I move—

The object of this amendment is to vest in the responsible authority a discretion which will be entirely unfettered, to withdraw a certificate issued in terms of the clause which it is proposed to amend, which allows of persons who have had tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis working for a limited period in a dusty atmosphere in a mine. The Minister, in replying to the second reading yesterday, pointed out that there is provision in the Act as it stands for the withdrawal of a certificate and that provision would apply to such certificates. The object of this amendment is to give an unfettered discretion. In terms of the law as it now stands, the certificate may be withdrawn in the circumstances set out in the clause. Doubt has been expressed from this side of the House by the hon. members for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) in respect of the provision now proposed to be included. We have, however, agreed, as I indicated yesterday, to the inclusion of this clause, but we ask the Minister to heed the warnings of men of very great experience in the medical field in regard to this matter. I think the Minister agreed yesterday that this clause is a departure from the law as it has been since 1912, and that it will have to be very carefully watched, especially as it is of an experimental nature. The number of certificates which will have to be issued will be relatively small, and it will be very easy to keep in close touch with the position, and it will soon become known whether the experiment is a success or a failure. I say that experience shows that a number of these persons become re-infected in the very early stages of their again going to work in a dusty atmosphere, and therefore it will then be the duty of the Minister and his Department to withdraw these certificates which have been issued. I am not sure whether the provision quoted by the Minister allows of such withdrawal. As this is an experiment, I believe that the widest possible discretion to withdraw certificates should exist, and that can be achieved by the Minister accepting my amendment.

I want to support the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). This is a very important clause and the amendment means virtually that the hon. member wants a further safeguard. He wants to make perfectly sure that the health of these people who will be allowed to go underground again will not suffer in any way. But we have to go even further than that, and I would like to see the Minister introduce regulations providing that these people who go underground again must provide monthly specimens of sputum. I am not suggesting that they should undergo X-rays every month, because we do not want them to suffer ill effects from radiation, but a sputum examination every month is absolutely essential.

I am sorry that the word “experiment” has been bandied about here, because I am not in favour of our mineworkers being used as an experiment. We have to avoid using these people as an experiment. I do not want this concession the Minister is going to make now to be used as an experiment. It is used because it appears to be essential for these people to be allowed to go back to work because they cannot live comfortably enough on the pensions they are receiving. But let us not say that either we on this side of the House or Government members are going to encourage the mineworker to be subjected to an experiment to see how much more work he can do in a dusty atmosphere before he becomes re-infected with tuberculosis. I would be strongly against that, and I say that for that reason we must keep a double watch on these people who are going to be allowed to go underground. Under no circumstances must we regard this as an experiment. I ask that every precaution be taken in respect of these people. For that reason, Sir, I want to support the amendment of the hon. member and ask the hon. the Minister to introduce regulations which will provide for the sputum of these people to be examined monthly when they are allowed to go underground.

I think for the sake of our own good name, while I am not going to move an amendment, I should ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the deletion of the word “cured” in line 24 so that the clause will read, “… has received treatment for tuberculosis and that the disease has been rendered non-infectious”. I think that is a reasonable way to look at it. To talk of a cure, as I said yesterday, is absurd. It is completely against all scientific thought and experience. If the man has been rendered non-infectious, then at any rate he is only a risk to his own health, not to the health of the miners around him. If we say “that the disease has been rendered non-infectious”, then it would not make us look absurd in the eyes of the world.

I share the concern of hon. members for persons who formerly suffered from tuberculosis and who are allowed to go underground again under this Bill. But I do think that what they desire is already covered by the existing legislation. Section 23 of the Act as it stands provides—

I think every circumstance is already covered by the existing law and I do not think it is necessary to accept this amendment to make the law more effective. I can only say that in applying this clause we shall try by means of regulations to bring into force what hon. members desire. We want very regular examinations of the person concerned; we want the most effective test of his health; we want to be sure that the disease is not infectious, etc., and I think what hon. members desire can be attained by means of regulations which can be strictly enforced. Hon. members can take my word for it that we shall see to it that the provisions in this clause are applied in the strictest possible way.

Sir, I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said, and I accept that he believes that there is sufficient power provided for in Section 23 of the present Act. I want to try to convince him that that view of his is a fallacious view. Sir, in the amendment which I have moved it is perfectly clear that an absolute discretion is vested in the director. Sir, it is really very difficult to address the Minister when hon. members are carrying on a loud conversation.

Order! I want to warn hon. members that there is far too much talking going on while hon. members are addressing the House and I shall definitely take steps against the next member who offends against the rules.

Sir, I am very sorry that hon. members in this House take so little interest when we are dealing here with a matter which so vitally affects the workers of this country. Section 23 provides—

The second does not matter—

In respect of two of those matters, e.g. in respect of the first and the third, it is necessary that there should be knowledge as to the exact state of health of the person concerned. In other words, the certificate can only be withdrawn if there has been an examination by doctors and if it can be shown that the person’s health has deteriorated since his last periodical examination. I want the Minister to have a further right; I want him or rather the director to have the right to withdraw the certificate in any circumstances whenever it becomes clear that it is in the interests of the worker concerned or of workers generally that this right which it is now proposed to give should be withdrawn. It is quite obvious from yesterday’s debate that this provision is in the nature of an experiment. I would like to see, and I am sure we would all like to find, that medical science has advanced sufficiently to make it possible for persons who formerly suffered from tuberculosis to go underground again and to work there for limited periods without danger to their health. But I think all of us will agree that if experience shows that medical science has not advanced sufficiently to eliminate all danger to their health—if, for example, we find just a relatively few cases where persons are reinfected at an early stage—then I submit that it would be the duty of the Government to withdraw all certificates which have been issued in terms of the enabling clause which we are now putting on the Statute Book. That could not be done without an examination. In the case of the person who can show that his health has not deteriorated since he went underground, the certificate could not be withdrawn at all, and that is what I seek to avoid. This is a departure from the law that has existed since 1912. It was found to be an absolutely necessary provision during all those years. I hope it will now be found possible, by the means which the Minister is adopting in this Bill, for some of those persons to go on working underground. I have every hope that the views of the very great authorities who advise the Minister in regard to this clause will be justified by the events, but I do submit that it is wise in the interests of the men themselves that a clear and definite, arbitrary right should be vested in the director so that he can act immediately if circumstances come to light which show that it is still dangerous to allow the persons concerned to work underground. The absolute discretion is still left in the hands of the Minister’s Department. I submit that it can only be good if this provision is inserted in the Bill. I hope it will never be necessary to exercise this power, but, clearly, if it is found that these persons have been reinfected it is absolutely essential that there should be machinery whereby action can be taken quickly. Under the present provision there would inevitably be delays. That is what I seek to avoid. Even if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment here, I hope he will be prepared to go into this matter most carefully, because I know that like myself he wants to have the best possible provisions in the Act in the interests of the health of the men who work underground. I believe that the amendment which I have moved is necessary, and I believe that after having gone into it impartially the Minister will feel that it is necessary. If the Minister feels that he would like further time to consider this amendment I shall raise no objection. I ask him however to agree that he will go into this matter carefully and that if he finds that what I have said is correct—and I am sure his legal advisers will assure him that I am correct—he will move this amendment in the Other Place.

I want to support the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). The hon. member has made the very important point here that the Minister must have the right, if it is found that even one or two people are returning to an active tuberculotic state, to withdraw all the certificates from all the people who have been allowed to go underground again, because it will be quite obvious then that the risks that we are taking in allowing these people to go underground again are too great. The hon. the Minister has read out the provisions of Section 23 which refers to periodic examinations. This question of periodic examinations becomes very important, because we will have to wait either six months or in some cases a year for the periodic examination to take place, and in the meantime a great deal of harm may be done. The hon. the Minister knows that when tuberculosis occurs a second time it becomes a very serious and rapidly progressing disease. It is dangerous then not to spot it in its early stages of activity. If we have to wait six months or a year for a periodic examination a great deal of damage can be done not only to the individual but to all those people with whom he comes into contact. Again I say to the Minister that he should as a precaution accept the hon. member’s amendment. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment at this stage, let him give us a chance to discuss this whole clause again at a later stage when he has had the opportunity of going more fully into the amendment. Of course, if he wants to do the wise thing then he will delete this clause entirely and save all this risk. I ask him again to give his very careful consideration to the amendment moved from this side.

