suggested that Administration Boards should produce beer and act as wholesalers of liquor. My answer to that is that the production of sorghum beer is being investigated by the Department of Co-operation and Development. We anticipate that Blacks will themselves become the wholesale distributors of liquor in the Black metropolitan areas. We expect that to happen eventually. Quite naturally, of course, the licensing procedure and all other matters incidental thereto will then be simplified. We will, quite naturally, investigate the question of the hours of business too to see if we can suit all the needs of customers buying liquor on-consumption and off-consumption.

*Now I come to the second instalment, if I may call it that, of the speech made by the hon. member for Roodepoort. I took cognizance of what he said about recording machines. We shall try to use the machines as far as possible. However, it is not practicable to use them under all circumstances. In any event, we take cognizance of what he said.

†I should like to refer now to the hon. member for East London North and want to be quite blunt with him. If I have to choose between two groups of people—let us call them group A and group B—group A consisting of South Africans and immigrants who have clearly intimated that they intend becoming South Africans, and group B consisting of people who state quite bluntly in writing that they are not prepared to obtain South African citizenship, I shall definitely choose group A, and I am not ashamed to say it.

*However, I want to emphasize that I shall treat people who intimate that they want to become South African citizens in the same way as people who are South African citizens. As Minister in control of immigration, I am concerned about the fact that such a small percentage of people who have obtained permanent residence in South Africa are really prepared to become citizens of the country. However, I want to qualify this by saying: All things being equal. Then I must also point out that there are in fact other elements that are relevant. When a proposal had been submitted to me by the Liquor Board, and it had been clearly stated in the form that the applicant concerned was not a South African citizen, I have on many occasions granted restaurant licences, for example, because foreigners, especially from certain countries, are eminently qualified to handle this kind of licence—restaurant licences including liquor—in South Africa. For that reason I readily grant licences to them. However, I repeat that this is only done on condition that all things are equal. Under those circumstances, I definitely prefer—actually this is no longer relevant, because I shall not be doing it in the future—either the man who is a South African citizen or the man who indicates that if he complies with the prescribed residential requirements, he will become a South African citizen. Personally I prefer to give preference to the latter two categories of people.

Furthermore, the hon. member also had a great deal to say about the so-called unfairness of having a person incur great costs to apply and then having his application rejected on a mere technicality, or because of some carpeting criticism concerning a bathroom, or whatever, as a result of which he suffers a loss. As a colleague of mine in the legal profession, surely he will readily concede that every intelligent person will ask a good attorney or a good advocate to handle such an application. Surely that person knows, from experience or from information he can obtain from the Liquor Board at all times, what the requirements are. Therefore there is no need whatsoever for him to run any unnecessary risks.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member tried to ridicule the status of “international hotel” and the conditions attached to it. He referred to the provision that if an on-consumption bar in an international hotel has a street exit, it is limited to the population group which has the right of occupation in that area. But surely it is not true that that provision was laid down in the first place on grounds of colour. Surely that provision was laid down in the first place for practical reasons, to eliminate unnecessary friction. After all, in the so-called ladies’ bar, there is no discrimination as far as this is concerned. Any person, irrespective of colour, may enter it, but still one can make sure that unsophisticated elements do not converge upon it and cause friction. I feel that while we are approaching these things systematically and in an evolutionary manner, we should not continually indulge in petty political point-scoring in this connection.

The hon. member also referred to the question of mixed dancing. As regards certain of his arguments, and specifically the question of mixed dancing, I want to say that we are still acting under the old Act this year in hearing de novo applications for international status. My information is that more than a hundred cases have been heard again. The Liquor Board asks them every time whether they are having any problems. We suggest to them, as it were, that they should say whether they are having any problems. Of these more than 100 applications that have already been heard, there was one hotel in Cape Town which said that it had had problems with mixed dancing. Therefore the hon. member must forgive me for saying that I take more notice of what the licensees concerned have to say about the matter than of what any politician has to say about it.

But it is the propaganda which is made against the country that we must take into account.

It is propaganda that is made against the country, but Hansard is also used to make propaganda. These things are often blown up artificially. I know of cases where people have deliberately walked past an international hotel in order to enter a restaurant which is not international, just in order to make mischief. That is unnecessary. As I have said, it is a question of evolution. We must be patient. A more flexible policy will be followed in the future in respect of certain things, and we must allow these things to take their evolutionary course and we should not force people. Allow me to say very clearly, too, that as long as I am Minister of Justice, I shall not enforce integration.

That is not what we are talking about.

Then the hon. member mentioned again the question of double licence fees. We debated the matter under a statutory amendment which was before this House recently. It was very effectively pointed out on that occasion that double licensing applies in the existing Act as well in certain cases, but I went further, and I just want to say for the hon. member’s benefit—I do not expect him to know this; I said it in the Other Place—that I have undertaken to go to the Liquor Board to ask them to go into the whole matter and to tell me whether it is fair to charge double licence fees, or whether they can recommend that there should be any reduction or complete abolition of one part of the fee.

I take it that there will be no further discussion, and under the circumstances I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House sincerely for their kind treatment of me as a newcomer to this post and also for the sober discussion, with only a little fireworks here and there. I appreciate the contributions made by hon. members on both sides of the House.

Vote agreed to.

Votes Nos. 17.—“Interior” and 19.— “Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, allow me just to make one very short announcement:

I hereby announce for general information that Prof. Dr. Abraham Coetzee, Vice Rector of the University of Fort Hare, has been appointed as Director of Publications as from 1 July 1980, to replace Mr. D. Vosloo, the former Regional Representative of the Department of the Interior at Cape Town.

Prof. Coetzee has been occupying the office of Vice Rector at the University of Fort Hare since 1972, and in addition he has also acted as rector of the above-mentioned university from time to time. He was also professor and head of the Department of Afrikaans-Nederlands at the above university for some time. During 1950 he obtained the Candidatus Theologae (cum laude) certificate at the Theological Seminary at Stellenbosch and from 1951 to 1954 he was a practising clergyman. During 1960, Prof. Coetzee obtained the D.Litt degree at the University of the Orange Free State with the thesis: “Die prosakuns van Jochem van Bruggen”. Prof. Coetzee’s academic qualifications, together with his practical experience in the theological and literary sphere, as well as the fact that he has a good grounding in administration, makes him ideally suited to the office of Director of Publications.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the privilege of the half-hour. I congratulate Dr. Coetzee on his appointment and hope that under him there will be a change for the better in the administration of the Publications Control Act.

Then I want to compliment the department, the senior officials, on the early tabling of the annual report for 1979 of the Department of the Interior. By giving members sufficient time to study the report and to look at the statistics long before the Vote, makes a great difference to our ability to debate the activities of the department rationally. Although this report is not a thick document, it evidences the tremendous volume of productive work that has been executed over the past year. It is a department with many faces and facets and with numerous functions. It deals with immigration, voter registration, the running of elections, passports, visas, aliens control, residence permits, provincial legislation, citizenship, publications control and the administration of the Population Registration Act, to name but a few. It is therefore a department which has great power over the fives of hundreds of thousands of South Africans and strangers in this country. In the very short time allocated to me I shall not be able to deal with all the facets of the department, but hopefully, my hon. colleagues who will speak later will take over where I left off as the debate progresses. In particular, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is not here today, will deal with publications control when the debate on this Vote is continued on Monday. The hon. member for Bryanston will discuss voter registration later, and naturally also the proposed decentralization of voter registration, which is welcomed by this side of the House.

I would like, however, to say a few words on this. If decentralization is good for voter registration, and if it is found that the decentralization of the work of the department in regard to voter registration provides for greater productivity and for a more efficient service, why is this not also true of many other functions of the department? After all, the Department of the Interior is a people’s department. It involves the affairs of people: their registrations as voters, the passport applications they have to make, residence permits, work permits, registration of births, deaths and marriages. Presently all services of this nature are highly centralized. For the ordinary man living away from the city it involves, when any problem crops up, a trip to Pretoria, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein or the like and probably also lengthy correspondence.

I really believe that a department such as this should bring its services to the people via the closest institution to the people, viz. the local authority. An investigation into such a proposal is surely warranted and would hold out the promise of even greater efficiency and a better, more immediate, service to the public at large. I believe that a decentralized and more available Department of the Interior would be yet another step away from that highly centralized bureaucracy which causes so much frustration. Further decentralization would give assurances against too much power over individuals being concentrated in one central authority. I really do recommend that the hon. the Minister carefully consider this thought.

In the past few years the department’s general efficiency has improved. When one glances fleetingly at some of the statistics involved, one can obtain an idea of the ramifications involved. If we look at the statistics we see that almost a ¼ million visas were issued in 1979. Clearances at the various border posts, which involve much of paper work and time, ran into something like 6 329 000, while 45 000 temporary resident permits were issued. This general improvement in the efficiency of the department and the speeding up of much of its work, can be laid at the door of two parties. At the risk of embarrassing the hon. the Minister I want to say that it can first of all be laid at his door and that of the Deputy Minister, who are certainly better at their jobs than the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was. Secondly, this improvement can be laid at the door of the officials of the department, both senior and junior, who, despite shortages and often in difficult circumstances, always tried to give of their best. In this general connection I would like to raise two points.

The first is that under the proposed rationalization programme, I note that the department will shortly become known as the Department of the Interior, Constitutional, Coloured and Indian Affairs. I want to query the wisdom of this. I am not at all convinced that this rearrangement into these particular categories is a suitable one. In particular, I think the hon. the Minister should not permit the rationalization programme to vitiate or destroy what has been done in the past three years to put the department on a viable and sound basis. I want to ask a few questions in regard to the rationalization programme. Could the hon. the Minister tell the Committee what the reason is for the particular grouping of the Department of the Interior and Constitutional Affairs, which will go well together, with the Department of Coloured and Indian Affairs? Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the most senior officials of each of these departments were properly consulted before this rationalization was decided upon? The third question, and I hope we get an answer to all these questions, is, if those senior officials were consulted, what was their reaction to this particular rationalization? In the fourth instance I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what studies have been conducted in connection with this aspect of the rationalization programme. I believe that this particular aspect of the rationalization programme has not been considered fully, I do not believe that the proposed groupings are congruous at all and I am not convinced that they will promote the efficiency of the department. I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a full reply to this legitimate query.

Secondly, I should like to say a few words to and about the hon. the Minister personally. I do so in a friendly spirit. This hon. Minister holds the following posts: He is the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice, the Minister responsible for the Commission for Administration, chairman of the Constitutional Commission and, on the political front, the leader of the governing party in the Orange Free State. No doubt the hon. the Minister also has other less publicized, but equally important, tasks to fulfil. Without wishing to be presumptuous, I honestly am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister’s responsibilities are too many. They are too many for him to give of his best to any one of the posts mentioned. Each portfolio, that of Justice, the Commission for Administration and the Interior, should be enough for any one competent man to handle, each portfolio demands the total attention of a diligent Minister. Before the hon. the Minister, who smiles seldom enough, becomes a never-smiling walking zombie and the efficiency of the departments concerned are overtaxed, this situation should be remedied. Competent as he may be, he is not Mr. Supernat and he should realize it.

That is Andries you are talking about.

The Departments of Justice and the Interior in particular should, in the interests of their efficient functioning, be administered by two different Ministers.

I shall gladly tell the hon. the Prime Minister that.

I leave it with the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

Of the legislation administered by this department, I should like to refer particularly to the Population Registration Act and the race classification laws. History has shown us that, basic to the rest of apartheid legislation, was the classification of the population into racial categories. That has been the basis of much of the legislation that has come before the House over many years. When the 1950 Act was introduced in Parliament, it was designed to create a rigid system of classification based on appearance, general acceptance and repute. Over the years the legislation changed, as did the administration of the legislation. There have been many “borderline” cases, as the hon. the Minister has called them in the past and as is the terminology in the Public Service. There has been much humiliation, anxiety, bitterness and ill-will, and disastrous publicity for South Africa has resulted from official investigations and decisions taken in regard to such cases.

Over the years the provisions of this Act have been tightened. In fact, the concept of descent became the determining factor and overrode the factors which were previously of great importance in the legislation. So rigid are the provisions of this Act today that the statistics relating to the reclassification applications have dwindled almost to nothing.

Nonetheless anomalies continue to crop up. While I do not intend to discuss today any individual case or mention any individual names, I want to say that it is a fact that in South Africa some White brothers have Coloured sisters, families are divided by the law and parents are divided from their children. A statutory stigma is placed upon people who have committed no sin. This Act remains the cause of at least a few suicides every year. It remains the reason for at least some fine South Africans leaving this country never to come back. It stands as a repugnant monument to all that is bad in the philosophy of separate development. While the administration of this piece of legislation is in far more sympathetic hands than it was a few years ago—and for that we are grateful—discretionary alterations under section 5(4)(c) can never be anything more than a leavening palliative. The end—that of enforcing separate development—cannot be justified by the means adopted in terms of this Act. It causes too much misery and grief.

So I say that it is time the hon. the Minister, and the Government as a whole, looked at this legislation again. Does the future of South Africa really depend upon this legislation? Is the prospect of the retention of the identity of the Whites so fragile and weak as to require a law of this sort? I think not. The hon. the Prime Minister has undertaken to investigate the terms of section 16 of the Immorality Act. The race classification sections of the Population Registration Act, however, are just as offensive and, I may say, just as unchristian. It is time they were abolished.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s congratulations to Prof. Coetzee on his appointment as the new Director of Publications. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that he will have the full support of this side of the House for the great, responsible task that he will have to carry out in future. Later on, we on this side of the House will have more to say about the Directorate of Publications, after we have listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is absent at the moment. I do not know whether he is having more problems with his caucus. However, we look forward to debating this more fully later on. On this occasion I want to say that we also convey our heartiest congratulations to Mr. Vorster, the former Director. We wish him everything of the best for his new position, and we trust that he will do just as well as he did in his previous one.

The hon. member for Sandton made a very strange type of speech today.

I like to surprise you.

It was strange because there were so many contrasting elements in it. He was very peaceful and calm in his approach and he also showed appreciation for several matters. However, I found it amazing that the hon. member began by saying that there is “a general improvement” in respect of matters within the Department of the Interior. I agree wholeheartedly with him on that. He ascribes this to two reasons. On the one hand he ascribes it to the fact that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister are doing their work in an excellent fashion.

In the second instance he ascribes it to the excellent work of the officials of the department. However, later on he raises certain points of criticism and says that the hon. the Minister has too great a burden on his shoulders. To my mind, however, this is an added compliment to the hon. the Minister, viz. that in spite of all the work he is still making a success of the department. It seems to me that the old saying is true, because if a good man has a lot of work, and he does it well, one can give him even more. I think we on this side of the House would like to keep him in this department for a long time to come. Of course, our hon. the Deputy Minister is doing just as good a job. The hon. member also spoke about the new name of the department and the possibilities which arise from the process of rationalization. My own opinion is that we will be able to discuss this much better when we talk about the Commission for Administration and its functions. The same hon. Minister deals with that, and perhaps we will be able to debate it more fully then.

In his speech, the hon. member referred once again to the whole matter of racial classification as he called it. I do not want to give much attention to it today, because the hon. member for Mossel Bay will hopefully deal with it. However, I just want to make one request of the hon. member, and this is that we should be very much more particular in our terminology. In previous years, people considered ethnic differences simply as racial differences. For instance, they spoke of the “English race”, a “Scottish race” and an “Afrikaner race”, whilst we are all members of the greater Caucasian racial group. In our terminology in South Africa, we refer to a population registration, and not a racial classification. In doing so we are simply recognizing the variety of population groups that are to be found here, and we want to give statutory content too within that variety.

The hon. member and myself differ in principle on this matter. Unlike the hon. member, we on this side of the House see nothing un-Christian in the classification of people according to population groups, the fact that we recognize the variety and want to arrange matters in a meaningful fashion. If one looks at Christian history, one sees that there are very great differences within Christianity, that everyone seeks for grounds for his belief and that every theologist wants to base his beliefs on the Bible. Therefore, I do not think the hon. member is going to get very far with that type of standpoint.

I just want to say that in doing so, the hon. member is in actual fact criticizing one of the premises of our party policy, and that he is seeking change. If we can talk politics for a moment, I just want to tell him that the alternative which the PFP offers, for the very population questions with which we in South Africa are faced, is being rejected. It is being rejected by the Whites, and I am also convinced that it is being rejected by the vast majority of Black people too. [Interjections.] The hon. member can say that he differs with it now, but the policy of the PFP would not last for six months amongst the Black people. We have had sufficient proof of this in the rest of Africa and the rest of the world. Nor am I convinced that the Coloureds or the Indians would accept the policy of the PFP. At least the NP can say that the vast majority of Whites in South Africa support its policy and that the NP will proceed to obtain more support from the people of colour. With those few words, I react to what the hon. member for Sandton said.

The Department of the Interior is going to be given a new name, viz. the Department of Internal and Constitutional Affairs, together with the related content that the Cabinet wants to grant it. I said that we could discuss this again later, when we discuss the Commission for Administration Vote. The Department of the Interior does not actually create the impression amongst the general public of being a spectacular type of department. This department does not build dams that one can see and name the Schlebusch Dam, the Pen Kotzé Dam, etc. It does not deal with schools as in the case of the Department of National Education, or with visible things which are done in other departments.

The Department of the Interior is at the centre of our community and in actual fact, as the five tight forwards of the Springbok team will have to do tomorrow, they have to do the hard work in the midst of the struggle. This is where the Department of the Interior does its share. Therefore, I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that I also have a great deal of appreciation for the officials of that department. I also want to say a special word of appreciation to the Secretary, Advocate Booyens, who should actually convey the compliment from the members of the Opposition to his Department today.

The hon. member for Sandton was quite correct in saying that it is a department with growing responsibilities. When we look at the annual report of the department, we see that there is scarcely a figure that does not show growth in the activities of the department. In the main, the officials have two different types of work. There are those who come into contact with the public outside on a daily basis. As the hon. member correctly remarked, they work with the most intimate details of everyone’s life. One’s birth, whole life and death. There are even people who change their surnames. I do not know whether the hon. member for Sandton possibly wants to change his surname to an easier one, such as Van der Merwe. In any event, the officials of the Department of the Interior are people who generally work with the public. They do not always only work with people who were born in South Africa and therefore know the circumstances here, but often with people from abroad, for instance people from the Mediterranean countries, with people from the rest of Europe, or from elsewhere in the world. They deal with these people every day. In the hurry and pressure of their working conditions, these officials have to give special attention to people who do not understand either of the two official languages, people who are strangers to the country, who are uncomfortable and strange and who are even unfamiliar with the things around them, people who are not at all accustomed to the way in which we do things here. That is why the officials of the department have tremendous problems in many respects. However, the vast majority of these officials are people who can deal with all these conditions with understanding and insight. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, so far it has been pleasant listening to a rather dispassionate debate in such a pleasant and restful atmosphere. It made me think of the oxen of Jan F. E. Celliers plodding along so “geduldig, gedienstig en gedwee”.

I should like to continue in a similar vein by telling the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the first place, that it is very encouraging when one can find justification for expressing a word of well-deserved thanks to the two hon. gentlemen for the high degree of accessibility and approachability that we encounter with them. The hon. member for Sandton referred to the immense work-load of the hon. the Minister. I believe, nevertheless, that he enjoys thorough support from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I can testify on the basis of my personal experience that since the hon. the Deputy Minister has been responsible for the task of race reclassification there are signs of a completely new approach to this thorny and problematical task. This is something I should like to place on record. From this, however, it must by no means be inferred that either the NRP or I in any way approves of or supports the system of compulsory race classification as administered by the present Government. It is something that is detestable in our eyes and it is something that we should like to see abolished.

Will you abolish it if the NRP comes to power?

I shall discuss that later. The fact remains, however, that by virtue of my personal experience, I should like to pay the hon. the Deputy Minister a compliment. Lately one has certainly perceived a positive desire on his part rather to seek reasons for declaring a person White than adhering dogmatically to some standpoint or another and summarily turning down all applications. In other words, a shift in emphasis is discernible in the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that is something one is delighted to observe.

It is of course true—and the hon. member for Sandton has also mentioned this—that when one considers the number of cases in terms of section 5(4)(c) of the Act, the number of cases is in fact lower at present than in the past. However, this does not present us with the complete picture of the immensity of the problem. I do not think one could infer from this that, because there were 192 cases of reclassification during the previous year, a stricter application of the Act is now taking place. Everything depends upon the number of applications for reclassification received by the department. So all I actually wish to do, is to encourage the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe he should carry on in that way. The fact remains, however, that in the long run we shall be moving towards a system of voluntary classification. I think that we shall ultimately arrive at the stage where we were before 1948, when there was a de facto system of voluntary classification. It is nevertheless at least encouraging to notice this new approach on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. At this stage, there is just one further question I should like to put in this regard. As I have said, I do not approve of this, but it exists nevertheless. I also have to make an urgent request that the denomination “ander gekleurde” or rather “other coloured” a denomination applicable to people of coloured origin living outside the Cape Province, should be done away with.

†In the debate on the Vote Coloured Relations a few days ago, one hon. member spoke about “so-called Coloureds”. Some hon. members on that side of the House then took exception to this and said that we do not talk about “so-called Afrikaans-speaking or so-called English-speaking people”.

It was I.

Yes, that hon. member. Sometimes he adopts a very wise approach. So I am sure he will support me in this particular respect. It is, of course, basically wrong to differentiate between “Cape Coloured” and “other Coloureds”. I imagine that it must be very difficult for them to accept this. We must accept that they regard it as an insult to be described as being “other Coloureds”, a description which indicates that they are not Cape Coloureds. These people regard themselves as South Africans, and therefore to call them “other Coloureds” is to insult them. I hope this is something that will be looked at in future. We must try to avoid descriptions of this nature. The Government can even do away with this in the Book of Life, in which a code is used for race classification. We must get away from this description. They regard it as being insulting.

I should now like to move on to a matter which constitutes a tremendous responsibility of the department, and that is, of course, the population register and the registration of voters. I am very pleased that the Government has by implication admitted that it has been wrong in the past. The best way to describe the population register is that it was a total fiasco. I do not think the Government will get away with it that easily by trying to put the blame, as I know it has been done, on the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Dr. Connie Mulder, by saying that this was one of his …

Muddles.

Yes, muddles. What went wrong is, that they were not prepared to listen to good advice when it was given to them. It has in fact been a very expensive and futile exercise.

I also wish to refer to the matter of the decentralization of the registration of voters. This is, of course, something which we welcome. I want to make an appeal, which is similar to the appeal made by the hon. member for Sandton, and that is that we should not just stop with voters’ registration. I really think that what is needed in this country is bringing the Government closer to the people.

Hear, hear!

Administratively the Government can be brought closer to the people. I am not saying that local authorities should take over this responsibility, but I should like to point out that in overseas countries one finds that the city hall plays a tremendous part in the administration of people. I am not saying that we should go about it in the same way, but I still think that we can improve tremendously, and not only in regard to voters’ registration, about which I shall have something more to say later on, but also in regard to issues such as the registration of births and deaths. Greater powers should perhaps be vested in local regional representatives.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in the minute or two that is still available to me, I immediately wish to tell the hon. the Minister that the decentralization of the registration of voters is something that would be very welcome, but we do have to refer to the few matters in respect of the recent supplementary registration of voters.

†At the present moment the various political parties are working out their delimitation submissions and in some cases we have already submitted our plans as was in the past when various Delimitation Commissions sat. This in fact follows in the wake of an exceptionally poor general registration drive. As an example I could perhaps refer to my constituency, Durban Central, where at the end of the general registration drive we had some 8 800 voters. During the two months thereafter, with only one political party being active, we registered well over 2 000 new voters, registering a net gain of 1 800. This shows that it was only an 80% effective registration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to reply to the hon. members now, but merely to refer briefly to certain persons sitting here in the Officials’ Bay. I notice among them Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe, Provincial Secretary for Natal and Director-General designate of the department. He is here on an informal visit. I do wish to tell him, however, that he is very welcome and that in the meantime I congratulate him sincerely. At a later stage, when he is in our midst in a formal capacity, there will be an official welcome for him.

Then, I also wish to express my sincere congratulations to Prof. Van Rooyen who is present here today. Professor Van Rooyen is the newly appointed chairman of the Publications Appeal Board. Prof. Van Rooyen is a recognized expert in this field. In fact, he is, as far as I know, the only person who has made a penetrating study of the subject and has published a book about it. I wish him success in the difficult task he faces in the time that lies ahead.

Then I feel a special need, in view of the fact that Mr. Vosloo, who has just been appointed as Director-General of Walvis Bay and is still in our midst this afternoon, not only to congratulate him on his appointment there, but also to thank him sincerely for the outstanding work he has done in Cape Town as the Regional Director of the Department, and also for the outstanding work he has done in his capacity as Director of Publications.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I wish to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and congratulate Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe. Since he comes from such a good province as Natal, we shall naturally expect very high standards from him. We know that we shall not be disappointed. Also to Prof. Van Rooyen, I wish to convey our congratulations and at the same time our sympathy on the difficult task that still lies ahead for him. I think he has already received a good compliment from none other than our good old friend, Prof. André Brink, when, during the symposium held at the University of Cape Town, he referred, inter alia, to the fact that owing to the influence of Prof. J. C. van Rooyen, considerable maturity had been reached in respect of the application of censorship in South Africa. We hope that we shall be able to continue on that basis.

†I now wish to proceed where I left off when my time expired. I was indicating that in one particular constituency we managed to register over 2 000 people in two months-—bear in mind that there we have a shifting population—and showed an increase of 1 800. Compared with the original registered total, however, that supplementary effort, which was done by one political party, showed that the original registration could only have been an 80% effective registration, because one could improve on that figure by 20%. I believe this is not good enough, after the Government has spent millions of rand on it. I do not believe that the responsible political party could conduct a 100% registration, but only about 75%. So, ultimately—there will be other constituencies that did not do this—we shall be faced with a delimitation which will be based on artificial figures.

There is another matter. We read in the White Paper on the Rationalization of the Public Service (page 4, paragraph 12(h)) that one of the goals of the rationalization is the improvement of the image of the Public Service. We do realize that when one has such an ineffective type of registration drive as that conducted, it does not contribute to the improvement of the image of the Public Service. I grant the hon. the Minister that the enumerators were drawn by and large from the private sector, but the fact remains that when a person visits the public in order to form a duty on behalf of the State, they are regarded as part of the administration. It is quite clear that they were not in all cases sufficiently motivated to do a proper job. What the reasons were, e.g. whether they did not receive enough money, is beside the point. Some did a good job. I also believe that the training, instructions and briefing of the enumerators could have been far better. I know ff cases where regional representatives say they have taken three hours to instruct 300 enumerators. It is well that they spent three hours, but I believe one cannot achieve efficiency by instructing 300 people simultaneously. There are reasons for this. Firstly, an exceptional person is needed to impart knowledge to a group of 300 people. Not everyone can do that. Secondly, a group of 300 people, people who are not accustomed to receiving concentrated instruction, is difficult to instruct, and so much of the instruction time is consequently wasted. I believe a mistake was made.

We live in a technological age and in 1980 life without computers is impossible, but they are as human as the people who feed them with information and they only reproduce what is fed in. In working out our detailed submissions we find, e.g. in Durban-Pinetown, that out of a little over 1 000 blocks, according to the original list, into which voters were divided, 241 blocks had some sort of mistake. It was quite ironic to see how the computer eventually eliminated some of these mistakes by, where a block had been included in the wrong constituency, adding the total in that block on to the next block in the constituency instead of transferring it back to the correct constituency. The result was that the books balanced, but it was like cooking entries in bookkeeping. This is the sort of situation we have to face. We can only hope that with the decentralized system matters will improve.

*To continue, I wish to say a few brief words about the system of censorship. We in these benches have, for years, expressed criticism of the system because we felt that the legislation governing it, was ineffective. I hasten to add that the party which I represent, are not proponents of the total abolition of censorship. We believe there has to be a measure of censorship but that it should be applied in such a way that it enjoys the confidence of the public and reflects the prevailing norms.

You mean a system apart from the courts of law?

We have always mentioned this …

I am just asking you.

The hon. Chief Whip should know that we have always advocated recourse to the courts of law in the case of …

I am not talking about recourse. I am talking about the system.

We have made it quite clear that decisions of appeal boards and committees should be subject to courts of law …

That is not my point.

We have always felt there should be recourse to a court of law.

*It was particularly interesting to see how the former chairman of the Appeal Board, Mr. Justice Snyman, and the authors now agree with one another. This became apparent at a symposium they held because they felt that the Publications Act should be amended. Mr. Justice Snyman went so far as to state—

What source are you quoting from?

I have quoted from The Argus and a report about this also appeared in Die Burger of 23 April. According to the report in Die Burger, Judge Snyman said the following—

He said the system should be scrapped and a new system should be sought if we were at all in earnest about the whole question of censorship.

†Prof. André Brink at the same symposium once again stressed the need for a revision of the present system. Justice Snyman also made a very important observation concerning the committee system when he said—

When the very person who was responsible for the implementation of the Publications Act makes that kind of statement, it is clear that the system permitted a situation where people could be subjective, and not objective enough, and that indicates that there is something wrong with the system. Justice Snyman made another statement in which he said that he regarded himself as having failed because he could not stop the flood of permissive foreign publications. I believe this is slightly irrelevant to the whole issue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on 28 April this year, during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote, Hansard columns 4905-4917, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said with reference to the writings of professors Hennie Coetzee and Olivier that there could be no question of moving away from discrimination as long as certain laws remained on the Statute Book. One of the Acts that he mentioned in this regard, is the Population Registration Act, Act No. 30 of 1950. I presume that he was actually referring to section 5 of the Act in question, the section that provides for ethnic classification of the population.

Earlier today, the hon. member for Sandton referred disparagingly to the above-mentioned section 5 as “a repugnant monument to all that is bad in separate development”. He went on to say—

To my amazement, the hon. member for Durban Central agreed with the hon. member for Sandton and also asked for the classification provisions of the Act to be abolished.

In view of these statements I believe that I am justified in expecting these two Opposition parties to reply clearly and frankly to the following questions. Firstly, do they accept the ethnic plurality and multinationality of the South African community, or do they see the population of South Africa …

It is stated in our programme of principles.