I just wish to say that hon. members of the Opposition and we on this side do not disagree as regards the object we wish to achieve. The question is merely whether the existing legislation makes adequate provision for what hon. members desire. They think it does not make adequate provision: I think it does in fact make adequate provision. I am quite prepared to accept their amendment if I am satisfied that the legislation does not comply with their wishes. I should like to have another look at the amendment, and if I find after consultation with the law advisers that the legislation is inadequate, I am prepared to take over their amendment and to introduce it in the Other Place.

I am indebted to the hon. the Minister. I stated clearly that there was no difference of opinion as regards this matter; it is merely a question as to whether the technical position is correct. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister is prepared to reconsider this amendment, and under those circumstances I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Here again the question arises whether or not there is sufficient coverage in substituting the word “functions” for the word “organs” wherever it occurs in Section 30 of the principal Act. Sir, I did have a quick word with the hon. the Minister before we came into the House and I said to him that there was an alternative which should be considered by this House. It is proposed here to substitute the word “functions” for the word “organs” wherever it appears, and I am afraid that in the case of post mortems the word “functions” is not the correct word; it should be replaced by “organs”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister therefore to consider the following amendment which I hereby move—

It will then mean that the individual miner will have the opportunity of having the functions of his organs estimated, and if that unfortunate person should die then the organs will be examined, and the examination of the organs will determine whether or not he was suffering from pneumoconiosis. It so often happens that pneumoconiosis is only discovered after death in the course of a post mortem examination, and the man has been working right up to the time of his death, without ever having been warned that he has pneumoconiosis. If the words “and/or organs” are not inserted, it is possible that his dependants will have no opportunity of fighting the case. For that reason I ask for the word “organs” to be included.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has now referred to a matter of great medical significance on which I am unable to express an opinion. It seems to me that if this amendment were to be accepted, we might possibly be undermining the whole basis of this legislation and the whole basis of compensation, for the basis of this legislation is the functioning of organs and not the organs themselves. I am afraid that if such an amendment were to be accepted to this clause, consequential amendments will have to be made in the rest of the legislation, and that cannot be done here now, for then a whole series of amendments may have to be made to sections not dealt with in this Bill. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with the assurance that we shall consider this matter. I shall consider the matter. We shall first of all have to call for medical opinion on this matter. If it appears necessary I shall be prepared to introduce the necessary amendment in the Other Place. As regards post mortems, I can tell the hon. member that post mortems are already conducted on the basis of the organs and not on the basis of the functioning of the organs. As the hon. member knows, there is provision for compensation when a post mortem discloses that the person has suffered from miner’s phthisis.

In view of the explanation of the hon. the Minister, I should like, with leave of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Fisher withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Does the proviso to this clause mean that if a child should by chance fail an examination, there is a possibility of the grant being withdrawn?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I again want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will please explain this clause to the committee. If a man has already received a one-sum payment, does it mean that in addition to that lump-sum he will receive a pension? Vice versa, if he is receiving a monthly pension now, will he in addition receive the lump-sum payment?

This clause is simply designed to cover the case of a person who has been granted a lump-sum payment before his death but where it has not been paid out yet. It will be possible under this clause to pay it out after his death.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

Sir, the question of the payment of pensions to phthisis sufferers, who would ordinarily also be entitled to receive an old-age pension, is one which has given rise to a great deal of heartburning. These pensioners find that as soon as there is an increase in their phthisis pension, they immediately lose the benefit of that increase because their old-age pension is reduced. This is a matter on which the people affected feel very strongly indeed. It is not quite clear to me just what the effect of this measure will be. My feeling is that persons who have served their country, who contracted miner’s phthisis and who are now in receipt of a phthisis pension, should not be prejudiced in respect of their right to an old-age pension. I hope the Minister will explain to us just what the object of the new amending clause is and in what respect it improves the position of these phthisis pensioners. If this amendment does not rectify the position, will the Minister be prepared to go into this matter? Sir, I know of case after case on the Witwatersrand where the pensioner and his old wife have literally nothing left; he is a phthisis pensioner; he gets an increase in his phthisis pension, but the moment that pension is increased he finds that the amount by which his pension has been increased, or a bigger amount, is deducted from his old-age pension. Something must be done to put this matter right. I would like to hear the Minister’s views in this regard.

It is actually a matter that should be raised under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. As far as we are concerned this amendment simply amounts to this; that in certain cases the pensions paid to pneumoconiosis sufferers may be supplemented out of moneys appropriated by Parliament so that the pensioner will be in no worse position than he was previously. It is true that with the application of the means test, the increased pension may result in the pensioner losing a portion of his old-age pension. That, however, is a matter which should be raised under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

My hope, Sir, is that the Minister will do something to see that the man is in a better position and not merely in no worse position. I hope that we will have the support of the Minister in appealing to his colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, to see that something is done about this matter.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the clause.

Sir, may I put it this way then that I am not at all satisfied with the provisions of this clause. The Minister ought to see to it that the provisions of this clause are altered in such a way that justice will be done to these people, and I hope he will do this when this Bill goes to the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Sir, I wish to deal further with the report of the Press Commission. In considering this report we are faced with the fact that only a limited number of copies of an incomplete and unsatisfactory summary was made available to members. It is quite clear that the Government itself has not had the time to consider its own policy. In fact, a shocking insinuation was made in the House by the Minister on Monday that Cabinet Ministers might have divulged the contents of the report if they had known them. The insinuation was that they might have ignored an oath which they took under the constitution, under Section 20, which says—

Cabinet Ministers are bound by an oath of secrecy, and the hon. the Minister had no right to make the suggestion which he did here the other day.

Sir, in view of certain utterly irresponsible and wild attacks made on the English Press by certain members yesterday, it is imperative that we re-state certain facts which appear from that report. In doing so we have, of course, had to rely on the summary done by the Department of Information, a summary which is not quite satisfactory. In fact we have had experience of similar summaries; for example, there was the summary early this year on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. Sir, in emphatically and unreservedly rejecting the main and practically the only recommendation contained in this report, i.e. that a Press Council should be established, we state the following in condemnation: There are eight such points on which we condemn this recommendation.

Firstly, the report fails completely to deal with one of the main terms of reference of the commission itself, which was “to inquire into and report on the accuracy in the presentation of news in the Press of the Union of South Africa”. There is no finding and no report by the commission on the newspapers of South Africa themselves, yet this report arrogates to itself the right to recommend a Press Council primarily to discipline the Press in South Africa. I believe the evidence has little bearing on the main work which that Press Council might have to perform.

Secondly, Sir, this report is hopelessly antiquated and out-dated. The mass of its evidence relates to the period between 1950 and 1955—ten and more years ago. After that only three months were considered, namely, from February to April 1960 and that was an arbitrarily chosen period. Thirteen years of labour which could have been more profitably directed elsewhere have been largely wasted and more than R350,000 have gone down the drain.

Fourthly, this report gives an impression of being guilty of the same things of which it accuses the Press, namely, being one-sided in its condemnation and comments. With one or two negligible exceptions only English newspapers and reports plus certain overseas news agencies are condemned. I say that the guilt of Afrikaans Nationalist newspapers in regard to slanting, in regard to inaccuracies and deliberate distortion is almost wholly ignored in the report.