… as a single undifferentiated open community? This question is even more topical and relevant in view of the replies which the hon. member for Houghton gave to the hon. member for Simonstown by way of interjections on the 28th of this month. She said straightforwardly that the PFP is in favour of full citizenship for Coloured and Black people in—and I want to emphasize this—an open South African community in which everyone would vote on a communal voters’ roll for members of this hon. House, the House of Assembly.

Then I come to the second question that I want to put to the two Opposition parties.

Have you read the speech about full citizenship which was delivered in Palm Springs?

If the two Opposition parties accept that the South African community consists of many ethnic groups, peoples or national groups, how do they propose to govern this community efficiently without taking into account those ethnic and national differences? Surely the history of Africa and, indeed, of the world, gives us more than enough examples of the conflict and discord which followed the neglect of ethnic and national differences.

My third question is the following: If the above-mentioned differences are accepted, how can proper recognition be granted to these ethnic and national differences in practice without the existence of a registration system which identifies each member of the population as a member of a specific ethnic or national group? The hon. member for Durban Central says there should be a system of voluntary classification. Surely it would result in chaos if every member of the South African population could make his own decision as to which ethnic or national group he wanted to belong without the group to which he does belong or the group to which he wants to join having any say in the matter. After all, the laws of genetics are fixed, unchangeable and inexorable.

This brings me to my fourth question. It is the declared policy of the official Opposition that their proposed national convention will consist of the leaders and representatives of all interested groups. These interested groups must of necessity include ethnic and national groups too, as hon. members of the official Opposition have themselves conceded on occasion. How on earth can the leaders and representatives of the various ethnic and national groups be appointed if the members of the ethnic and national groups in question have not been or cannot be identified? The same also holds good for the NRP’s so-called federal-confederal plan.

It is a very good plan.

Therefore, the existence of the classification provisions of the Population Registration Act is also essential for implementing the declared policy of the two Opposition parties.

No, that is not so.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur says: “That is not so.” However, I have just pointed out to him that he cannot make his national convention truly representative of all the groups in this country— which also includes ethnic and national groups—if he has not identified the members of those groups, or does he simply want to do so on an arbitrary basis by accepting Mandela as a representative of the Black people in South Africa? Is this the type of democracy which the hon. members of the official Opposition are holding out in prospect with their national convention? I do not think the hon. member for Groote Schuur understands Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I think this is his problem.

Why are you becoming so excited?

My fifth question is: What is discriminatory per se—and I emphasize “per se”—in classifying a Coloured as a Coloured, an Indian as an Indian, a Malay as a Malay and a Chinese as a Chinese?

Ask the Coloureds themselves.

Classification is simply the official acknowledgement and confirmation of a fact that already exists and in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with superiority or inferiority. Nor is it a valid argument to allege, as the hon. member for Sandton did earlier today, that classifying the people of South Africa according to ethnic and national grounds, makes it possible to discriminate against some of them. Surely discrimination is not the inevitable result of ethnic and national distinction, just as provincialism is not necessarily a consequence of our provincial division. It is not necessary to bring about an open, undifferentiated community in order to put an end to discrimination on grounds of race or colour. The Government is definitely not intending to do so either. Not only has the Government repeatedly stated through the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers that its policy is to move away from unnecessary discrimination on grounds of race and colour, but it has also given irrefutable evidence of the fact that it is serious about doing so, without establishing an open community. If citizens who are members of specific ethnic or national groups are treated in a discriminatory manner in specific spheres, the discrimination can be argued about, and the existence thereof can be criticized, as is often done here. The existence or not of discrimination, however, does not alter the fact of a person’s ethnic or national context one jot or tittle.

I therefore allege that there is absolutely no reason or justification for making a fuss about section 5 of the Population Registration Act. By questioning this provision in this Act, the hon. members of the PFP are dragging in arguments that are irrelevant, as the hon. member for Bryanston tried to do by way of interjections. [Time expired.]

We Van Rensburgs must stick together.

Mr. Chairman, the PFP is apparently attached to the idea that the word “discrimination” should be dragged in wherever it can harm South Africa. It is very clear to me that they have one objective, and this is to cause embarrassment for South Africa and for the Government of South Africa. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also pointed this out very clearly.

What must be fully recognized, however, is that the feeling among ethnic communities or groups is not peculiar to South Africa. However, I find it amazing to note how the use of the word “race” is flinched from in other countries, actually in an effort to salve their consciences. Riots have now broken out in the USA. Instead of the word “race”, the word “minorities” is used. In other countries they speak about “immigrants”, but it is very clear that by “immigrants” or “minorities” they mean people of colour. In Britain they would not refer to “immigrants” if it was a matter of immigrants from elsewhere in Europe, White South Africans, Canadians, etc. They only speak about immigrants when they refer to Blacks. Therefore we must be quite clear on this aspect.

The question of feelings among population groups and among ethnic groups is not peculiar to South Africa and therefore it is absolutely essential that for the sake of proper and sound administration we in South Africa should continue with our population register.

I should also like to refer to the population register as such. It was decided recently to replace the previous book, which comprised 48 pages and was in fact a bulky, clumsy book, with a smaller book comprising 16 pages which is more suited for practical, everyday use. The small book also contains substantially less information than the previous book. This book is generally referred to as the Book of Life. I want to ask that this book should indeed become a book of life to a far greater extent, that we should make far greater use of this book in our everyday life and in our community life and our relationship with the Government.

A decision was taken at one stage to draw up the voters’ roll on the basis of data in the Book of Life. This failed, however, not because the idea is impractical but, in my opinion, because insufficient progress was made with the registration of individuals, and as a result not enough voters were so registered. A second factor militating against the use of the Book of Life as a practical basis on which to draw up the voters’ roll at this stage is the fact that changes of address, for which provision is made in a very simple administrative way, are simply not being adequately kept up to date.

I want to plead that as soon as the decentralization of administration has been carried out and all the registrations have been disposed of—I understand that approximately 170 000 Whites are still to be registered—the booklet should indeed be used as a basis for the voters’ roll. If this is done, anyone with any practical experience of elections will know that every voter may then be traced. Everyone who enters any election office at all will immediately know at what address he is registered. The clumsy system of attempting to trace voters in order to determine where they are registered, will then be greatly improved. In the election of 1977 which followed five years after the previous general registration, it was virtually impossible for a large percentage of voters to determine in what constituency they were registered because many of them had changed their addresses so many times since 1972 that they simply no longer knew where they had been registered.

The fact that the election officers have to contact the local or Pretoria offices of the Department of the Interior in an effort to determine where the voters in question were registered was not only an exceptionally expensive undertaking but was extremely time-consuming as well. However, if the Book of Life serves as a basis for the registration of voters then a person need only produce his Book of Life for it to be clear at a glance where he is registered as a voter. I therefore want to request that as soon as we achieve a satisfactory state of progress in our decentralization process and the full registration of Whites, we should indeed use the Book of Life as a basis. I understand that at the moment there are seven regional offices of the Department of the Interior and that a further eight regional offices are envisaged. For the purposes of administrative control—viz. checking whether the information relating to the application is correct—the ultimate total number of 15 regional offices may be of considerable help. However, it is also foreseen that municipal offices may be of assistance in insuring that address changes are notified. However, I want to make a plea that not only municipal offices be used for that. After all, it is not only urban voters that are important, but rural voters as well. In my opinion, 15 regional offices throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, including municipal offices which can be of assistance to residants within municipal areas, are insufficient if we can make it convenient and easy for people who have necessarily to contact these offices in order to convey this information correctly to the central head office in Pretoria, where it will ultimately be fed into a computer. I therefore want to request that police stations, too, which are far more widely distributed even than magistrates’ offices, should assist in this regard so that address changes may be given the necessary attention.

Some years ago, after I had corresponded for many years with a penfriend in Europe, I was informed that he had changed his address. I was unable to ascertain what his new address in Europe was. Accordingly I approached the relevant embassy and asked whether they perhaps had a telephone directory for the European city in question. I was told that it was unnecessary to consult a telephone directory. Of course, we in South Africa very often make use of telephone directories to ascertain people’s addresses. A member of the staff of the embassy in question told me that I should write to the police address office in the European city in question, which I did. Within two weeks I was in possession of that man’s new address. Therefore there is full control in that country. The people there realize that the police stations that assist with these matters render a service to the public. Therefore the police stations are not only there to deal with criminal matters. They also render a service to the public. The police stations in South Africa are also widely distributed. To the extent that they are distributed, and because they are Government offices, police stations can be of assistance in the rendering of service to the public, inter alia, by way of forwarding changes of address to Pretoria on a regular basis, together with municipal offices, in the case of urban voters. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I support the idea expressed by the hon. member for Klip River, namely that we ought to make more general and practical use of the new, smaller identity document at present being issued. I shall have something to say about the registration of voters and the possibility that this could be done on the basis of the population register when I speak later in the debate.

First, however, I want to see how far I can get in replying to certain other aspects touched on in hon. member’s speeches. In the first place, I want to refer to the question of race classification. This is an aspect broached here by the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Durban Central and also the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member for Sandton referred here to the adverse publicity and unpleasantness which had prevailed in the past, in this House as well, when this matter had been discussed. I am pleased that we have been able to get away from the unpleasantness of those days. I am pleased that this sensitive and troublesome matter of classification is no longer being dragged in across the floor of Parliament and exploited on public platforms and by the media, because when this is done then there is only one party that suffers, viz. the people involved. If we seek to make political capital and sensational stories about this, then we shall only hurt those people, their children and their families. I want to say to the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Durban Central and every other hon. member in this House that I am gratified at the exceptional and highly responsible way in which this matter has been dealt with by everyone in recent times. When I assumed my task, I received a definite instruction from the hon. the Minister to show the greatest compassion and circumspection when dealing with this aspect and other sensitive aspects of the department’s activities, aspects affecting the everyday life of people—and there are many of these things. This was the instruction I received and this is what I am doing. However, I want to call on hon. members to grant their co-operation, something that they are already doing to an increasing extent, and to place their confidence in me and the people in our department who deal with this matter. They must not always expect to get an affirmative answer from me; they will not. I could not do so without flouting the laws of the land. Each of the cases brought to our attention is thoroughly investigated. We are not over-hasty with these things, but we dispose of them as promptly as possible. As I say, such cases are duly investigated and their merits carefully considered. It is not an easy task. However I want to say that I have compassion for the hardship cases and deal with them in that spirit. The head of the department who has assisted me in these matters thus far, Adv. Booyens, is with me all the way in this regard. He is the man with the executive authority who is entrusted to undertake reclassification. I want to thank him for having been of so much assistance thus far in these cases.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked that we do away with the sub-group title “other Coloureds”—“ander Gekleurdes”. This title still appears in the proclamations, but in practice it is no longer used. All the people who initially fell into that category are at present classified as Cape Coloureds. The fact is, of course, that the Coloureds themselves have objected to the fact that they, as they say, are the repository for all the people who cannot be classified in other groups. They objected to that. People value their own identity. The Griquas and the Malays are very insistent that their separate group identities be maintained.

The hon. member for Sandton said that the Act had been made more rigid. Whereas in the past appearance and acceptance also played a role, the Act has been changed and now stresses descent as a criterion. The hon. member for Sandton adopted the standpoint that because the Act had been made more rigid and stringent, the stream of cases that had been raised was drying up. He said that the reports reflected this. However this is not the truth. It is not for that reason that the numbers are dropping. I also wish to say to the hon. member that we do not insist on descent. The fact is that on the basis of the recommendation in the Erika Theron Commission, viz. that the Government should also make acceptance an important consideration in considering reclassification, the Government decided that this should be put into effect. Therefore this, too, is a criterion which is used today. Apart from descent, acceptance is an important criterion which we can use today. We must take this into account; otherwise we could not do what we are doing. This is an important aspect today. What is more, we do not stop at that; we are back to 1950, to Dr. Dönges, and nowadays we are also recognizing appearance. I think it is the only reasonable and just basis that these things be seen together: Descent, appearance and acceptance. However, then these things must be done on merit and we must not be pressurized to exceed those limits. However the Secretary is using his discretion within these guidelines and recently we have been dealing with those old, hard, accumulated cases, those so-called border-line cases which in the past were regarded as too difficult to deal with and had been set aside for a time. My attitude is that we must not cause these people to suffer unnecessarily, to be kept in the dark or in tension for an unnecessarily long period. We must deal with these matters and make decisions with compassion and bearing in mind all these circumstances. Therefore we are not sitting with these cases on our tables and desks; we are facing them, as they say in English. We are dealing with them, we are disposing of them, we are taking decisions. I do not think there is anyone here today who can point a finger at us, neither at me nor at the hon. the Minister, nor at the department concerning our conduct in this regard.

The hon. member for Sandton referred here to the fact that the population register formed the basis of a large number of the laws of our land, and according to him that is wrong. I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay gave an adequate reply to that statement and those arguments advanced by the hon. member. That is not so. Section 5 of the Population Registration Act of 1950 is aimed at enabling the various population groups to preserve and maintain their own group identity. The inhabitants of the Republic are ethnically, traditionally, culturally or otherwise included in one of the population groups. This is not our doing; it is a background history in this country. In the light of this it is the policy of the Government that the identity of the various population groups be protected in order to promote stability and ensure peace and order in this country. If we were not to do this, there could not be peace, order and progress in this country. There would be disorder, friction and conflict, and the material and spiritual prosperity of all peoples in this country would suffer as a result.

What happened from 1652 to 1950?

There were group divisions even before 1950, when another party was in power. However, this is the basis for an orderly society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, just before I turn to a few of the matters discussed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I just, perhaps in a lighter vein, wish to thank somebody in the ranks of the National Party, but unfortunately I do not know who it is. It is a person who writes to me from time to time and from whom I have already received three letters.

Is it anonymous?

Yes, it is from a friendly informant in the ranks of the National Party who writes to me in a beautiful clear handwriting. In the first letter he informed me of the letter which the hon. member for Pretoria Central addressed to the hon. the Minister of Public Works a few minutes after that letter landed in the boxes of members of the National Party, and long before the Opposition or the Press knew about it. I received the second letter the following day together with a photostat copy of that letter.

Order! What has this to do with this Vote?

The third letter has everything to do with the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I received the third letter during the course of the no-confidence debate. It was in the same clear printing and on a House of Assembly letterhead. I think the credibility of this informant lies in the fact that under these circumstances these letters made their way to me. The third letter reads as follows—

It is signed “Nat-vriend”. [Interjections.] To prove the credibility of this friend, one of the previous letters had “Nat-vriend, een van min” between brackets. If this does not prove the credibility of this person, nothing will. [Interjections.]

At more or less the same time, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said: “Een van die groot verbeteringe wat ons in die vooruitsig stel, om in die medium termyn en moontlik selfs in die kort termyn van die agb. lid vir Bryanston ontslae te raak … [Interjections.] I take it that this concerns the delimitation and the election in November this year. [Interjections.] I look forward to joining battle with the NP and whoever they nominate against me.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister concerning the future of White voters in Mafeking. Are they going to fall under the Cape Province for purposes of delimitation, or are they going to be incorporated into a constituency in the Transvaal in terms of the legislation we passed a few days ago?