Fifthly, Sir, there is no concrete proof that the Press Board of Reference, set up by the Press itself, whatever its failings may be, has actually not succeeded. What failure there has been has been the failure of members on the other side to come forward with things they thought they could have substantiated on a considerable scale against the English Press in South Africa. They have come with a few small ridiculous charges—and a very few of them too.

Sixthly, the proposed Press Council will have a disastrous effect on freedom of speech in our country. Unlike similar bodies in Britain and the existing Press Board of Reference, it will be a statutory body with powers unprecedented this side of the Iron Curtain, except perhaps in Ghana or the Congo. It will be able to impose an unlimited fine on any newspaper; there will be no appeal to the courts and there will be indirect and indefensible censorship of overseas cables.

Seventhly, it can be said that the last two impartial commissioners on this Press Commission resigned a few years ago. We are justified therefore in assuming that the main part of this report was the work of two commissioners only of whom one is a member of this House, a member who has been outspoken on his views about the English Press and who must have found it extremely difficult to bring an unprejudiced judgment to bear on the Press.

Eighthly, we cannot express too strongly our condemnation of the main attack on Sapa. We think Nationalist newspapers will share that condemnation because they too are full members of Sapa and have on an occasion supplied the chairman of that body Three years ago the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made a wildly irresponsible attack on Sapa. The Burger replied in these words—

In regard to the wild charges against the United Party I should like to reply as follows. Firstly, we have been asked what we are going to do about this report. We have already replied: Shelve the recommendation of a statutory Press Council. On this particular point the Government does not even know what its policy is. Not even on that one point can the hon. the Minister give us a reply. The Government is so uncertain that it cannot even say whether it agrees or not. Tell us your plans and we shall reply to them one by one. We know of only one actual plan and that is to use the S.A.B.C. for a slanted, one-sided and utterly reprehensible version of a report which we have not yet had a full opportunity of studying.

We were next asked what we were going to do about the newspapers mentioned in the report. We reply that the United Party has no subservient docile Press at its disposal like the Nationalist Party. We are proud of the newspapers which support us; they are independent organs. We believe they can organize and discipline themselves. The Nationalists, however, are in a position to do something about their papers. Did they do anything, Sir, when a former editor of the Transvaler was found guilty in wartime by the courts of having knowingly made his newspaper a tool of the Nazi’s?

Traitor!

Did the Nationalists do anything when the Press Board of Reference found the Transvaler guilty on 22 April 1963 of a serious breach of the Press Code?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The judgment dealt with a scandalous report of a speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and stated—

Was anything done by the Nationalist Government about that? Except that the person concerned is to-day the head of the parliamentary news service of the S.A.B.C.! He is the man who is responsible for spreading a biased broadcast on the report over the air.

We are further outrageously accused by hon. members on the other side of approving or condoning lying and unfactual attacks on South Africa. The United Party categorically states that it unreservedly and uncompromisingly condemns any proved and established misreporting of facts. Is that clear? At the same time we distinguish very clearly between facts and comment. However much we may disagree with some of the comments, it would be a denial of freedom of speech to interfere with that right of free comment.

Complainants against reports in overseas journals have the remedy in their hands. Article 3 (d) of the Constitution of the Press Board of Reference gives them the power to complain about overseas reports, including reports appearing in the London Times and in the Washington Post. Why have they not done so? Why has there not been a rush by the other side to the Press Board of Reference? For our part we are by no means satisfied that the commission distinguished properly between comment and fact. In fact, in the report itself there is a statement by the commission to the effect that it is impossible to disentangle fact and comment. I shall not quote it here; I have not the time.

Finally, we challenge this Government again: Tell us what you are going to do with that report. Put up or shut up! We look forward indeed to a future opportunity of debating this issue again. We hope that opportunity will come soon. I can think of nothing at the present moment more unsavoury than using the privileges of free speech in our Parliament for making personal attacks on English journalists and newspaper proprietors without them having the right of recourse to the courts of law. [Time limit.]

I am not rising to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat because I think he will receive something he does not expect from various corners of this side. The United Party looked for it and they will get what they looked for. They did not accept the wise advice I gave them right at the outset. I stated the point of view of the Government without any reservations as regards the handling of this report. I went so far as not to deal fully with how this report was studied, something I should like to do now because my words have been completely misconstrued by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) yesterday and to-day by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). After the State President had received the report, I directed that there should be the greatest secrecy in connection with the report. This report was locked up in a safe, the number of copies was controlled properly and nobody had the right to inspect it. That was my instruction, and I included myself in that. Not a single copy of that report has been handed to any person, or to the Press, or to a member of the Government. I myself did not take possession of a copy either.

In order to prevent a leakage.

Yes. Because if I had given it to any person, whether a member of the Press or a private person, there would have been a leakage. However, it was given in the greatest secrecy to two members of the information service, who had to draft this brief summary. The intention was quite clear. There were no sinister ulterior motives, nor was it due to lack of confidence in my colleagues. But the intention was, and quite rightly I think, that the day the report was tabled, anybody directly or indirectly interested in it, should see it for the first time. Nobody, neither the Press nor anybody on this side, had an opportunity to make a study of the report. My advice to the House—advice which was ignored—was that this report should not be discussed now. I said the Government had taken no decisions as yet, and that the Government did not intend to take an over-hasty decision, but that when the report has been studied the Government will in due course inform the House how it proposed to deal with this report. The very first person who did not take any notice of this was the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees that the report cannot be discussed now, but he has already studied one of the recommendations to such an extent, without having studied the report, that he has rejected certain recommendations in toto—and this has been done now again by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The Government is not suggesting that it is accepting those recommendations. The Government has not intimated anything. The Government still holds exactly the same view, that now that the report has been tabled, it will take the opportunity to make a study of it. The hon. member now tries to force us into a certain situation with much waving of arms and with a flood of words. He is outspoken; he has already taken a decision on the report. It is not even necessary for him to peruse the report further. I shall not even advise him to take the trouble to peruse it. He has stated the point of view of his party. They are firmly resolved for certain reasons he has mentioned, to reject the report. They will have no part of it.

I say with the greatest emphasis that whatever may happen in this debate, I merely wish to state the official attitude of the Government. I hope this side of the House will deal with that hon. member adequately. Since using the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) yesterday to take the chestnuts out of the fire for them, they are looking for a debate. The official attitude of the Government briefly is this: This report is now available to everybody who is serious to make a study of it and to say, with the necessary burden of proof at his disposal, why a certain recommendation is not good, why it should be rejected, and if necessary then to come forward with something, or to reaffirm existing arrangements. Now is the time for everybody to occupy themselves with this.

May I ask a question? May we assume that the report will be printed and made available generally?

The Government has to date not taken a decision on that either. [Laughter.] This is not something to laugh about. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. members opposite. Does any member wish to suggest that if we had given each one of them a copy, they would have been in a position to-day to conduct a debate on it, a debate which could really be a contribution, damning or approving? Hon. members cannot do the impossible. Even had it been released to members of the Cabinet, the moment the report was received, they would still not have been able to do so. We received the report when the White Paper on South West Africa was under discussion. The short delay in tabling was only intended to give hon. members an opportunity to dispose of one great and important matter before submitting to them a new matter to which they should give their undivided attention. I cannot tell hon. members anything more. I can merely warn hon. members to be very careful. I should like to assure hon. members that this kind of debate they have been conducting up to now, most certainly cannot conduce to clearing up any obscurity or lack of clarity regarding the matter. The sooner they discontinued it the better it will be for the whole country.

Mr. Chairman, the reaction of the hon. the Minister is exceptionally interesting. It seems to me he wants the Opposition and Parliament as a whole to be placed in a subordinate position vis-à-vis outside organs which influence public opinion. We agree it is impossible for any member of this House—including the Cabinet, because we have been informed by the Minister that they have not yet had an opportunity to study the report—to pronounce a final judgment on the details of the report. It is impossible for us to do so. But we have had a summary made by the Department of Information. I said yesterday it looks like a good summary but I have not yet had an opportunity to compare it with the rest of the report. There may be infinitely more in the report, and the summary may ultimately prove to be like the summary of the Bantu legislation made by that Department. That summary bore no relationship to the original Act. That happened last year. But we assumed that we could for the time being express an opinion on the basis of this summary. It was absolutely necessary for the hon. the Minister to state his preliminary point of view. He did so yesterday, and I thanked him for it. But it was absolutely necessary also for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to state our tentative view …

I did not state any point of view.

Your point of view was that you would not announce any decision in the matter. That was the Minister’s standpoint. [Laughter.] Surely it is adopting a standpoint to say: I am not going to announce any decision. I shall not quarrel with the Minister on that. The hon. the Minister wants me to accept that he has no standpoint. I accept that. The Minister has no standpoint and that makes the situation still more important. While the Minister has no standpoint, and while the Minister expects us on this side of the House not to give a tentative judgment on the report, people outside are busy passing judgment according to the report. The S.A.B.C. broadcasts one talk after another on the report. The S.A.B.C. is busy judging and condemning South African citizens, one after another, through quotations from the report. Mr. Chairman, am I entitled to assume that the Cabinet of South Africa has some degree of responsibility? The Cabinet of South Africa says: “It is too soon for us to judge and to decide.” But the S.A.B.C. says: “To blazes with the Cabinet; we condemn.” Is that what is going on? The Cabinet of South Africa says: “I cannot judge as yet,” but the impetuous member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) judges; he rises in this House and demands that we should adopt an attitude; he can demand that we should say what attitude we adopt towards every journalist charged in the report, but the Cabinet says they cannot do so; the Cabinet condemns us because we wish to discuss the matter.

One inevitably gains the impression that the Government does not wish to use this report with a view, should it appear necessary after an inquiry, of taking steps to improve the Press. But it is being used by Government members for no other purpose than for political propaganda. What value can any independently thinking citizen of South Africa attach to such conduct? Particularly when we have regard to the fact that on page 2 of the summary the commission requests to be relieved of the task of investigating the Press of South Africa itself. And towards the end of its report it makes far-reaching recommendations regarding the establishment of a Press Council with unlimited criminal powers to control the Press of South Africa, the Press it has not even investigated? What value can one attach to such a report? Except to realize what the Government’s game is, namely to make political propaganda out of it and to try to place South African citizens in a bad light before the Government itself, according to the admission of the hon. the Minister, has had an opportunity of making a thorough study of the report.

Your Leader rejected it.

My Leader acted correctly. He appealed to the Minister, if he wishes to take decisions on the report, to do so soon. He recommended that the decision should be to reject this short-sighted recommendation of the commission. The main recommendation of the commission is the establishment of a Press Council to licence foreign correspondents in South Africa.

It is high time.

My friend says it is high time. I should like to talk to him. He should listen for a while. The commission recommends that no person should be able to transmit reports unless such person is licensed. What does the Government think it will achieve by that, except the final smothering of the good name of South Africa in the mud.

Mr. Chairman, there is no freedom of reporting in Russia. Did that help to give the outside world a better picture of communist Russia? It merely had the effect of every report from Russia being regarded with suspicion by the entire world, because everybody knows it is not truthful reporting. The commission now wants us in South Africa to take steps so that the whole world may know that a report orginating in South Africa is not free reporting, and therefore is as suspect as the distorted propaganda emanating from behind the Iron Curtain. The only recommendation of this commission is the throwing of an iron curtain around South Africa.

If the hon. the Minister wants us to conduct a debate on what is available in connection with the commission, we shall welcome it. We shall also have to go a little further than just the commission’s report. When we discuss the report of the commission we must also analyse why South Africa is getting such a bad Press; why are reports published which are unfavourable to South Africa? Let us go deeply into the matter, and not deal with it superficially as the commission did. Mr. Chairman, we have stated our standpoint: The Minister and certain hon. members opposite have stated their points of view. We are willing to leave it at that. [Laughter.] We are prepared to leave it at that for the time being. There will be another opportunity …

When?

Under the Appropriation Bill, in a few weeks’ time. We shall then have had an opportunity of thoroughly studying the report. Then we can discuss it fully. But if the Minister feels we should discuss it now, we are willing. We are not only willing, we are ready. However, we admit that we are unable to discuss the report in detail, but only the broad particulars we have already discussed tentatively. Then it will also be necessary for us to inquire into the reasons for South Africa’s unpopularity in the world. We must deal with the reasons why South Africa, in the words of the Burger has become “die muishond van die Westerse wêreld” (the skunk of the Western world). Those causes cannot be laid at our door; those causes will be laid at the door of the present Government which is governing South Africa badly, injudiciously, and with an attitude which is irreconcilable with the moral views of civilized people.

If the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) begins to wave his arms about and shout in this House, we know they have a very weak case. The hon. member this afternoon condemned himself and the journalists he wishes to protect here, by his own words. The hon. member said the S.A.B.C. is besmirching South African citizens by quoting what they wrote! That means they besmirched themselves, and not the S.A.B.C. One asks oneself why has the hon. member made this tremendous fuss. Is it because he wants to protect a group of people who have stabbed South Africa in the back systematically over a period of 15 or 16 years? [Interjections.]

On a point of order, may this hon. member say “that is a lie”?

Who said that?

I said so, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) has no idea of what went on in this country during the past 16 years. I shall not take notice of her. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) eulogized the journalists to high heaven yesterday. She says they are people who are well-known throughout the world, people who will be known long after the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has been forgotten. Yes, she herself also. I should like to tell her this: Guy Fawkes is still known today, but she cannot even tell us who was ruling England when he wanted to set fire to their Parliament. Then I can tell her, furthermore, that Quisling also is still known to-day to every member in this House, but she cannot tell me who governed Norway during his time. Those people gained notoriety and not fame. She rejects the conclusions of the commission on these various journalists. What right has she to reject them if she does not study the report to ascertain on what evidence those conclusions are based? Why does she not check on what evidence those conclusions are based, and then express an objective judgment on the matter? I should like to refer to a few of the people whom she lauded to high heaven yesterday. There is the Mr. Heinzerling who is one of her great heroes. He is a man who was very fond, and for all I know is still very fond, of quoting the English ministers of religion in South Africa and then to add to that his own adulation of these ministers’ sentiments, to tell the world what a rotten lot the Nationalists here are, because these spiritual leaders are so opposed to us. This Heinzerling comes along and attacks South Africa’s traditional policy. In March 1960, he wrote this report on the Archbishop of Cape Town, Mr. Joost de Blank, and he said this—

Quite true.

Now I ask the United Party whether they wish to have every little piece of discriminatory legislation in South Africa repealed?

On a point of order, may the hon. member quote from a report which has not been printed and made available to members as yet?

Order! The report is available to members.

The hon. member for Houghton says that it is correct; she agrees with Joost de Blank. Now I should like to ask her what right she has then to come here and say that everybody on the voter’s list at the present time must remain there, even if they have not passed Std. V, but every non-White who wants to be registered must have Std. V.

That is not racial discrimination.

Now all of a sudden this is not racial discrimination. What on God’s earth then is “racial discrimination”? No, the hon. member must not come along with such nonsense. But listen further, what this Heinzerling said on 23 Marh 1960—that is not 15 years ago, as the hon. member for Yeoville says, but a short while ago—

Then he continues and comes to Mr. Ambrose Reeves of Johannesburg. All this is in connection with this March revolt. And he lets Mr. Reeves say—

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member asks what is wrong with that. Can she not see that these are reports which are sent overseas and that all of them are coloured? They are coloured to arouse foreign sympathy against us, and to create a false picture of the whole situation of the traditional South African policy. This journalist in question is one of the men who virtually became jubilant in his reports when the Prime Minister was shot, if you read carefully between the lines of these reports which he sent overseas.