Then I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the new system of registration of voters which we are going to introduce. It is high time. All of us know that the previous general registration was very ineffective and that it was by no means adequately or satisfactorily done. There are of course many reasons for that. The department’s senior and regional officials are in no way responsible for the way in which matters went awry. Matters went awry in the field, among the registration officers who were appointed, and as a result of the exceptionally difficult circumstances in which they had to complete the work. I think we should accept that even today between 500 and 1 000 voters per constituency still do not appear on the voters’ rolls. I cannot understand how the NP Government can justify proceeding with a delimitation while so many thousands of voters are not on the voters’ rolls. This is all a result of the hopelessly inadequate and inefficient methods we have applied in the past to register voters.

At this stage we are introducing a new system. If the new system is not going to incorporate a specific obligation on the individual to register and if this is not going to be enforced by legislation the new system is not going to work either. The hon. member for Sandton asked how many people who had not registered in terms of the provisions of the Act had been prosecuted, and the hon. the Minister’s reply was that there had been no prosecutions. The hon. the Minister can introduce a new system, even the best in the world—if he links it to the local authorities, he will have the foundation for a sound and effective system—but if the individual is not under an obligation to register, and if this is not effectively enforced, the system is still not going to work. In short, the public must be compelled to register and if they do not do so, they must be penalized, in order to enforce registration.

†In conclusion I should like to say a few words about the answer to the hon. member for Sandton in respect of race classification. There is a total misconception in the ranks of the NP when it comes to the attitude of this party to the race classification aspects of the Population Registration Act. We have not asked the NP to apply this inhuman and humiliating law in a more humane way, but for it to be scrapped. What we would like to see in South Africa is the recognition that every South African, irrespective of race or colour, is a first-class citizen of one and the same country. They should not be classified into certain compartments whereby the Government decides that they shall be Coloured, Black, Indian, Malay or anything else. Surely the people concerned have a right to decide how they should be seen. If people want to be seen as South Africans first and foremost, they also have a right—I think most people exercise it—to be considered to be either Coloured, Indian or whatever the case may be.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to answer that hon. member’s questions now. In South Africa race classification is not applied to identify the racial ethnicity of people. No. It is the very foundation of the system of apartheid. It is the system in terms of which a man is identified as a Coloured, Indian or a Black. He is then defined as being a second, or a third or a fourth-class citizen of South Africa and he is then subjected to a whole range of discriminatory, inhuman and unjust laws laying down that he is not a first-class citizen, whether he likes it or not. These laws decide all his rights; his status in the society, where he can go to school and where he can live. In the process good relationships are destroyed and South Africa is placed in jeopardy. That is what race classification means under the NP Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have already discussed race classification. The party of the hon. member for Bryanston differs fundamentally from the Government in this regard, but the fact is that this side of the House is the Government and it is our policy that it is carried out and not his policy. He had better wait—I do not know how long it will be—for the day when his party comes to power. Then he can test his belief that such an event would give rise to a paradise. I want to say to the hon. member that if this Act were to be done away with today, you would see how much suffering it would cause.

Then there was never a District Six.

These so-called hardship cases are the result of the laissez-faire policy adopted in this country over the centuries. But I shall leave the matter at that.

As far as Mafeking is concerned I want to say to the hon. member that on Monday I shall give notice of legislation to rectify the situation, so that the voters of Mafeking may in future vote in the Vryburg constituency, and also to provide for other similar cases in the future.

I now wish to deal with the so-called ineffectual general registration. The hon. member for Klip River said that he looked forward to the day when we in this country could draw up the voters’ roll from the population register. I, too, look forward to that day. We have been advocating this for a long time. The hon. member for Durban Point also made a plea for the decentralization of the department in this regard. The hon. member and I have felt the same about this matter for a number of years now. We issued reports in this connection which gave rise to what has occurred thus far. I want to say to the hon. member for Klip River that due to the reports issued by the Select Committee, legislation was adopted as far back as 1977—although it has not yet been implemented—which made it possible to draw up the voters’ roll from the population register. This was to have occurred on 1 July 1978, but because we had a general election in November 1977 and subsequently found that it was no longer really necessary to proceed with such haste in this regard, and because there was also an economic recession at the time, and the Treasury asked us not to spend money unnecessarily, we postponed the deadline to 1 July 1982. But the legislation is there, and the day will come— and it is to be hoped that it will be in my time—that we shall be able to use the population register to draw up voters’ rolls.

Before dealing with the general registration, I just wish to say that as far as the decentralization of the department is concerned, a few questions have been asked and remarks made by the hon. members for Durban Central and Sandton. They expressed their agreement in this regard and said that this should be developed further. I just want to say to the hon. members that Rome was not built in a day. I want to convey my appreciation to date to the hon. the Minister for having cut this Gordian knot and having done so much personally to give effect to representations that have been made over the years by the NRP and ourselves. It has been a difficult task but the problem has now been overcome. This is an important and valuable step forward. It is a starting point. It is an important point of departure and is not necessarily the culmination. I foresee that if we do our work thoroughly, we shall have to go further. At present it is a question of the availability of funds and manpower. However, as we learn over the years, we shall try to develop this. This is a good point of departure and we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for this.

Hon. members tried to kick up a fuss—of course, this was because there is not much criticism that can be levelled at this department—about the so-called poor general registration of voters. Let me say bluntly—and I have been in politics a long time—that in my opinion it is one of the best general registrations ever. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston was still in nappies when I was dealing with these matters. Therefore there is nothing he can tell me. General registration is perhaps not the most effective means to update voters’ rolls, but thus far—the department has not yet been decentralized; it is still being re-arranged—it has been the only instrument with which we could correct inaccurate voters’ rolls. There was no other way of doing it. The Select Committee recommended a long time ago that we should do away with it because it was not an effective measure. However, it was the only measure at our disposal and we always adopted the standpoint that one should simply try to use it as effectively as possible. Not one of the Western democracies has a 100% registration of its enfranchised citizens. They are quite satisfied if they can reach the figure of 80%. We have progressed a great deal further than that. Of course, our country has a small population in comparison with those countries, and this must be taken into account, but those countries are satisfied with far less than 80%. I had an analysis carried out in this regard. In the past it has always been felt that after a general registration has taken place, one should call in the aid of the political parties to supplement the list. This has now also been done. We gave the political parties three to four months to make up these lists. I must say they were unable to get very far with them. Nevertheless I am very grateful for what they have done. Let us look at the rolls that closed at the end of January. The fact that 50 000 additional voters were placed on the roll in January is chiefly ascribable to arrear activities during the survey. Many of the inquiries were left at home and people only reacted to them when reports appeared in the Press to the effect that those who had not yet registered had been disenfranchised, and when tables appeared on the street. If we add those 50 000 voters and one accepts that it is still chiefly due to the efforts of the department and that on 31 March, with the aid of the political parties, approximately 100% of the voters had been registered—it is not as much as that, but let us take it that it is 100%—then by the end of January we would have had an average registration of voters of 96,41%. That is not bad. For the Cape the figure was 96%; for Natal, 96%; for the Free State, which was of course the best, 97%, and for the Transvaal 96,5%. If hon. members opposite maintain that they registered the majority of the 50 000 voters, I want to refer to the figure of 26 October. When one compares the figures, the picture does not look bad. The fact is that on 26 October, approximately 94,13% of the voters appearing on the list today after all the tremendous efforts made, were registered. Never in the past has such a high figure been attained. In the Cape it was 93%; in Natal, 93%, in the Free State 96% and in Transvaal, 94%. After all, these figures speak for themselves. However, I acknowledge that the work was not perfect. The hon. member for Bryanston raised a very important matter here. He said that it was not the fault of the officials because they did their best. It was the material we were working with which gave us difficulty. Catch me as many wild horses as we need to do this work, put them in a team and see how much land they can plough in one day. We had 6 027 registration officers for this task, people who lacked appropriate training.

That is the problem.

There were also 596 senior registration officers. Therefore, there were approximately 6 600 people, but not one of them was trained. Many of the people were recommended by the parties and some of them did terrible work. Many of them, of course, did good work, but some of them did bad work too. Some of them were more interested in the money they would get than the work they had to do. However, we did not have anyone else to do it. But notwithstanding the weaknesses of the system, notwithstanding this human material, we performed wonders and the hon. member will admit it. We paid these people more than twice as much as we paid in the past. We had their work checked by making senior registration officers responsible for groups of registration officers, and having their work, in turn, checked by the magistrate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt so effectively with the hon. member for Bryanston that I shall leave him with his secret letters. [Interjections.]

Order!

My former colleagues up in the Press gallery will probably not take it amiss of me if I address them briefly today. They get enough opportunity to write about me.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to people in the Press Gallery.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I shall cease my references to the Press Gallery. I realize that when one discusses the Press one enters a minefield.

Then you enter the Simonstown field.

Nevertheless I should like to discuss the Press briefly today because there are certain things that have to be said. South Africa is moving towards a dangerous situation, and we shall all have to fasten our safety-belts. The Steyn Commission states that South Africa is involved in a multi-dimensional conflict. The take-over of power in Mozambique, Angola and Zimbabwe by organizations that were once illegal has created an atmosphere which is beneficial to the activities of subversive, revolutionary elements. Increasing terror is expected. It is in this fight that one should view the appeal the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House to newspaper editors not to support the revolutionary forces in their aims by way of excessive publicity. In this dangerous situation the Press and the other media as well are called upon to perform an extremely responsible role. Many people in our complex community are still uninformed about the dangers threatening our community. Many people do not yet form part of our national strategy. In a democracy like ours, a free, credible Press, which must see to it that we have a well-informed community, is totally indispensable. That is why the State and our country very much need a free, responsible and positive Press in these times. When I speak about the responsible Press I speak about those who are often on the side of the angels, as Dr. Friedman put it many years ago in this House. I should also like to quote what a veteran South African Pressman, Mr. Willem van Heerden, said in this connection—

He went on to say—

The Steyn Commission sums up the relationship between the State and the Press very accurately for us when it states—

In the situation we are heading towards, the Press and the Government will have to reflect seriously on their mutual relationship. It is to the advantage of neither the State nor the Press that the disharmony between the State and the Press should continue. In situations of danger this disharmony could escalate into confrontation and crisis. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the communication channels between the Government and the newspapers be kept open. Fortunately those doors are still wide open.

As a former Pressman I did not rise here today to attack or disparage the Press. I have too much understanding for the Press, its problems and its value as a watchdog and medium of information for that. However, I cannot but share the concern of the hon. the Prime Minister that the negative aspects are sometimes over-emphasized by newspapers. An ominous negativism has filtered into a section of the Press. This concern felt by myself and by the hon. the Prime Minister is shared today even by people in newspaper offices. There is a great deal of disquiet about a negative, destructive, anarchistic attitude adopted by a section of the Press. This section of the Press adopts the philosophy that the Press and the Government are and must be sworn and irreconcilable enemies who have to live in constant confrontation with one another. This is a fatal standpoint.

No one will find fault with a newspaper for furnishing facts when it tells its readers the truth, but the real question is how they are presented, and what interpretation is placed on them. This can take place as a result of attitudes that vary from newspaper to newspaper, attitudes that are sometimes poles apart. In the security situation of South Africa the tone, drift and spirit of reports can play a dangerous role. The question is how the facts are interpreted and how prominently they are presented. Excessive publicity is surely an encouragement for subverters, because if they do not get publicity, their campaign could grind to a halt.

The negative, destructive Press is responsible for the fact that anger against the Press is building up here and elsewhere in the world. They are also responsible for the fact that the credibility and integrity of the newspapers is being increasingly questioned. A recent opinion pole in the USA indicated that there was increasing dissatisfaction with the Press in that country. It would be a great pity if the Press were to be further undermined in the eyes of the public, because the Press is a very important ally to and instrument of the State in its endeavour to achieve its national objectives. Since we are dealing with subversive and revolutionary elements in our midst and on our threshold, the attitude of the general public is of the utmost importance. The correct approach and the correct attitudes cannot be imposed by way of legislation. However, the media can be a powerful instrument in the forming of the correct attitude, or if not they can bedevil that attitude.

South Africa is implementing a national strategy for its survival and victory. To succeed in this, we need the support of everyone in this country, of which the Press and the media of South Africa are by no means the least.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss immigration. Since the 17th century South Africa has had a constant flow of immigrants. Over the decades, immigrants of various nationalities have come to South Africa. The various immigrant nationalities have been concentrated into specific periods in history. For example, in the 17th century, after 1688, large number of French Huguenots came here as immigrants. During the 18th century many German immigrants came here. During the 19th century we had large numbers of immigrants from Britain, and during the 20th century we had many immigrants from Portugal. Then, of course, we have also had many unwilling immigrants over the years. For example, we had the slaves that were brought to the Cape colony. The slaves were liberated 176 years after the arrival of the first slaves in the Cape. The vast majority of them continued to live here after their liberation. Apart from them we also had political exiles from Dutch East India, people who were the forefathers of our present Malay population.

In this way a number of elements were added to the composition of the White population over the years, first at the Cape and then throughout South Africa. For example, in 1717, 58% of the White population of the Cape were Dutch, 21% were French, 18% German and 3% of diverse West European origins. A century later the White population here comprised 53% Hollanders—at that stage the Dutch were fewer than in 1717—whereas 28% of them were German, 15% were French and 4% of diverse other West European population groups.

When we look at our immigration policy it is very important to note that although statistics tell their own story, the success or otherwise of an immigration programme necessarily depends not on figures or numbers but on the extent to which immigrants associate themselves with the traditions and ways of life of their new country. In this regard, however, I wish to point out that this is a process which takes time. It is not a process which reaches fruition overnight. In his Journals, Emerson said in 1823—

Therefore, when we look at the history of immigration in South Africa it is perhaps also necessary that we look at the Free State. The hon. the Minister happens to be a Free Stater. It is probably appropriate therefore, that I refer to the old Free State Republic. Although the Free State may have had a good immigration policy, it did not always have such a good rugby team, of course. The old Free State Republic never had immigration legislation with regard to White immigrants. In 1896 an effort was made in the then Free State Parliament to have legislation in connection with White immigration. A Bill was introduced but was dropped at the insistence of President Steyn. Accordingly there was no limitation whatsoever on White immigration. On the coat of arms of the old Free State Republic—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will also know this—there was an inscription which reads: “Vryheid, geduld, moed en immigrasie.” It is interesting to note that the old Free State Republic, the model republic, accorded so much importance to immigration that it made it part of its motto.

Let us take a brief look at the situation of the most recent group of immigrants in South Africa, namely the Portuguese immigrants. The Portuguese have a long history in South Africa. The name Cape of Good Hope—Cabo de Boa Esperanza—was given by the Portuguese navigator Bartholomew Diaz to this part of the southern tip of Africa as far back as 1488.

Today there are several hundreds of thousands of Portuguese in South Africa, people who are in the country lawfully and have lawful residence rights. Unfortunately, of course, there is also a large number of Portuguese who are in the country illegally. We often hear people maintaining that the Portuguese are not easily assimilated. In this regard I want to point out once again that the assimilation of one population group with another population group takes a very long time. For an adult man coming here it is undoubtedly extremely difficult to assimilate, particularly if he speaks a foreign language which is neither an official language of the Republic of South Africa nor related to one.

With the children it is very often an entirely different matter. An uncle of mine told me an anecdote about what happened to him once during a vacation in Portugal. He saw a young Portuguese boy of 10 to 12 years walking past and said to his wife: “I wonder why this young man is not at school.” The young Portuguese boy looked at him and said: “Nee, Oom, ons is met vakansie hier.” It came out that he was the son of a Bronkhorstspruit greengrocer who was there on holiday. The children of the second and third generation do assimilate and become part of the larger White community in South Africa. To an increasing extent they do accept the traditions and ways of life that obtain in South Africa.