Is that written in the book?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has had her opportunity to speak.

I hasten to come to another one of her heroes, Mr. Kasischke. But Heinzerling sent a very lengthy report from which I should like to quote a few extracts at random—

This man continues and as far as it suits him he does not refer to South African Bantu or Natives, but he refers to “Negroes” in order to mislead the Americans. He refers to the “Negroes” in South Africa. That is his terminology for our Bantu. He proceeds and says—

What an absolute lie. He says—

An absolute lie. These are reports he sent overseas. But I now come to this Mr. Kasischke. On 22 March 1960 he wrote this to indicate what the position was here—

[Time limit.]

Naturally like other members of the House, I found myself in the difficulty of making a proper assessment of the report tabled by the Minister. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) thinks that he can come to the House and deal with one portion of the report, ignoring the summary presented by the Information Office, and he makes the wild statement that everything sent out of South Africa is coloured and amounts to prejudiced reporting.

I never said that.

In support of that contention he quotes just one relevant little passage of the report of many thousands of pages in some nine volumes. To show the hon. gentleman how ridiculous the argument is that he has presented here, I happen to also have just one portion of the report, and whilst the hon. gentleman was paging through the report so was I in the little time at my disposal. Now I wonder what hon. members will say to this, which is also relevant, on page 963—

Quite true!

I accept that that is true, because that is obviously a finding of the commission itself. But let me turn over one or two pages and come to page 965. Now remember, Sir, “the cables reporting the Government and the National Party are outnumbered by the cables reporting the United Party”. Then on page 965 this is said—

A factual report of Press reporting but the hon. member says that everything that is sent out of South Africa is coloured and prejudiced.

Nobody ever said that.

The commission states clearly on page 965 that as far as ministerial statements are concerned, factual statements of government policy, they are sent out of the country on a factual basis. And if there is an unfavourable interpretation given in the overseas Press, it can only be given in terms of world rejection after an assessment of the policies announced by the Government in respect of racial issues, for no other reason. Mr. Chairman, we are the last people on these benches to defend for one moment any slanderous, misdirected, untrue or lying reports about our country. We know that there is plenty of evidence of this misreporting (I am not going to name people). We know also that there are untrue reports that have been sent by these people who have come to South Africa’s shores. They have been guilty of the offence of sending abroad what can be classed as lying reports about South Africa. But it ill-behoves the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) as he did in this debate yesterday to come here, as he has done several times in this Session, and again accuse this side of the House of being responsible for the adverse propaganda that is being presented about South Africa overseas. It is said here in the commission’s report—

They are referring to the nature of the adverse reports—

And then it goes on—

So, Mr. Chairman, what ground is there for an argument presented in this House, because we are opposed to a statutory body being established to control the Press of South Africa, that we in other words are supporting those who are making adverse and lying propaganda about South Africa? The report itself, Sir, gives a clean book as far as the United Party is concerned and the members of the United Party in regard to these adverse reports. On the other hand, they say that the majority of the reports about South Africa come from those issued by the Nationalist Party and in the main they are factual and honest reports in respect of all ministerial and Government statements of policy. Therefore must we face this criticism, because the world outside has rejected the Government’s race policy. In the main, as the report says, adverse criticism surrounds the race policies of the Government and their statements over the past 10 to 15 years. It is wrong then if you find adverse criticism abroad, to attach it only to the lying propaganda and lying statements that have been sent from South Africa! When hon. members opposite talk about South Africa’s interests abroad they must look to their own policy and the statements made by their Ministers and the Prime Minister since they have been in power.

I know why you are getting angry.

The hon. member for Vereeniging gets up here and accepts at face value a summary of the report submitted by the State Information Office, but on closer examination, you find that the facts stated by the commission in the report give a different impression from that of the summary, for instance as far as I am aware there is no reference in the summary to this particular aspect to which I have drawn the House’s attention.

But there is another matter not mentioned in the summary. We have had the attack against the English language Press.

Who made that? I did not.

The question I want to pose is the English language Press the only guilty party? You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vereeniging again accepts at face value the summary, but where in the summary is mention made of the guilt of the Afrikaans language Press, the Afrikaans-medium Press in respect of these matters? Why does not the summary report what the commission had to say about the Transvaler? Why is there no reference to this part of the report? Why is there no reference in the summary of the State Information Office in regard to what the Vaderland has reported from time to time? Yet we have pages of it here in respect of the obnoxious and disgusting manner of the attitude adopted, as the report states, by the editor of the Transvaler and the staff of the Transvaler.

Read it.

On page 857 the hon. member will find it if he takes the trouble to read the report. It refers to a rather disgraceful incident regarding a very prominent visitor whose name I am not going to cast across the floor of the House, who paid a visit to South Africa and the attitude adopted by the Transvaler in respect to that particular visit. And what do they say, Mr. Chairman? It says—

That is the eavesdropping of the Transvaler reporter—

This is about the Transvaler—

That attitude is by no means confined to the Transvaler or journalists of the Transvaler.

An indication that it applies to other sections of the Afrikaans-medium Press …

And the English-language Press as well!

The hon. member says “The English-language Press as well”! You see, Sir, the hon. gentleman has maintained a discreet silence in this debate. He knows that when the hon. member for Vereeniging gets up and makes these wild accusations that he does not know what he is talking about, because the hon. member for Standerton has attached his signature to large portions of this report and he will know what the position is. But the hon. member for Vereeniging comes here and tries to make political propaganda for his party in an irresponsible attack on the English-language Press. [Time limit.]

I did not propose to participate in this debate. I felt I should adopt the attitude: “I have had my say.” Here we have pages and pages of my judgment. But we have now had the most ridiculous debate I have ever listened to in this House, or which I could ever have imagined. We are discussing a proposal which has not yet been made by the Government; we are discussing a report which hon. members have not read; and on the other hand we are judging the report on evidence hon. members have not seen. It is very clear why hon. members opposite are so sensitive; they are living in a glasshouse and they simply cannot tolerate anybody hurling a stone at it.

But as we are busy with this now, I should like to correct a couply of things for the sake of the record. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, said that throughout my term of office as a member of the commission I attacked the English Press. The hon. member for Orange Grove said I was more outspoken than many other people about the English-language Press.

You did so here in this House.

I should like to say here now that everyone who accuses me of that is an infamous liar. I have never, since I became a member of the Press Commission, and since I became a Member of Parliament, attacked anybody of the Press, because it is not proper to do so. Nor have I ever, even in my private discussions, discussed the English Press, i.e. the English-language Press. The Press which appears in English is not the English Press, but an English-language Press. The connotation of English Press is that it is a Press which also belongs to all the English people of this country. But that is not so by far. In the Press Commission we had evidence of English-speaking people who were embarrassed by the English-language Press. That is why you will also see that in the report we did our best to say “English-language Press”—I shall not say we always managed to do so, because it is very human to refer to the “English” Press. That is the first point I wish to make.

A very important point!

The hon. member for Houghton should rather keep quiet. Last night she made an insulting speech and took half an hour to do so. I hope I shall have an opportunity to reply to it. But I should like to say something else too: A great attack is made on the recommendation of the commission in regard to a Press Council, in spite of the fact that the Government has not even decided as yet whether they are going to have the report printed or not. So hon. members cannot judge as yet. I do not understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in that the guidance he gives is to pronounce judgments on evidence he has not read as yet.