Portuguese people are useful South African citizens. For the most part they are good and reliable tradesmen. I think we can say here today that the Portuguese who are in South Africa lawfully, are welcome here. It is a problem that so many of the Portuguese have not yet taken South African citizenship. I express the hope that immigrants of Portuguese origin living permanently in South Africa will accept South African citizenship to a greater extent. Perhaps we as South Africans, and the Afrikaans-speaking people too, should do more in this connection. If we make them feel at home they will also be quicker to make themselves at home, and then I believe we shall be able to solve this problem with regard to citizenship. I wish to conclude by saying once again that the Portuguese citizens of South Africa are in my opinion good, useful and friendly people who are welcome in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central discussed immigrants and the question of immigration. I, too, am going to devote much of my speech to those issues. He discussed the Portuguese in particular, and I too shall have something to say about them.

In the first place, however, I want to finalize what I discussed in my previous speech, viz. the question of censorship. I think that it is very important for us to have a system of censorship which has the confidence of the nation and the authors. There must not be conflict between the authors and the State. I believe that at the moment there is in fact, although I do not wish to use the words, a crisis of confidence.

In this regard I want to refer again to Prof. André Brink’s warning that the lack of freedom of one author affects the lack of freedom of all the others. He also said that until such time as each author in this country, in particular the young authors and specifically Black authors can be confident that he will be fairly treated, no one can feel at ease. I think that in saying this he has gone to the heart of the problem.

I do not believe that review should be aimed at effecting a greater measure of centralization. Nor do I believe that the idea of a single committee, acting as the nation’s conscience, could ever work. Different committees will be more capable of accepting the challenge provided by the different communities, the variety of White groups and the geographic division in South Africa. Certain things may be more acceptable in my province, Natal, than in the Orange Free State. Despite the problems relating to the committee system, one must nevertheless have a system …

We are not as “verkramp” as you in Natal.

Then I am very pleased. I just want us to give attention to the matter.

But you want to create a separate republic there.

The NRP controls the province. We are once again the pioneers. [Interjections.]

†I now wish to return to the question of immigration. After two years of negative growth in 1977 and 1978 last year we registered a slight growth percentage. Of course, if one analyses the situation, one finds that this is largely due to Zimbabwe, from where more than 50% of these immigrants came. I am aware of the fact that when one advocates increased immigration it can be mistakenly regarded as advocating something which is to the detriment of the Black population in South Africa. If one’s motives were purely to increase the number of Whites in this country, that would, of course, be legitimate criticism. But this is not my motivation. I do not necessarily see immigrants as people who merely come here to take jobs away from other people. I believe that immigrants create jobs. I believe that immigrants increase one’s local markets and consumption. However, what is of importance to us here is that there is no need for us to bring in semi-skilled White labour at all. Undoubtedly this would create socio- and economic problems.

*However, since we are in a country such as South Africa, a country which is extremely rich in natural resources, a country which at this stage exports basic minerals to be processed overseas and then returned to South Africa, and a country in which we are saddled with agricultural surpluses which cannot be sold at a profit overseas, then I believe that under those circumstances it is very important for us to continue supplementing our population growth by means of immigration. It is not a question of our wanting to get Whites here who have to do the work of the non-Whites. The fact of the matter is simply that we do not have the Whites to carry out the work in certain respects. Nor are there enough Black South African citizens with the necessary training. We must simply continue to train them so that they are able to fill the posts as far as possible. But the fact remains that in order to effect progress we need trained persons even at this stage, and I do feel that once we have reached the stage where there is a dramatic drop in the immigration rate, the Government has a duty to examine whether more effective efforts cannot be made.

It is generally known that the golden ’sixties, when the country grew and progressed economically, were between the years 1963 and 1970. Between those years there was not one year in which there was not a net gain of over 30 000 immigrants. The hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is not present at the moment, referred to the enrichment which immigrants brought into a nation. It is not only at the material level that a country can be enriched. At the cultural level, too, a country can be enriched by immigrants.

In this regard I want to refer specifically to a significant group of people in South Africa, viz. the Portuguese community, a community which has very distinctive problems here in South Africa, problems of which the average South African is not even aware. I, too, share the hon. member’s standpoint that they are a group of people who, although they are perhaps slow to assimilate, have a definite and positive motivation to be good South Africans. Consequently I believe that we should do our utmost to continue with them as immigrants. In reality South Africa is greatly indebted to these people. Historically, too, they have played an important part in South Africa’s historical development. It is not for sentimental reasons that one mentions this matter here. The simple fact is that today they number several hundred thousand—the exact number is uncertain. We as English- and Afrikaans-speaking people will have to realize that we have here—and we are fond of referring to minorities—a significant White minority which has problems, and which we shall have to try and help as far as possible.

Furthermore I want to give attention to the question of work and study permits. If one examines the figures it is disturbing to see that there are so many people who come to South Africa with visas, but who, after having arrived here, apply for work and study permits. In many cases the first person they approach is the MP. I do not think there is one MP, from the urban areas in particular, who during his term in Parliament does not have a superabundance of those people approaching him for help. If one examines the figures for 1979, one finds that out of the 12 000 applications for work and study permits that were made abroad, only 7% were rejected. In other words, a person’s chance of having his application approved is 93% if he uses the correct channels before coming to South Africa. Once he is in South Africa, it is for obvious reasons far more difficult. This is indicated by the figures, which show that approximately 20% of the applications submitted once the person is in South Africa, are unsuccessful. There are specific cases of people who, for specific reasons, first want to come to South Africa and consequently do not want to apply overseas. Some applications have merit; others do not. I do believe that the immigration offices overseas should try to inform people as to the correct procedure. It is in these people’s own interests. It is far better if they avail themselves of the correct channels instead of only doing so once they are in South Africa. It creates problems for us if they only do so once they are in South Africa, and quite apart from that their chances of success are far lower. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to hon. members who have spoken up to now. Hon. members should realize that when I fail to deal with certain matters myself, they will be dealt with by the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to mention the fact that our Springboks have just appeared on the gallery. Of course, we are very proud of our men, and I must say that the team is considerably strengthened by the fact that it includes some Free Staters as well.

Hear, hear!

I think all hon. members will agree with me if I say that we are very proud of our wearers of the green and the gold.

Hear, hear!

I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in wishing them well. I shall try to be a gentleman, so I shall merely say I hope the best team will win tomorrow. When I say that, I remember an incident in my own life years ago, when I was fighting a tough party nomination battle. A good old friend of mine came up to me and told me: “Alwyn, I pray to the Lord every night that the best man may win, but I also tell Him that you are the best man.”

†I would like to respond to the hon. member for Sandton. Firstly, I thank him for the kind words he addressed to me personally. He asked the reason for grouping the Department of the Interior with the Departments of Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs. Broadly speaking, these departments were merged on a basis of functional affinity, which of course also applies in the case of the new Department of Internal and Constitutional Affairs. Another important factor is the process of constitutional reform. This could have a bearing on the future administrative arrangements for the rendering of services to the Coloureds and Indians. It was therefore decided to create a set-up which would enable us to switch over to any new system which might be necessary. The Departments of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs were, of course, originally part of the Department of the Interior, and the return of these functions was a logical step. The hon. member for Sandton also asked whether senior officials in these two departments, viz. Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs, were consulted in taking this decision. The reply is that before the decision was taken all heads of the then existing departments were fully informed of the reasons for and the objectives of the rationalization programme. They were invited to submit their opinions and proposals. These contributions were thoroughly analysed and submitted to the Cabinet, and in the last instance the Cabinet accepted the responsibility for the merger.

*Except for thanking all hon. members who have participated in the debate up to now, I just want to mention that most of them have already been thanked or will be thanked by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred specifically to the control of publications. I wish the hon. member would use the right word and not refer to censorship. When we come to the control of publications, I want to say quite frankly that as the Minister involved, I have nothing to be ashamed of, but I have a great deal to be proud of. I took over the department at a time when publications control was an emotional issue. One of the first tasks I was confronted with was to try to make peace between the responsible section of our writers and artists on the one hand and the Government on the other hand. Perhaps I should be immodest at this stage and say that I was fairly successful in this.

Of course, I was not completely or perfectly successful, but I did have a reasonable measure of success. One of the reasons why I succeeded was the introduction of the procedure according to which the chairman of the appeal board can appoint a committee from a panel of experts to advise the appeal board on an ad hoc basis on a particular appeal in respect of a publication or work of art. Under the chairmanship of the present chairman, Prof. Van Rooyen, the appeal board has in fact given a specific status to these committees and laid down that as properly constituted committees of experts, great importance should be attached to their advice. In some cases, the advice is still rejected, for example, in respect of Miles’s book Woensdag of Donderdag, but in most cases, great importance is attached to the advice of the committee of experts, and in many cases the advice is even decisive. This is an important development, a development which is bearing fruit and which, especially after certain decisions in recent months, has done much to defuse the whole situation between responsible writers and artists on the one hand and the Government on the other hand. I even want to go so far as to say that where my name may still be a swearword in other circles, this can no longer be said in respect of publications control.

Since I believe that there is now a reasonable measure of peace and quiet in respect of publications control, I thought that we should start examining the question of violence as it occurs in books and especially in films. One of the reasons why I think so is that in the television interview of Mr. Ferman of England, an expert in this field, he pointed out that as far as general things such as pornography, etc., were concerned, we in this country were much more conservative than England, but that they were surprised at the amount of violence we allowed in this country. As a politician, I try to steer clear of publications control as far as possible. Until recently, I had only once instructed the appeal board to consider something on appeal as far as books are concerned. It was a book in respect of which the Muslim sector of our community felt that they had been insulted. I directed the appeal board to consider that book, and the board upheld the Muslim community. I think it is necessary that we should treat the religion of the various sectors of the population as a sensitive matter for each group. That is why I felt free to direct the appeal board to consider the book.

Recently, however, I have been receiving many complaints about the film Mad Max. So I went to see the film. I do not want to say there is too much violence in Mad Max. I am certainly not prepared to prejudice in any way the appeal which is pending with the appeal board at the moment, but I did give instructions for the film to be examined. So the appeal board can examine the film and lay down norms for us in the process as far as violence is concerned. In my opinion, it is not a valid argument to say that in another film, one or two incidents of violence are allowed. In my opinion, we are concerned here with continuous violence in a film. Mad Max is the type of film which I believe the appeal board can examine to give a ruling on it.

As regards the question of whether we should reconsider the Publications Act at this stage, I want to say that it is too early. There is a certain measure of development, of evolution, in the implementation of the Act which I believe to be balanced. We must give the Act and the appeal board under its new chairman a chance and see whether we cannot to a large extent find one another. Of course, there are radical elements in the country, radical writers, radical artists and radical politicians, who will only be satisfied if publications control is completely abolished. To that I cannot agree. What we need in this country is a sober, balanced system of control. I want to say once again that we should stop the refrain that the control of publications should go to the courts. The courts themselves have said that they do not want it. It is administrative work which they do not want. May I also remind hon. members of the fact that Magersfontein, O Magersfontein! was declared undesirable by a court and that the present appeal board, for what it considered to be good reasons, allowed the book to be distributed again. It cuts both ways. Therefore I say that we should give the system a chance to develop. Those to the right who allege that the system is becoming too liberal, I want to ask please to maintain a balanced standpoint on the matter and to look at the stream of pornography which is being stopped by the system. We must take a balanced view of the whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with and approve of the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central on the Portuguese community. To him and the hon. member for Durban Central I should like to say: “Porque eles sáo uns gajos porreiros.” It means: “For they are jolly good fellows.”

†I wish to dedicate my speech, in this very important debate, to the White immigrants of South Africa. South Africa’s White population are part of a nation born of immigrants. I am an Afrikaner. My ancestors arrived here from the Netherlands in 1652. They were immigrants. The first Van der Merwe came out in 1657 and married a Miss Cloete, a passenger on Jan van Riebeeck’s ship. That, incidentally, is proof that the original Van der Merwe did, in fact, get married. In passing, I wonder what old Koos’s attitude and reaction would have been had he known what has become of some Van der Merwes these days, for example the hon. member for Green Point. An estimated 57% of today’s South African White population of approximately 4 446 000 are Afrikaners.

One of the most significant events in our country’s proud history is the epic arrival of a distinguished group in 1820, today respectfully referred to as the British Settlers. Today English is regularly spoken at home by some 37% of the population.

According to an article in To The Point of 30 March 1979, the other important groups are as follows: Portuguese, more than 550 000; German, both in South Africa and South West Africa, 360 000 to 380 000; Jews, 118 000; Greeks, 70 000 and Italians, 60 000. This gives us a total of 1 158 000. If we accept these figures, at least 26% of our present White population are so-called immigrants, the subject of my speech.

There is no doubt that the Afrikaner and English-speaking South Africans have today become one united White nation, and as a result a very high priority for them is to assist our other immigrants to integrate with the rest of the White community of South Africa.

I now propose to deal with our largest immigrant group, the Portuguese. Before any White man set foot on South African soil, when Hottentot, Bushmen and antelope still roamed the prairies of the picturesque Cape Province, the Portuguese navigators were the first around the Cape. The fairest Cape in all the world, and of course Table Mountain, were first sighted by Whites when Bartholomew Diaz rounded the Cape in 1488, and the first White man ever to climb Table Mountain was another Portuguese, Saldanha.

The most famous Portuguese poet ever, Luis de Camões was aboard the flagship of Manuel de Vasconcellos in 1555, on a voyage to India. By his genius, Table Mountain was to take its place in the literature of the classical tradition with Parnassus, Aetna, Atlas and Mount Ida. At the Cape of Good Hope, Camões met with mountainous seas, and Table Mountain was discovered in its blackest humour of south-east clouds. The terrors of the Cape of Good Hope had made an indelible impression on the imagination of Camões. Of the Cape of Storms, he wrote—

I am sure that my friend, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, would be interested to know what Camões thought of the inhabitants of Mossel Bay, in 1555. I quote—

Did more of humane in their meens express.”

So they were good guys.

Our friends living in Natal, including the hon. member for Durban Central, may find a description of 1555 Natal interesting. I quote—

The “Port” is Durban; the “people” those of Mossel Bay and the “name” Natal, which means Christmas.

After the Anglo-Boer War some Boer families left South Africa to settle in a romantic Portuguese village named Alcobaga. The local senoritas paid much attention to the handsome, blond, Boer youths. I quote from an eighty year old poem in which is conveyed the feelings of the neglected Portuguese youths—

I wish to make special mention of the refugees from Mozambique and elsewhere. The desperation, confusion and loneliness of a refugee is impossible to comprehend. A refugee is different from an immigrant. A refugee did not voluntarily leave his father-land, but was forced out. Therefore we should have a special understanding for them. To reflect the state of mind of the Mozambiquan refugees, I quote a few lines from a poem by the world famous Portuguese poet, now living in South Africa, Ricardo de Saavedra. He refers to the desperation of the refugees and their hope in the flag of South Africa. I quote—

That brings me to the present situation of the Portuguese in South Africa. In an article in Alvo, of May 1979, some revealing percentages are given. Thirty-five per cent of Portuguese are economically actively involved in commerce, 35% in the building industry, and 50% of them own their own property. I wish to say that if a man owns property, he is not a runner.