But while I am referring to the Press Council now, I should like to say this too: Yesterday a journalist came to me. I shall mention his name. He is of the Natal Daily News, and his name is Collier. He came to discuss the Press Commission’s report with me, and I then said to him: “I have nothing to say, absolutely nothing; read the report.” He was very embarrassed, because I must say I am fed up with jouranlists and their bad manners. Regardless of which newspaper employs them, if a journalists’ manners are bad and he shows a lack of good breeding, I say so. I say I am fed up with journalists who do not have the good manners one would expect from a decent human being. They ask for interviews with one; they want to take one’s photo at the most inconvenient times; they do not care when they ring one. They consider themselves to be a “fourth estate” in the country. After the President, after the House of Assembly and after the Senate, they are a “fourth estate”. I was irascible already because that man came to me at that particular time. I then told him: “I am fed up.” What did he do? He wrote in the Argus in connection with the question whether we should establish a Press council or not, and then after expressing the embarrassment, the element of surprise and the astonishment—I suppose it appeared in the Star and in the Natal Daily News too—he added this at the end—

But you said that, did you not?

No, wait now. See how things are being put. The suggestion is made that I am sick and tired of a Press council. That is the impression which is created. Let me say here now, that I shall be the most enthusiastic supporter of a Press council if the Government were to decide to establish it. What is more, I shall be glad if the Government will go further than the recommendation of the commission, for the existing Press Board of Reference is so much moon-shine (“wasseneus”). If hon. members do not know what that means, they may consult a dictionary.

I should like to revert to this same point. I shall never refer to the “English Press”, because then I am including all the English-speaking people, but I shall refer to the “English-language Press”, because it is being controlled at the present time by people who date from the previous century as regards their mentality. They are the ones who are accusing us in the cables of being “obscurantists”, that is to say, people who are always looking back at the past; that is the group in control of the Press. Among them are the people who took the Boers’ land away from them. Not satisfied with that, but imbued with a sense of guilt about it, they are now trying to salve their consciences. Do you know how? By trying to blacken our character. Not all the English people in our country are doing this; only a clique in this country are doing so. I have very many English-speaking friends. They will not think of depriving me or my people of our character; but 90 per cent of the journalists employed by the English-language Press are prepared to do so, and for less money than Judas had.

You must have been an impartial member of the commission!

If the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) would do himself the favour of reading this Press report, he will be as ashamed about some of those cables as Mr. Willy Lamb and Mr. Cliff van Coller were.

Let me say one more thing, while we are now discussing the Press commission. For ten years I remained silent in spite of kicks I received from many sides. I did not say a word. But let me say this: The cables upon which the Press Commission based its report, were picked out by Mr. van Coller, Mr. Willy Lamb, Judge van Zyl and by Professor Hoek and Mr. Archie Frew and myself. They were culled by all of us, and let me say that on many occasions Mr. van Coller just shook his head. And hon. members cannot suspect Mr. van Coller of not being a good United Party supporter. I shall read some of the articles and cables in a moment. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister said that one could not pronounce judgment on this report until you have had the opportunity of studying the whole report. I do not find myself in that position. I have no hesitation in pronouncing my judgment on this report. Sir, I believe in the freedom of the Press, and what is at issue in this matter is one of the fundamental freedoms, the freedom of the Press. I should like to say immediately that I believe that during the war General Smuts was right. He was under pressure on occasion, and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) knows it and I am amazed to see that he has changed sides; I am amazed to see that when he left this side of the House and joined that side of the House he gave up his ideas on the freedom of the Press and adopted the absolute opposite view in respect of the Press.

I have never believed in the freedom of the Press to lie. And you know it.

I do not object to that. I want to say immediately that I believe that the freedom of the Press is one of the fundamental freedoms, and I say that when you seek to place limitations on the freedom of the Press, when you have threats hanging over the Press, then I believe that you will find that inevitably the claim is made that the country has not a free Press. Nothing will do this country more good, and nothing will do more to restore the good name of South Africa than if we can convince the people of the world that South Africa has a free Press, and I believe that that could be achieved very easily. All that is necessary is for the Prime Minister to stand up and to say that we will preserve the freedom of the Press and we reject the principal findings of this commission and will not act in terms of it because it is regarded as fundamental to the future of South Africa that the freedom of the Press should be preserved.

When I say that I am following the views of a great South African, General Smuts, and the hon. member for Vereeniging will support me when I say that on occasions during the war, when the strongest possible exception was taken to some of the statements made in certain of the organs of the Nationalist Press, and suggestions were made to General Smuts that something should be done about it, his answer was: “We are fighting for freedom. One of the freedoms for which we are fighting is the freedom of the Press, and I will in no circumstances be a party to anything whatsoever which will interfere with the freedom of the Press. It is one of the things we are fighting for.” Very great pressure was brought to bear on General Smuts by certain people, and I want to bring to this House this afternoon some of the things with which General Smuts had to put up at that time. I am quoting from the South African Law Reports for 1943, the case of Verwoerd v. Paver and Others, reported at page 153 onwards. I wish to read from that report certain of the things which were at issue in the case, resulting from a statement made in the Star, and I think it is necessary for a proper appreciation of the matter that we should know exactly what this case was about. I refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Millin, at page 155, where he puts the issue this way—

The article in question had the caption “Speaking up for Hitler”, and the material part of it runs as follows—

1. 1. The Transvaler, which is published in Johannesburg, though its spiritual home lies somewhere between Keerom Street and the Munich beer-hall, has this week given a rather better example than usual of the process of falsification which it applies to current news in its support of Nazi propaganda.
2. 2. On Saturday the Bureau of Information supplied the Union newspapers of a sample of the broadcasts dealing with South African affairs which have been coming from Berlin. Like many previous ones, it reiterated the assurance to South Africa that Germany does not wish to force its system of Government upon other countries—“a statement”, the Information Bureau’s script remarked, “which is belied by what is happening in Europe”. The Transvaler not only omitted this passage in reproducing the message, but made Zeesen’s profession of benevolent intentions towards this country the occasion for a full-dress article on the theme that Germany “would not deny the Afrikaners their Republic” and the unwisdom of criticizing National Socialism as practised in Germany.
3. 3. This manner of using the opportunity to give the Zeesen statement as a substantive publication by the Government’s information authority was “slim” but not really clever. Its dishonesty is too easy to expose, and it identified the Transvaler so closely with Nazi propaganda that it must assist in opening the eyes of those who read the paper in question, as to the extent to which it is a tool of malignant forces from which this country has everything to fear.

Now, those are the statements which it was claimed were libellous. The report goes on—

The plaintiff was the present Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd—

The Judge proceeded to indicate that the plea of the Star was one of justification, and he says this—

There was obviously a tremendous onus on the Star to establish justification, and I wish to read as briefly as I can some of the quotations which appear in this report in order that one may see the whole picture. At page 162 the judgment reads—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) now rakes up the case of the Transvaler versus the Star which took place 20 years ago, merely because the chief editor of the Transvaler at the time was the present Prime Minister. Let me tell him this. That judgment has been given. The Court pronounced its judgment. If damages were awarded to the plaintiff, which I cannot remember any longer, it has been paid. But since then we have moved on. The same man who then was chief editor, is Prime Minister of the Republic to-day. It shows that that person also received the judgment of the people of South Africa, and that is of much greater significance to me than some of the senseless words used by the hon. member opposite.

But I should like to return to where I stopped just now. My objection, and the objection of the commission…[Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) should not interrupt so incessantly.

Hon. members should know that although Judge van Zyl and I finally signed the report, Mr. van Coller and Mr. Lamb signed about half the report—Mr. Lamb less than Mr. van Coller. Mr. van Coller helped to cull all these cables, and he had only one reservation, and hon. members will find that in the report. He did not want us to mention the names of the journalists. He did not want us to mention the names of e.g. Stanley Uys and Johnston, and certain other names. We were not agreeable to that. My objection, and the objection of all of us is this, that a picture of South Africa is being created continually. Every day has its contribution. Now you must know who these people are. They are people employed by the English-language Press, and you will find testimonials in regard to them there—the kind of reports they sent, their background (academic and otherwise). That is one of the sad things for which I blame the owners of the Press. They underpay their people and do not get the right type of people. You know, we asked a chief editor of the Sunday Express—he is there no longer—for what section of the people he was writing really—“To whom do you address yourself?” Do you know what he said? He said: “To the man who on Sunday morning has a hangover from Saturday night.” That is the man who selects people to work for the newspapers. Those are the people who have to enlighten the public overseas, and whom we have to look up to.

I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) that the freedom of the Press is a very valuable thing. I endorse that, and it is written on almost every page, but I do not admit that a journalist has the right to tell lies. I admit a man has the right to plead for something—“I admit his right of advocacy” are the words I used there—but I do not admit that he has the right to promote the cause he is pleading by means of lies, and it is immaterial who he is. When we say a picture is being created, I should like to mention a few examples. I should like to give a Press picture of a respected South African (Afrikaner).

I see the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is here now. Do you know why she made that speech yesterday? I do not know whether you noticed that she read it out. Sir. It very seldom happens that she reads her speeches, but do you know why she did so? She did it because obliging Press had already cabled that speech of her’s overseas. Do you know what the contents of that cable were? It read as follows—

And then the words she used followed verbatim. And do you know why? Because in yesterday’s newspapers there appeared a summary of the Press Commission’s report which, as one paper said, was damning, and another said was destructive. She was the willing tool of somebody who wished to make a counter-move in the London papers and in the world. [Interjections.] This is a free country and she is at liberty to do so; however, it is one of the meanest things to allow yourself to be used to do the dirty work of others.

Before giving that Press picture of a respected Afrikaner who is now deceased, I just want to tell you what the Press did through its willing journalists.

We noticed that the names of certain people occur time and again, including the hon. member for Houghton too, much more so than the Leader of the Opposition. They are all the leftist people in her company. We asked ourselves afterwards: Let us make a random check of the people who are repeated time and again. Do you know only one random test produced the following result: We took 50 names. Six of those were communists, named communists. But that is nothing yet. Twelve of them—and that excludes the six—were named communists convicted under Section 11 (b) of the Anti-Communist Act, namely of promoting the objects of Communism. The great leader of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), Mandela, was one of them—her great hero. I could mention the names of the named communists who were convicted. I have them here. All these names are well known to the Minister of Justice. Other names which also occurred time and again will be less well known. They are Dr. Naicker, Jusuf Cachalia (not the doctor), D. M. Naidoo, D. U. Mistry, J. N. Nthaklo, Rev. Tema, D. K. Singh, Mbolekwa, Resha, Kumalo, Sita, Vundla, Salooje, Nathi, M. T. Cachalia, Matoti, Choudree, Albert Luthuli, the Rev. Sklomo, Tsotsi Cassim Ally, Nteo, Mhlaba—all of them fellow-travellers. Those are the people whose cause she is championing. They are the ones who have to create the picture of South Africa. And Reuters helps. The hon. member for Houghton must not come along here and say that Reuters and Associated Press are such wonderful, impartial reporters, for here she will find cables that have been picked out, independently of one another, by people who approached the matter from the point of view of what is good for South Africa. It is a recipe she really ought to follow.

Now I come to one of her friends, for whom she is stepping into the breach, Time Incorporated. I leave Reuters and Sapa aside. Here I have a pen picture of somebody we know very well, and whom I have selected specially because he has passed on already so that we can see the portrait in perspective. I shall not tell you now who it is; you will hear in a moment. I read from the report of the Press Commission at page 1449, and I wish hon. members will listen—

[Time limit.]

To establish my point, I will read as briefly as I can the further findings in the case appearing at page 166—

Again, at page 175, one finds the same thing. [Interjections.]—

At page 182 one finds a further reference to another case which was found to be proved—

And then, finally, the Judge says—

Then I wish to quote only the conclusion, which sets out the position fairly fully, and at pages 214 and 215 this is said—

Now, on the face of that case, special pressure was brought to bear by many people on General Smuts to take action to stop this sort of thing, but in spite of the fact that South Africa was fighting for its life and the life of the Western world, General Smuts took the stand that the principle of the freedom of the Press was inviolate and he would not be a party to any legislation to deal with this matter. It is my submission that General Smuts was right; it is my submission also that it is the plain and bounden duty of the Prime Minister, if he wants to raise the name of South Africa throughout the world, to get up and say that he, too, even if there are things in the Press of which he complains—and we also find things of which we can complain on occasion—the principle which is inviolate in South Africa is the freedom of the Press; we are not going to interfere; we believe that we who are fighting for our freedom in South Africa—and we are fighting for our freedom at present; we all wish to provide a future for ourselves and for coming generations—I say that if we wish to win that fight then just as during the dark days of the war General Smuts insisted that the freedom of the Press should be respected, so I call on the Prime Minister to-day to say that he stands for the freedom of the Press and that he rejects utterly the report of this commission, and that the Government will protect this freedom. I believe that if we do that we can well strike a blow for the future of South Africa—to preserve it.

[Inaudible.]

I am glad the hon. the Minister is here. I hope that he will broadcast adequate reports of this debate and that they will be utterly fair reports, and that the debate will be reported freely and faithfully. [Interjections.] There is a duty on him to make all the people in this country aware of the fact that at least the Opposition stands for the freedom of the Press. We will fight for it, and I hope that the Government will realize what is really at stake in the matter. The Press Commission and that hon. member over there have made what I submit is an unworthy recommendation in a country which stands for the freedom of the Press, one which if adopted will do this country great damage, and I hope that on reflection that hon. member will be ashamed of the fact that he was party to this recommendation. For our part, our course is clear. We stand for the freedom of the Press. It is perhaps the one thing which can get us a much more favourable Press overseas. Let us get on with the job of solving our differences and getting a really good government under Sir de Villiers Graaff.

I have already said that I also believe in the freedom of the Press, but I do not believe in the licentiousness of the Press. I believe in freedom, but also in discipline and responsibility. But the point I really wished to make is this. My complaint against the journalists of South Africa is that they are depicting the Government, the Afrikaners in particular, and the White people in general, in a bad light overseas; they are doing it every day with a slight tick like the pendulum of a watch which gets a slight kick every time from the spring activating it. I cannot read everything, but I should like to give you one of the typical things where a caricature of Dr. Malan is hung up so that the world may disapprove of him, as well as of apartheid, for they say apartheid is the policy devised by him.

Now he has already described what Dr. Malan looks like, and then he proceeds to besmirch Dr. Malan’s character in a subtle manner. He says this—

The man reporting here is Mr. Campbell of Time Incorporated—

The insinuation here is that he also could have rebelled had he been a man—

These are some of the slanderous things. Even if it were true, “the truth told with ill-intent is worse than all the lies you can invent”. Then he proceeds—

Now his basis is becoming a little broader—all the Afrikaners are being libelled—

That is what he says in inverted commas as if it were Dr. Malan’s judgment. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton must not interrupt me now. That is the picture given of South Africa’s leaders in order that they may be unacceptable to the world, so that it may be so much easier for her and those who think as she does, to libel us. Here is one of the most scandalous things I have ever read—

That is with reference to an incident—which is completely untrue—

This also is an infamous lie-—

That is the picture of a Prime Minister.