The Portuguese assistance in South Africa’s armed struggle should never be underestimated. According to the same article in Alvo—

Needless to say, 55 000 soldiers form a formidable group.

In view of what I have said so far, I wish to make some appeals, some to the hon. the Minister and some to the people of South Africa.

I plead with the hon. the Minister for, firstly, a master plan to wipe out all arrears in dealing with applications for permanent residence. There are some Portuguese who applied for permanent residence as long as five years ago, and who are still waiting.

Secondly, I want to appeal for a streamlining of the procedures relating to such matters as temporary permits, visas, etc. The general complaint is that, even today, it still takes too long to obtain decisions.

Thirdly, I should like to know whether it is not possible to appoint more Portuguese speaking officials to assist Portuguese immigrants in their dealings with the department.

Fourthly, I plead for a change of attitude on the part of some officials. They should be more patient and should have more understanding of the problems involved in their dealings with Portuguese immigrants.

Fifthly, I should like to point out that there are still thousands of so-called illegal immigrants in South Africa. This is something to which the hon. member for Pretoria Central also referred. I appreciate the amnesty offer of a few years ago, but despite the department’s good efforts, the problem is still not properly solved. It may be necessary for us to consider new legislation or even another amnesty. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member for Jeppe an opportunity of continuing with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Hillbrow.

In the sixth place I should like to ask whether attention could not be paid to the possibility of an orientation course for immigrants. Something like a few months’ full-time attendance of a course in which immigrants are properly orientated can accomplish a great deal in teaching them something about South Africa, its history, its particular problems, and could even afford them some training in the official languages. I believe this is being done in Israel, with a noticeable degree of success.

In the seventh instance I suggest that we ask the hon. the Minister of National Education to consider introducing Portuguese as third language in some schools, on the same basis as Latin, German and French. These are my appeals to the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to express a special word of gratitude, appreciation and congratulation to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department for their efforts to alleviate the problems of immigrants.

To the public in general I appeal for an acceptance of our Portuguese fellow men. My plea is that they should not be regarded as anything but first class citizens.

To those who blame the Portuguese for not readily becoming South African citizens, I wish to quote the very relevant national example of our own Afrikaner families who left South Africa for Argentina after the Anglo-Boer War. I wish to pose some pertinent questions in connection with them. Did they immediately abandon the use of their mother tongue, Afrikaans, or did they build special schools to perpetuate the use of their language? Did they forsake their Protestant faith in favour of the local Roman Catholic faith, or did they erect their own N.G. churches? Did they all become Argentinians overnight, or did they endeavour to remain Afrikaners? The last thing on their minds was to cut their ties with their fatherland, South Africa.

With them immigration has taken its inevitable course. The present generation Afrikaner in Argentina has become Argentinian. There is simply nothing that can be done about that. The first generation immigrants served as a bridge for the establishment of proper Argentinians from former Afrikaner stock.

Let us therefore refrain today from harsh judgment when immigrants do not cut their traditional ties with their fatherland immediately. I plead for understanding. We have the example of our own people in Argentina. Let us rather facilitate conditions for our immigrants. They are after all only the bridge allowing later generations to cross to solid and proper South African citizenship.

I can mention the excellent example of a Portuguese couple who lived in South Africa for 15 years, and then returned to Portugal, with their children who were born in South Africa. After only a few weeks back in Portugal the eldest son spoke to his father on behalf of all four children, saying: “Father, we want to go home.”

The attitude of our Portuguese immigrants towards South Africa should never be underestimated. On a visit to Portugal last year I was privileged to be present when the President of Portugal, Gen. Antonio dos Santos Ramalho Eanes, asked my very good friend from Johannesburg, Mr. Mannie Costa, how the Portuguese in South Africa were treated by South Africans. For his reply to this question I shall always remember and honour Mr. Costa. He replied: “Mr. President, you can never hope to treat your own people better than we are treated by the South Africans.”

I want to refer to another beautiful example of attitude. Another friend of mine from Cape Town, Camendador José Santos-Gomes, told our Prime Minister that he had invested his most precious assets in the South African Defence Force. The hon. the Prime Minister asked what that was. Old José replied plainly: “My only two grandsons.”

In conclusion I want to quote the words of Alexandre Caratâo in Alvo, of May 1979—

I look forward to the day when all the various elements in our White population, whether Afrikaans, English, Portuguese, German, Jew, Greek or Italian, will constitute one united, White nation. For that ideal, I am sure, we are all prepared to toil relentlessly.

Mr. Chairman, it is definitely a good sign that the hon. members who have spoken on immigration so far have all made very positive speeches. I wish to congratulate them on this. In contrast to what has happened in the past, the immigrant has so far not yet been dragged into politics. It seems that the NRP supports the immigration policy. I do not know yet what the attitude of the PFP is. If possible I shall deal with certain aspects of their policy later on. I do, however, recall many a heated debate on immigration conducted here in the past. Therefore we can today approach the problem with realism, in contrast to what happened in the past.

When one looks at the immigration figures, of which some mention has already been made, one sees that as far as immigrants are concerned, we experienced the boom year in 1975. In that year we had a net gain of 40 292 immigrants. Subsequently this figure dropped increasingly. In 1977 we had a net loss of 795 and in 1978, a net loss of 1 530. Fortunately this pendulum has now swung back again and the figures for the past year, 1979, indicating a net gain of 3 397, are very encouraging. As far as I could determine this tendency is continuing into 1980.

Secondly, if one looks at the professional classification of the immigrants to South Africa it is still somewhat disconcerting to see that on the professional level we have suffered a loss of 125 and on the management and administrative levels, a loss of 69. In all other categories, however, an improvement is detectable, so much so that the total, as I said, already amounts to 3 397.

If one looks at the countries of origin of the immigrants, one sees that 50% of our immigrants who came to South Africa last year came from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The area with the second largest yield of immigrants was the United Kingdom and Ireland, from which 23% of the immigrants came. 9,2% of the immigrants came from the rest of Europe and 5,4% from the rest of the world. 3,1% of the immigrants came from West Germany. I mention these figures merely to indicate that a very favourable picture is developing at this stage.

I now want to deal with the problems which we are presently facing. I want to attempt to explain the policy of the NP, particularly on account of certain newspaper articles which appeared shortly after the hon. the Minister announced certain improvements to the State supported scheme. The problem which we are facing in South Africa today is a very simple one. Our country is today one of the few countries experiencing an economic revival. While other countries are experiencing recessions and there is even talk of depressions, the Republic of South Africa is experiencing a sustained growth phase. On 21 January Die Burger called it: “Optimistiese ekonomiese verwagtinge”. Hoofstad spoke of a spectacular economical upswing. The Star, too, spoke of the upswing in our economy, etc. This economic growth, which is welcomed by all of us, is causing an acute shortage of trained people in many sectors, in the midst of an over-supply of unskilled manpower. For example, there is a severe shortage of engineers, electricians, fitters and turners, electro-technicians, etc. If this upswing gains momentum, this shortage will create serious problems for us. We can see this in the Public Service already, and we are experiencing it in the postal services. We see it in the police, in the nursing services, etc. Newspapers are already publishing special supplements to advertise posts. In order to prevent the unemployment rate among Blacks from increasing any further and assuming serious proportions, at least 1 000 new job opportunities have to be created on every working day. This is a problem throughout the country. Many sectors are experiencing an acute shortage in the midst of an over-supply of unskilled manpower.

There is another dilemma. In the midst of a shortage of certain types of trained workers, there is an over-supply of workers with general university degrees for which there is no specific demand; in other words, as I see it, there is a lack of co-ordination and the existing training systems are not keeping in touch with reality, while a critical shortage exists in specialized scientific and technological fields. Consequently we are facing the challenge to utilize, conserve and promote our country’s people correctly. In order to utilize our people efficiently, each of us has to realize how great our future task is. This revival is causing a strong demand for labour. More and more firms are already actively engaged in recruitment work abroad, in an effort to find a sufficient number of suitable workers so that they may expand and fully utilize that unutilized capacity. This in turn will create new job opportunities.

I should now like to concentrate specifically on policies of our party. The need for highly-skilled labour is an immediate need. We need these people, with their knowledge and ingenuity, right now. I agree that we should train our own people as rapidly as possible. This applies to every population group, White or non-White. But it is also true that the more highly-skilled people one can import, the more our economy will benefit, something which will in itself create more job opportunities, particularly for the Black population. In addition we should not lose sight of the fact that training an apprentice, for example, is a protracted process. One cannot really train an apprentice in less than three years; in other words, we need the highly-skilled people now to fill the vacancies and in that way to create more job opportunities. I read, for example, in the Citizen of 22 January, that—

I do not know whether this is the policy of the PFP, or whether it is just another ambivalent voice singing some tune or other on its own somewhere in the East Rand.

The NP will encourage immigration on a selective basis. In the words of the hon. Minister, we shall encourage immigration according to our needs. We shall not, however, throw open the gates and by doing so create problems just for the sake of numbers. We in the NP have a responsibility to our own people and immigration should therefore only be supplementary and should not be to the detriment of any population group. We are not working to create unemployment, but to combat it and prevent it. It is in the national interest to look to overseas countries for our manpower needs. Importing of new skills will help to create job opportunities for existing workers. The opportunities to develop a powerful economy for South Africa are knocking at our door. This is an opportunity to train skilled persons and should be seized with both hands by the RSA. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have not the time to engage in a discussion with the hon. member for Kempton Park on the subject of immigrants and the need for skilled immigrants. I agree that we need skilled immigrants but the pity of it all is that so many immigrants were prevented by Government policy from coming to this country in the years immediately after World War II, and the other pity is that we have wasted all these years in not training our local Black people to become skilled artisans. So, we have now got to do both in a great hurry, and with all deliberate speed, in order to relieve the bottle-neck in skilled workers.

I want to discuss another subject with the hon. the Minister, in the very short time at my disposal. Firstly, I want to talk about two passport withdrawals. The one is that of Bishop Desmond Tutu, which was withdrawn this year. I consider that to have been a foolish action by this Government. It did us no good at all abroad, where Bishop Tutu is very well known. If the Government thinks that by withdrawing his passport, they will silence this voluble man, they are making a big mistake. Anything he says here at home is published abroad, and therefore the whole object of the exercise is lost, unless it was simply a spiteful action by the Government.

I also want to point out that Bishop Tutu was about to proceed to the USA to discuss, with high-placed persons there, educational facilities and scholarships for South African Blacks. Among the people who were eagerly awaiting his arrival were Harvard University officials and the President of Harvard, who have been fighting a very strong battle at Harvard against disinvestment from South Africa, as I well know, because I have participated in that same battle. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not believe it I could not care less. They can see copies of my speeches. I happen to believe in investment but for very different reasons to hon. members. I believe that investment and economic development in this country will draw Black people into the skilled labour field, and will give them the economic muscle that they require to make further demands. So, my objectives are different from those of hon. members opposite, but it so happens that the manner of achieving the different objectives happens to be the same.

The other passport I am interested in and about which I am curious—I must admit—is that of Gen. Van den Bergh. I asked the hon. the Minister a question about Gen. Van den Bergh’s passport earlier this session, and the answer was that it had been withdrawn in March 1979, but the hon. the Minister would not, as is customary, give me any reason.

Are you a champion for him?

Always for the underdogs.

Always for the dogs.

Are you calling Van den Bergh a dog?

I am trying to draw some reasons out of the hon. the Minister. I am very interested to know them. I asked him whether he intended to return the passport and the answer was “no”, because no application for the return of his passport had been received from him. If such an application is received will the hon. the Minister grant that passport, or has the passport lapsed? In other words, must he apply again? It surely cannot be for security reasons that the ex-head of Boss, of our security services, is being denied his passport. It cannot be because the Government intends to prosecute him, because, after all, the withdrawal took place in March 1979. The general has signed a petition begging the Government to prosecute him in terms of the Commissions Act, but the Government refuses to do that. Why has Gen. Van den Bergh’s passport been withdrawn, and why has it not been returned? I think this is a very interesting question to which all of us, and in particular Gen. Van den Bergh, would like an answer.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister will do something about the delay in granting visas to would-be visitors to our shores and passports to would-be South African travellers. Many are kept waiting for an unconscionable time after applying. Often people wanting to come to South Africa are kept waiting right up to the date of their departure for South Africa.

Please name instances.

I have already given the hon. the Minister instances of people who waited for passports.

I cannot remember that.

I will give them to the hon. the Minister. I do not really care to bandy names across the floor of the House, but people have been kept waiting. The hon. the Minister also knows that I have ’phoned his department about South Africans, mainly Blacks, who have been kept waiting right up to the day before their departure. This may not be the fault of the hon. the Minister’s department. This may be because they first have to go through the Department of Co-operation and Development, have to have a R400 deposit—unlike a member of any other race—and they may or may not be on the security list. But why does it take weeks before these people are informed whether they are going to get their passports or not? It is extremely inconvenient, not only for the people here, but also for the people to whom they are going. If somebody is on the prohibited or undesirable aliens’ list it surely cannot take very long to look that up. If it is a question of seeking in the security records, that should be speeded up so that people are not kept waiting for weeks and weeks. I also want to say that the fewer rejections there are, the better it will be. We do not live behind the Iron Curtain and we should not give the impression that we follow similar policies in this country. The normal practice of exclusion should apply to us, and not fear of criticism.

I believe the provision of ordinary passports for Black people is very unsatisfactory, especially as far as the citizenship issue is concerned. Xhosa people have the greatest difficulty, as they have to establish their origin by the most complicated means. They often do not have birth certificates, and they are often unable to prove that they are Ciskeian by origin, perhaps dating two or three generations back, and not Transkeians, which means that they have to battle to obtain South African passports. I feel that is a cause of great friction and annoyance. Those people who want to travel are amongst the most educated and advanced members of Black society, and it is a source of great irritation to them that they have to battle to get South African passports. As for the others, the people who have been deprived of their South African citizenship because of the independent homelands, they really have an awful time. They have to obtain special South African travel papers, and that is also a cause of great dissatisfaction.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down gave us a typical example of feminine sarcasm, which I found quite interesting. I found it comical that the hon. member should suddenly want to protect Gen. Van den Bergh, with a friendly smile on her face. It reminded me of the words of Shakespeare, “Looks like an innocent flower but beware of the serpent under it.” That is the thought that occurred to me while she was involving Gen. Van den Bergh in the debate in some way.

Do you think his passport should be returned to him?

If that hon. member kept his mouth shut, he might hear something worth listening to. I think the hon. the Minister will reply further to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton at a later stage.

I should like to say a few words about publications control, arising from the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central in particular. I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has already reacted to it. It is a great pleasure to me to be able to say that I agree wholeheartedly with every word he said.

Surprise, surprise.

I want to try to make a few statements which are basic to the whole problem of the control of publications. Firstly, I want to allege that it would be an evil day if a people were to lose its writers, poets, sculptors or painters because they find it difficult to create due to a burdened conscience. I readily concede that. However, it would also be an evil day if a people were to lose its writers, its poets and its sculptors because these people are no longer a part of the nation which gave birth to them, precisely because they have done an injustice to their own people with immoral creations which are not true to the nature and essence of the nation from which they themselves are descended. I would like to believe that a writer wants to give free rein to his creative urge without being oppressed and handicapped because his creation will not comply with certain legal provisions and restrictions. On the other hand, any person can only be free when he is living and acting within the protection of certain norms and laws. In the same way, I believe, the writer can be truly free in his creative action when he is writing within the limits of decency, as embodied by the nation itself. Of course, this applies not only in respect of moral, religious and ethical standards, but also in respect of the security of the State.

When a writer uses language which is offensive to the reader and which harms the morals of the nation, literary merit cannot be absolutized and regarded as the most important consideration of all. I cannot agree that “at its worst, control is actively and specifically damaging to the development of cultural life”—this is the standpoint adopted by Mr. André Brink. I strongly doubt whether the omission of crude language, or blatant descriptions of sex, would detract from the literary value of an article or a book. In my opinion, it is the duty of the State to protect the morals of the people as far as possible. For this reason, I thank the hon. the Minister, the directorate, the publications committee, the appeal board and the committee of experts for the very responsible and important work they do in the interests of the people.

From the annual report, it appears that the committee of experts performed a particularly important function this year. Since the establishment of this committee—the hon. the Minister has already referred to this—the appeal board has failed to follow the advice of the committee in only three out of twelve cases. I think this is of particular importance, because the committee of experts includes experts in various fields who take into consideration the probable readers. I think it is a very good thing that the appeal board is making use of that committee as it is in fact doing. In accordance with the underlying principle of the Act, i.e. that the South African community itself should in the first place be the guardian of its good morals and welfare, many readers in all parts of the country were requested to examine and report on publications. According to the report, 699 ad hoc publications committees were appointed during the year, of which 301 were for publications and objects, 376 for films and 22 for public or proposed public entertainments. To indicate the importance of these committees and the need for publications control, I want to point out that a total number of 2 138 publications were submitted to publications committees during the year. Of these, 56,5% were found to be undesirable, while 40,6% were found to be not undesirable. Another 62 were under consideration when the report was being written.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the previous chairman, who spoke of the importation of undesirable publications. Although this is not quite relevant to the control of publications, I do want to say a few things about these matters. I do not doubt for a moment that many of these undesirable publications enter the country and are eventually found on the book-shelves in many cafés, where they are offered for sale to anyone who wants to buy them. I am fully aware of the difficult problems involved in controlling this kind of thing.

I also know that attempts are being made to exercise control as far as possible, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether an attempt cannot be made once again to find some way of tightening this control. I want to concede at once that it is perhaps not only the duty of the Government to control it. I think it is also the duty of the people to control it. In that connection, I agree with the statement that publications control should in the first place emanate from the people and that the people themselves should fight against things which are harmful to their morals or welfare. Accordingly, it is the duty of every community, cultural organization, even of schools and—to no less an extent—the parents themselves to keep an eye on this type of publication if such a publication is displayed and offered for sale in some café in any community. Only when the parents can inculcate in the child this sense of values, including literary values, it will eventually lead a whole people to revolt against this type of publication. In my opinion, it is the task of the home to give attention to this, and it is also the task of the school to put the children increasingly on their guard against this problem which is threatening us.

I wish to conclude. I think it is also the duty of the writer himself not to indulge in this. I honestly believe that those people, who have been endowed with special talents, also have a special responsibility. We cannot get away from the fact that so-called shock tactics are sometimes used deliberately and that certain things are included on one or two pages, so that they may become controversial and boost the sales of the book. I know we are faced with an extremely difficult problem, but I think that people with special talents have, for that very reason, a special responsibility towards the people to whom they belong. In my opinion, they must not be responsible for a creation which may harm the morals of their people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia will forgive me if I do not react to what he said. There are two subjects I should like to discuss. The first is the question of immigration. In this present climate of boycotts and unrest it is possibly a little difficult to speak about immigration, but we trust that the problems will solve themselves soon. In spite of these problems, however, we should persevere with our pleas for immigrants to come to this country. Our economic climate, however, is far better than our political climate, especially with today’s gold price, the buoyancy of our currency and industrial and commercial expansion. With this climate we can indeed attract immigrants. Although the unemployment figure is high, there is still a need for skilled labour.

Let me refer to some figures. The losses of 795 and 1 513 over the last two years have shown a marked improvement. In the last year there has been a gain of 1 521. Over the last 19 years, since 1961, we have had an average gain of 2 976. Our highest gain was about 40 000, but it has been some time since we have had such a high figure. It is interesting to note that more than half of our immigrants, in fact, 52,6%, come from the continent of Africa. So European immigration is lagging somewhat.

It is essential, in attracting immigrants to this country, that we should obtain those entrepreneurs who are prepared to open up industries and spend capital, and thus provide the employment which is needed to solve the unemployment problem to which I have referred. Earlier today the hon. the Minister stated his policy with regard to work permits and the granting of work permits, particularly to those who want to obtain South African citizenship. We support that basically. We feel that people who come to this country should obtain South African citizenship. I think, however, that we should give them a chance. They come here on a work permit, and it is up to us to see that we make them happy here. It is also up to us to see that we provide the climate where they will want to become permanent citizens of South Africa, and that we give them the opportunity to make up their minds. I think that we should in fact do that, and not refuse them because they do not in the first place say that they are taking up work permits with a view to obtaining South African citizenship at a later stage. I think we all agree that the immigrants add to our cultural life in South Africa, and to our population.

As far as emigration is concerned, I think that we can safely say that the “brain drain”, if that is the correct description, has been arrested. The figures show that there has been a substantial drop, since only 1 836 out of 11 540 emigrants belong to the professional group. In those circumstances, we have to look to a figure of approximately 30 000 for a growth rate of 5,5%, which we particularly need. However, we have to provide the climate for immigrants to come to this country and for emigrants not to leave South Africa. We can only do this by ensuring a policy of peace, calm, stability and security in South Africa, and by providing confidence in the future of South Africa. If we tred that path, and tred it by way of removing discrimination, we shall in fact arrest the situation all along. When all the population groups have a say in the Government, the group grievances will fall away and we shall be able to proceed.

One further aspect that I want to deal with, and of which this hon. the Minister has control, is that of provincial councils in relation to local authorities. I intended to deal with it at some length today, in relation to the whole future of provincial administrations and local authorities. Perhaps the time has come for us to take a look at the entire structure of provincial and local Government in South Africa. When I had this in mind, I was confronted today with the report of the Browne Committee which was tabled in the House today. Perhaps I should react to it immediately, in the little time still at my disposal. This Committee was also asked to deal with the second and third tiers of local Government.

I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to issue a White Paper as soon as possible on the Government’s attitude with regard to the recommendations of this Committee, which were tabled today. If local authorities in South Africa thought that this was a bonanza and the solution to all their financial problems, they are going to be very disappointed, because there is no immediate relief for the local authorities from what I was able to see in the brief time I had to study this report. There are certain very far-reaching and perhaps good recommendations that have been made by the Browne Committee. The first one is to reject the argument that there should be a Minister of Local Government, and to accept that provincial administration as such should remain. They do see the necessity of sources of revenue for local authorities, and therefore they envisage a subsidy for local authorities, just as there are subsidies for provincial administrations. They therefore recommended that a classification of local authorities should take place, so that it can be determined whether a measure of autonomy should be given to those local authorities, and also whether the restrictive financial laws which apply to local authorities, should be removed. These recommendations are far-reaching and I think that they will give a certain autonomy to local authorities, and will certainly ease the financial burden. If the local authorities fall into the category that has been recommended by this Committee, they may obtain a subsidy.

What I find a little disconcerting about the recommendations of the Browne Committee, is that they recommend that further commissions of inquiry should do further things. They recommend, for example, that a commission of inquiry, consisting of representatives of the province and local Government should go into the question of uniform criteria for the interdependence of local authorities that are willing to do that, and also to have a commission of inquiry to conduct a programme of inflation combating with local authorities. They also recommend that there be a financial code with regard to these local authorities. I think that that is a good recommendation, as it does anticipate the development of Black local authorities. I think that if we are going to look for a new classification of local authorities and provinces, it looks as though the Committee is recommending that a provincial council should remain, but that local authorities should be given more autonomy, which could be given on a regional basis. I trust that the hon. the Minister will seize this opportunity now to bring in Black, Coloured, Indian and White local authorities on a regional basis and give them the financial independence and the subsidies they require, in order to enable them to develop into viable local authorities, and to have a metropolitan board, so that money can be saved with regard to aspects concerning the specific regions in respect of their administration. In that way, the supply of money to those local authorities which fall in any particular metropolitan area, could also be administered more efficiently.

The UME, as is recommended, together with the provincial administration, should form one organization. The UME represents those independent local authorities that are not represented in the metropolitan areas as such. I regret that my time is so short. I should have had more time to deal with this very important matter. Nevertheless, I ask the hon. the Minister to react to this today and to give us his view of the Browne Committee’s recommendations as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, several hon. members have raised the matter of immigration. Before replying to hon. members individually I wish to state in general that a review of 1979 shows that, during the early part of that year, a steep increase in the demand for qualified and skilled manpower in South Africa became apparent. This resulted in large numbers of employers in South Africa undertaking recruiting campaigns abroad in order to fill vacancies in their concerns with recruits from other countries. The increase in the manpower shortage can mainly be ascribed to the upward trend in our economy, and this increase is continuing despite increased efforts of employers in South Africa, as well as the Government, to provide training facilities and to increase incentives for local entrants into the labour market.

The end result was that in 1979 we could show a growth in the number of immigrants of 3 397. The latest statistics show that we gained 605 White immigrants during January this year. The total number of immigrants came to 1 939, while that of emigrants came to 1 334. Despite the shortage of manpower I should wish to reiterate what I said during last year’s budget debate. That is that we shall recruit the immigrants we need but that we shall not aggravate the problems of South Africa by bringing in immigrants who could disturb the local labour market.

The Government’s first and most important objective is to give priority to the training of our local people in order to satisfy the ever increasing need for skilled personnel in our country. Only in those cases in which the local labour market is unable to meet the demands for skilled manpower is recruiting abroad allowed in order to find suitable people to fill those particular positions where the actual shortage exists. Whilst recruiting of other categories of skilled personnel in fields where shortages exist is not being neglected the emphasis of our immigration policy is laid upon recruiting of executive and professional personnel who, by virtue of their training and expertise, can only help to improve the standard and quality of the training of our own local people. The type of experience that these people possess cannot be readily gained locally, and consequently the greater effort which is being made to obtain the services of these people is more than justified.

The Riekert Commission and the National Manpower Commission have indicated that a serious shortage of manpower in the management and professional fields exist in South Africa and that every effort should be made to rectify this situation. The department’s policy of concentrating on these occupations is therefore in line with the needs of the local labour market. With regard to our local people entering the labour market, we must take particular cognizance of the fact that the pattern in our labour market has changed considerably in recent years and that there are thousands of people of all colour groups who are at present doing skilled and trained work for which we used immigrants in the past. We must protect our people and train them increasingly to meet the demands of our growing economy. Immigration will therefore only be allowed on a selective basis, with the emphasis on supply and demand.

*The hon. members for Pretoria Central, Durban Central, Jeppe, Kempton Park and Hillbrow also made good speeches about the question of immigration. They all paid tribute to the immigrants for their share in the development of our country. I want to endorse that. It is an indisputable fact that especially during the years when our country was experiencing an enormous economic boom, immigrants made a tremendous contribution in developing our country to where it finds itself today. Now that there is an upswing in the economy and we cannot train people fast enough in this country, we are again encouraging trained people, who can play a constructive role in the country, to come to this country.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked whether we could not do more to stimulate immigration. It is true that we have recently taken steps while bearing the present situation in mind. For example, we have considerably adjusted financial assistance to immigrants. In this way, we pay 80% of the travelling expenses of immigrants. Nor do we impose any restriction on the amount involved. We have also streamlined the procedure as far as possible in order to remove any delays with the applicants of immigrants, delays which have given rise to complaints. I cannot go into all the details now, because my time is limited. We have made further concessions with regard to certain highly skilled immigrants by not requiring them, for example, to obtain a firm offer of employment before being allowed to come to this country. We have done away with several restrictions which we used to impose on certain groups of immigrants who were allowed to enter the country in the past, while there was a recession in South Africa. Detailed statements have already been made about this. We have also allowed large employers to go abroad to recruit workers at their own risk and to bring them to this country, as long as they gave us the undertaking that if there were problems later and facts came to light which revealed that these people were undesirable, we could send the people back at that employer’s expense. So far we have not had any problems in this connection. All these things are being done in close co-operation with the Department of Manpower Utilization. They tell us in which categories of work we can make concessions and how matters should be regulated in the labour market. The basic principle here is that of supply and demand.

The hon. member for Jeppe—I do not know where he is at the moment—gave a competent survey of the historic ties which the Portuguese have with the original settlement of our people in this country. This is a fine history, and we do not want to dissociate ourselves from it. I appreciate all the good things that were said about Portuguese immigrants specifically, but I also want to say that they apply to all other good immigrants as well. Among immigrants there are always the good ones, but also the risky cases. He made a series of recommendations which clearly require our serious attention. We shall give them our serious attention. I cannot reply to every point he raised—it is a whole series of matters—but I believe that he did express some positive ideas to which we shall give attention. The hon. member also touched on certain policy aspects, such as the question of the condonation of illegal immigrants in this country. This is not a matter which falls under me. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, and I think he will reply to it in due course.

The hon. member for Kempton Park spelt out policy aspects here and pointed out quite clearly to us that we have to do these things in consultation with other bodies in this country. We should use immigration to develop our country to our advantage and we should not allow immigrants to create a problem for us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. the Deputy-Minister an opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the permission. I shall not waste the Committee’s time. Our first obligation in this country is towards our own people, especially towards the people of colour. When we were debating Coloured Relations, I spelt out what the State and the Department of Coloured Relations were doing to prepare that ethnic group for the labour market. There are many statistics relating to the attempts made by the State to prepare Black people, Indians and Coloured people for the labour market. I want to make an appeal today. I do not think the private sector is pulling its weight. They concentrate too much on making a profit themselves. They must pull their weight with a view to the future. They must shoulder a part of the burden. They too must invest in the future as far as the training of our Black people, our Brown people and our Indians is concerned. I cannot blame the private sector for the fact that at the moment—as one of the hon. members on the other side says—there is such a backlog as far as the preparation of these people for the labour market is concerned. We have lived through a deep recessionary period, and the private sector therefore could not go out of their way to train people whom they did not need and who could probably not even have been absorbed into the labour market. Therefore hon. members should not oversimplify matters. Listening to them, it would seem as if we could simply conjure up these people from nowhere, trained and ready for the market. This is not so. However, the recession has in fact had an effect on the speed with which these people could be trained. In this connection, the Government is not indifferent. It is doing its share. I do not want to blame the private sector either, but in the light of the present economic upswing, I think they can do more to contribute their share to this attempt to prepare people.

†The hon. member for Durban Central said that immigrants did not necessarily take the jobs of Black and Coloured people, and also that immigrants create jobs and enrich our country. I fully agree with the hon. member. The right immigrants are no doubt a valuable asset to South Africa.

*The hon. member also spoke about work permits, especially study permits. The position here is that we learnt a lesson in the past in respect of these people, and the hon. member points out that in the case of about 93% of the people who apply from overseas …

If they apply correctly.

… if they apply correctly, their applications are approved. The percentage of people from inside the country who apply is much smaller. There is a reason for this. There are too many “chancers” today. There are too many people who try to mislead us and who come to this country on the pretext of going on holiday. There are too many, of all groups, and especially of the group mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe. There are too many people who come here under false pretences, who sign undertakings to the effect that they will only be here for a certain period and will then return. But when we look for them, they have gone. Then they may be in Swaziland, or they may be hiding somewhere else, and we cannot get them out of the country, try what we may. They create the greatest difficulties for us. It is true that we go out of our way to assimilate and to settle people here when they qualify, but we cannot throw our principles overboard. We cannot simply accept everyone who wants to come to South Africa at the expense of our own people, and I do not think hon. members expect us to do so. It is true, too, that the distribution market, the small shops, are overstocked with these people and we cannot take many more of them in the country. Hon. members know what I am talking about.

As far as study permits are concerned, these are also granted on the basis of certain firm principles. There are people who pretend that they want to come here on holiday, and while they are here, they decide that they want to study. This is not acceptable to us, and we shall proceed along these lines. They must follow the right procedure. The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the figures which prove that 93% of them get what they want. When we grant these study permits, we must also take into consideration the fact that all the universities are subsidized by the State in some way. This costs an enormous amount of money, money which we should use primarily to create facilities for our own students. There is a tremendous backlog in training. There is a call for more training in all categories in this country. We cannot throw open our higher institutions to unlimited numbers of people who want to come to our country. There are certain rules that have been laid down and we must adhere to them. As far as postgraduate students are concerned, we lay particular emphasis on the requirement that a contribution should be made in respect of research. As far as under-graduate students are concerned, special circumstances apply, for example, where exchange schemes are concerned, where aid programmes are being undertaken, where facilities are not readily available in our neighbouring states, and where South African universities are leaders in specific fields of study, such as veterinary science. In those cases, if the applicants follow the correct procedure, we allow them to enter the country. However, we must be circumspect in doing so, because many of these students who come to our country do not always use the opportunity they get to study. They come rather to bedevil race relations, and we have no more patience with that class of person and we shall not tolerate them here in the future.

As far as the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned, he spoke about immigration in general, expressing the same sentiments as other hon. members. I have no fault to find with his contribution. He made a good contribution. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him and all the other hon. speakers who dealt with this important aspect.

Mr. Chairman, as always, it was a great pleasure to listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior. With all his enthusiasm, vision and understanding he will still go very, very far. I am very pleased that he spoke about the undesirable elements that are entering our country and that we are sometimes unable to lever out, as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it.

One of these undesirable elements is a girl with golden hair. I have it here before me. It is a girl with golden hair. [Interjections.] In the latest Gazette the Department of the Interior published a list of undesirable publications amongst others, and one of them is A Girl with the Golden Hair. I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister warned us in time that our people should be on the look-out for these undesirable elements.

Other undesirable publications that have been banned, are for instance, People’s Power in Mozambique, The New Black Middle-class is a Tool of the White Baas, Sharpeville Crisis: Twenty Years On—which was published by Nusas—and State and Revolution in Eastern Africa.

Then for instance there are pamphlets called “Free Mandela”, published by the SSD, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, and “Boikot die Leeutoer”, published by the WP Council for Sport, Cape Town. I find it interesting, and I cannot understand why the authors or publishers of the following publications are not mentioned: “Die Doel van die Onderwysstelsel in Suid-Afrika,” “Aan ‘goeie jong mense’ soos deur ‘Minister van Kleurlingbetrekkinge’ op TV gesê,” “Die Belangrikheid van ’n Metode in ons Stryd” and “Dear Parents, Teachers and Pupils.” From the above, hon. members will see that education and the child are concentrated upon, and that is why what the hon. Minister said today in this regard is so important.

However, I want to restrict myself to the Gazette and the Government Printing Works. In view of what has been said about publications today, we can never be grateful enough for the Government Printing Works. I have here an edition of the Gazette which comprises 44 pages in which undesirable publications are listed, apart from the Gazette that I have just referred to. It is obtainable at the extremely low price of 20 cents. If one thinks of the fact that an English-language newspaper in Johannesburg is going to cost 25 cents per copy one of these days, we are extremely fortunate to be able to obtain the Gazette at this very fair price.

I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the Government Printing Works has been undergoing a process of modernization over the past nine months. The old lino and mono system with its well-known hot lead stereo and hand-setting systems are gradually disappearing. They are now changing over to a modern electronic system, which will cost approximately R700 000. According to this, keyboard operators will be able to feed everything into a computer terminal. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department heartily on the introduction of this new system. It will mean that the old letter-press system and stereos, which we learned to know as young journalists, is now being replaced by lithographic plates and bromides. It will bring about a saving of time, staff, space and money.

The Government Printing Works is a very old establishment in our country. It began as early as in 1888 under the old ZAR Government under President Kruger as president of the Transvaal Republic. At that time already he realized what it would mean to have their own Government printing works. To this purpose, he bought the printing section of a well-known firm, Wallachs. The building in which the Government Printing Works was originally established has not altered much, because every so often when people want to alter the building, the National Monuments Commission say that the building is of such historic value that it should stay as it is.

This building housed the Government Printing Works that produced the first Gazette. During the occupation of Pretoria the British used the printing works for their own requirements, and even after peace had been concluded the British used the printing works themselves. When South Africa became a Union in 1910, the Government Printing Works was incorporated in the Department of the Interior.

Originally, the Government Printer was the accounting officer. At the moment, the Secretary of the department has to give an account of the budget of his department to Public Accounts. For many years the Government Printer fulfilled this role and the Secretary of the Interior was not held responsible for the budgets of the Government Printing Works. With regard to staff and the general control over the Government Printing Works, the Government Printing Works was subordinate to the Secretary for the Interior for many years.

It had to gain access to the hon. the Minister and the former Public Service Commission through the Secretary. In 1966 the set-up was changed entirely and the Government Printer obtained direct access to the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the Public Service Commission. In the past, the Government Printer requested funds for all its expenditure in the normal way. It was done in this Parliament by means of the annual budget. However, there was a serious duplication, because on that occasion all the other departments also submitted their budgets for printing requirements, stationery and all other requirements. On the very same occasion, therefore, provision was made for this twice over.

In order to eliminate this double provision for expenditure, the Treasury authorized, in terms of section 11A of the Exchequer and Audit Act, that the Government Printer should draw up its own working account. In terms of this new authorization, the Government Printer now had to finance its expenditure from its own revenue. The Government Printer is now being put on a proper business foundation. That is why we have the unique situation today that only R1 000 is being budgeted in the Vote before us. The purpose of this is simply to bring the Government Printer to the attention of Parliament. Parliament will no longer be asked to vote funds for the Government Printer. The only exception will be when the existing capital will not be sufficient to cover the expenditure of the Government Printer in future, due to possible expansion or other causes. There is a new financing system now, in terms of which the profits of the Government Printer are now paid into the State Revenue Account. Regardless of the previous financing method, the Government Printer remains a private enterprise, as it has always been, and it is a private enterprise of which we are particularly proud. If we look at the statements of the Government Printer, we see that there was a loss of R900 000 on the Gazette. When we were recently asked whether we still wanted there to be a Gazette, I was one of those that replied “Yes”. I want to thank the Department of the Interior heartily for continuing to send us the Gazette.

The purchase of capital equipment now amounts to R1 525 000. The working capital amounts to R2 375 000. In terms of the new system there is a drop of R4 799 000 in the budget, so that only R1 000 must be voted for 1980-’81. The estimated revenue from the sale of printing, such as stationery to Government departments, and the sale of Government publications, is R39 million.

The administration costs amount to R801 000. The cost of printing services is now being decreased from R23 million to R21 million. The cost of the distribution of Government publications is being decreased from R3 million to R2 million. The cost of providing raw materials for the manufacture of stationery, increases from R10 million to R15 million, and livestock is even mentioned here. I should like to know what the term livestock means. Apparently it is standard equipment. I have just tried to establish what it means once again, but I was unable to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to those matters that have just been raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville, but to those to which the hon. member for Houghton also referred in passing. These are immigration and the effect thereof on the unskilled labour market in South Africa.

Many years ago, when the NP had just come into power, there was some reluctance with regard to the uncontrolled admission of a tidal wave of immigrants, because the previous Government had said emphatically that the political strivings of the Afrikaner would be swallowed up as a result. Therefore, on the short term there were motivated reasons for that reluctance on the part of the Government in 1948, to allow uncontrolled immigration to South Africa at that stage. However, I find it interesting that matters have changed to such an extent now that the PFP—not necessarily the whole party, but the ultra-leftist wing of it—are now opposing a continued immigration of skilled labourers to South Africa. They allege that such immigration will have a detrimental effect on the creation of employment opportunities for the Black population.

I should like to give a few statistics in order to prove that something of this kind will definitely not be the case. In the first instance, let us take note of the natural population growth in South Africa. According to the booklet Statistics in Brief provided by the Department of Statistics for 1980, the natural population growth of the Whites was 0,88%, or 8,8 per 1 000 per annum. According to that, the natural White growth rate— this includes immigrants too—is 40 000 per annum. In contrast to that, the natural population growth of the Blacks is 28 per 1 000 per annum. This growth of 28 per 1 000 per annum means that the natural net growth—that is, births minus deaths—of the Black population is about 600 000 per annum. Therefore, there is a growth of 600 000 Blacks as against 40 000 Whites per annum. In the foreseeable future, according to the present statistics, the surplus of Blacks in comparison with Whites will therefore amount to 560 000 per annum. Not even a massive immigration campaign will be able to change this state of affairs. It is entirely unthinkable for something of this kind to be possible. There is not a single industrial country in the world, including Canada, the USA and Britain—which of course has also become an immigrant country now—where a net immigrant growth of 560 000 per annum could occur.

Now, however, I also want to quote other statistics. It is a well-known fact that for every skilled labourer—it does not matter whether he is White or Non-white—who enters industry, employment opportunities are also provided for between three and four semi-skilled labourers in that industry. For every worker that is employed in the industry—skilled and semi-skilled—employment is provided for between three and five workers in turn in related professions, professions that are not necessarily industrial professions—for instance those which include commerce, the professional services and the unskilled labour sector. For every skilled labourer that enters industry today, a total of between 15 and 20 people are therefore provided with employment opportunities. Therefore, if we in South Africa are to take into account our tremendous shortage of skilled labourers today, a shortage which is of such a nature that at the moment there is an artificially high increase of salaries in the skilled labour sector, because workers can simply be bought with artificially high salaries, surely there cannot be any fair, acceptable reason why the State cannot continue to wage a high powered campaign in order to try to bring skilled immigrants to South Africa. The campaign is now being supported by leftist and ultraleftist members of the PFP. Most of the hon. members who belong to that wing, are not in the House at the moment. I am just thinking of the hon. members for Pinelands, Houghton and Groote Schuur. They are not here at the moment, and therefore there is silence from the PFP. The same campaign is being waged by the South African Council of Churches and by all the other leftist organizations in South Africa.

The largest immigration campaign that South Africa could conduct, could scarcely, if it is based on logic and all available facts, have a detrimental effect on the potential employment of the Blacks. Furthermore, I want to say that the State did not hold back when it had to do its share. The State cannot be expected to undertake all the training. In the nature of things, training must be undertaken on a very much larger scale by the private sector—the industries. A tax rebate was granted in previous budgets and this is still in force today. It was arranged for a tax rebate of up to 94% to be granted on all moneys spent by industries, particularly border industries, on in-service training of Blacks. In other words, only 6% of the actual costs undertaken by border industries for the in-service training of Blacks, is provided by the industries themselves. Therefore, there can be no real excuse as to why the State alone should be held responsible for this. The State has fulfilled its obligation. However, we find that the private sector also adopts the attitude from time to time that they are not providing in-service training for their workers because of the restrictive measures that exist. Many of these restrictive measures are used as excuses, which is unfair and there is no truth in this. I allege that the private sector, particularly the industries, whose shareholders are abroad, make unfair excuses because they do not provide their workers with in-service training. I want to ask industrialists to carry out more in-service training for their workers.

Mr. Chairman, let us conclude the day’s activities. I should very much like to express my appreciation for the very informative speech just made by the hon. member for Klip River. He put many aspects in perspective. He pointed out how important it is to have the services of skilled people if one wants to train artisans in this country, especially in certain kinds of highly skilled work. It is as simple as that. After the hon. the Minister had announced that certain adjustments would be made to make it easier for immigrants to come to this country, a great fuss was made about this and banner headlines appeared in the hostile Press in particular, where it was proclaimed that we were now throwing open the doors to immigrants and depriving our own people of their job opportunities. When the hon. member for Durban North was approached about this, he made a statement which I considered to be a balanced one. In that statement, he clearly emphasized the aspects which the hon. member for Klip River stressed in his speech. Hon. members should read his statement, then they will see the matter in the right perspective.

The hon. member also pointed out that when there is a shortage of skilled people, especially highly skilled people such as engineers and so forth, the private sector starts to bid for those people. A firm may need only one engineer, whom it can pay thousands of rands, so it starts bidding, and the injured party, the one who is always the loser, is the public sector, the State. The private sector entices away the people who have been trained by the State at great expense. Therefore it is essential that we should see this thing in perspective. Especially when it comes to the highly professional and skilled classes, we simply cannot meet the demand which there is in our country today.

The hon. member for Rosettenville is the only hon. member who spoke about the Government Printing Works. The Government Printing Works is also part of my responsibilities. Therefore I am glad that one hon. member, at least, spoke about the Government Printing Works. There is a new dispensation now, as the hon. member rightly indicated. As from last year, the expenditure of the Government Printing Works is no longer being budgeted for, because every Government department now budgets for its own printing work and stationery. The Government Printing Works then does the work for the department concerned and is paid for it. Apart from this new dispensation which has come into operation, the Government Printing Works has in any event been operated on business principles throughout the years. Its books will continue to be audited by the Auditor General. There is an amount of R1 000 on the budget this year to enable Parliament to discuss the matter here as well. That is why this amount appears on the budget. So, I am glad, although this is just a minor division, that the hon. member for Rosettenville did discuss it. He referred to the historic background of the building in which the Government Printing Works is housed and said that the building dated from the days of president Paul Kruger, when the Cape Colony and Natal had no Government Printing Works. When we became a Union, the Government Printing Works of the Transvaal was taken over as the Government Printing Works of all South Africa. It is not an unmixed blessing to be so old—the hon. member and I know what I am talking about—it has its troubles and problems as well. That old building, on the corner of Bosman and Struben Streets, is so dilapidated in some ways that people in it are even exposed to the rain. If we are to repair the building the way the National Monuments Commission wants us to repair it, it will not be worth retaining in its present form. Then we should rather demolish it. But we are holding on for the moment, and I do not know what the future will bring in this connection.

The Government Printing Works does the printing work for all the Government departments, except the S.A. Railways and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. They do all their own printing, except of course that postage stamps, postal orders, post-cards, air-mail letters, etc., those things which are regarded as security items, are printed especially for the Department for Posts and Telecommunications by the Government Printing Works. Only two-thirds of that printing and manufacturing work is undertaken by the Government Printing Works itself. One third of it is given out on contract to private contractors, precisely in order to give the private sector an opportunity to participate in this industry. Of course, there is also certain printing work for which the Government printing works is not equipped. There are certain kinds of forms that have to be printed, but which we cannot print. Therefore the work has to be put out on tender.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.