This then brings me to the question why we want a Press council here. Who collected those reports? Where were they collected? Who sent them out of the country? I could read for a year similar cables which were read by me over the years—cables signed by the people who sent them. These are not cuttings: they are cables sent under the signature of the people who drafted them and who are responsible for them. Does the United Party want those people who come to this country and collect news here and transmit it under their signature, to be protected? Do they want those people to rely on their right to tell lies with impunity? What is more, those foreign journalists come here and they get what is called a “desk” with the local English-language Press. That means they have office space; access to the libraries of those newspapers; they may use their telephones, according to my information. I do not know whether it is true. Messages are taken for them and what is worst of all, they sit there at the table where all the Sapa reports come in, and they collect the wildest statements. They report from Cape Town what happened in East London, with an East London date line; what happened in Durban with a Durban date line and what happened in Johannesburg with a Johannesburg date line. Often they are quicker than Sapa; they transmit the news with a time embargo. It is really scandalous, Mr. Chairman. I could mention more examples of the reporting of this same Campbell. I should like to quote what was written by Veysey of the Chicago Tribune who came here and transmitted objective reports. There are people who transmit objective reports and we admit that. We were not hired to keep quiet about that. We were glad to say it in this report. I quote from page 1545 of the report of the Press Commission. On 21 May 1952 he wired from Cape Town—

Here he is referring to Campbell—

That. Mr. Chairman, is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who says: How on earth does it come about that somebody transmits decent reports on agriculture, on education and on mining and finance but as soon as he turns to racial matters, then he transmits the most stinking reports? I shall tell her what the reason is. They are doing this for money; they will libel South Africa for money, and she is helping them. It makes absolutely no difference to them. They have the greatest lack of morality I have come across in any group calling itself a profession. That is the reason for the difference.

Sir, I am taking part in this debate as one of the under-privileged in the House. I have been listening all afternoon to members quoting from their tomes of evidence but I have not had an opportunity to see one. [Interjections.] I am not speaking of any particular side of the House; I am speaking now as a member of this House. I should have had the same right to see these quotations. But I am going to give a quotation which I received from London this morning. It was sent to me by a former South African. He says he thought that this put the case of South Africa quite well. This is the first sentence published by the South African Department of Information at the Embassy on Trafalgar Square—

This is completely untrue. It is a false message sent out by our Department of Information about our South African nation. That is the sort of propaganda we get from our own Department of Information. Sir, it should be possible for all of us to take part in this debate after having studied this report. But my greatest disappointment is that after 13 years of waiting, I have been expecting a report on the Press in South Africa, not a report on what journalists are sending overseas. Some of the reports sent overseas are very good.

You are very naive.

I have read them in London and in America, and some of the reports sent to London are very good. The London Telegraph publishes very fine despatches from South Africa.

And lying ones to.

They write fine leaders about South Africa, not leaders that would please the members of the Nationalist Party, but leaders which I think are well balanced and for which we should be grateful, coming as they do from people living in a foreign country. Sir, when we talk about control of the Press and the names of directors of the Associated Press and other sections of the Press are bandied about in this House, as they have been bandied about here, I should like to do a bit of bandying about myself. I regarded the situation as being so serious that I introduced a private member’s motion. My private member’s motion came to this: we debated the matter here in this House; the hon. the Minister of Justice will remember that he made a contribution to this debate; my private member’s motion said that no member of the Cabinet should be a director of a publishing company. I referred to the old tradition of 50 years ago under which we said that it might be proper for a member of the Cabinet to be a director of a mutual insurance company or of a newspaper. But there are very few newspapers left to-day. You do not have an isolated newspaper published by a company: nearly all our newspaper companies are publishing companies. They publish books and they do printing work. Here in our South Africa members of the Cabinet are directors of a company which has contracts with the Government. Well, that is more serious.

Disgraceful.

That was so under the United Party, and you know that.

Who?

Conroy.

I regard that as being much more serious than having a newspaper correspondent sending a message overseas …

Order! The hon. member is not in order now.

Sir, I am referring to the report of the Press Commission and the statement by the Press Commission that another part of the report has to be published. I am expressing my great disappointment that that third part has not been published because I regard it as the most important part. I should like the hon. member for Standerton, when he takes part in this debate again, to tell us why it has not been published. Why has he not told us anything about the Press in South Africa? We have had the names of directors mentioned here in the House; why has it not been possible for us to do the same thing? It was done here yesterday. I am simply doing the same thing. The hon. the Prime Minister himself is chairman of one of the biggest publishing companies in the country and I am going to give the Committee the facts. I am going to quote now from Volkshandel. They talk about “’n Afrikaanse Persreus” and they say this—

Then they go on to say this—

Hear, hear!

I join hon. members opposite in saying “hear, hear”, but what I do object to is that we have Ministers of the Cabinet serving as directors of the company which has contracts with the Government.

Order! As we are discussing the report of the Press Commission, the hon. member must confine himself to the allocation which is made in this Vote in respect of the Press Commission. The terms of reference of the commission did not cover printing companies.

Sir, this is one of the terms of reference on which the Press Commission failed to report, and I should like the hon. member for Standerton to tell us why.

Order! I have told the hon. member that he must confine himself to the question of the Press Commission and the report of the Press Commission.

On a point of order, is the matter under discussion not the Interior Vote, and do contracts with the Government Printer not fall under Interior?

That is a different Vote. If the hon. member discusses the report of this commission, he must confine himself to the terms of reference of the commission or the commission’s report.

On a point of order, one of the terms of reference of the commission was to analyse the organization and the control of the South African Press.

Only with regard to its effect on editorial comment.

On a point of order. Sir, is this not editorial comment that we have been hearing here?

Older! I have given my ruling and the hon. member must abide by it. My ruling is that publishing companies are not under discussion.

Well. I will discuss them then as newspaper companies falling under the report of the commission. Sir, I am now going to quote from the highest authority from whom I can quote. Hon. members will remember that the three wise men of South Africa, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Ogilvie Thompson, presented a report on the remuneration and allowances of Members of Parliament, and they had this to say on the very subject we are discussing—and I regard this as the highest authority—

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote or he must discuss the report of the Press Commission.

Sir, I was just going to make a quotation.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. He is a senior member of the House.

But, Sir, I am doing so. [Time limit.]

I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It is perfectly clear to me that the speech which he made here this afternoon was not made with the object of dealing with the Press Commission or the Press in South Africa; he had only one aim in mind and that to add fuel to the flames; to encourage those people who send abroad reports which are hostile to South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) very frankly whether he has taken the trouble to read one single word of this report. Let him be honest with me. What has he read? Has he read anything of the report other than what appeared in the Press? Mr. Chairman, even though he nods in that half-hearted fashion, I am prepared to accept his statement that he has read the report but I hope he will forgive me if I accept it with certain reservations because his speech was nothing but a mean attack upon South Africa. He made use of a certain incident in order to give the outside world the impression that when these Press practices are revealed, people must always remember that the Prime Minister of South Africa to-day is a man who was very closely connected with the Nazis. That was his motive and my accusation against him is that, in spite of all the hypocrisy with which he …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

Let me say then “in spite of all his pretence” …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

I withdraw it. I want to come now to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who is so obligingly taking part in this communications plot. She suggested yesterday that this side of the House regarded these foreign reports as incorrect simply because they did not suit the National Party: that that was all that was wrong with them; that they were only wrong because they did not suit us. That was one of her arguments. Does she remember what happened in Durban in 1959? Does she remember the riots that took place there? Does she remember what the Durban branch of the South African Journalists’ Association did? Does she remember that they made an appeal to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to put a stop to reports of this nature which were leaving South Africa? Let me quote what appeared in the Transvaler at the time (translation)—

Was it because it did not suit this Government that the Durban branch of the Journalists’ Association lodged those objections?

Mr. Chairman, what happened in Nyasaland? The hon. member for Houghton asked: “What gives the Press Commission the right to sit in judgment on world-famous Pressmen?” Do you remember what happened in Blantyre when Mr. Macmillan was there? You will remember what was said at the time by people in Nyasaland—

Is the policy of this Government being followed in Nyasaland? An inquiry was then instituted by Mr. Justice Southworth, and it so happens that Mr. Justice Southworth dealt with a few of the people who were also dealt with by our Press Commission. I want to give the hon. member three names; in the first place, the name of Mr. Stephen Barber of the News Chronicle, whom she probably knows well, secondly, Mr. Fairlie of the Daily Mail and, thirdly, Mr. Bishop of the Times. Let me start with Mr. Bishop. This is what the Southworth Commission has to say about Mr. Bishop—

What the commission has to say of him is entirely in his favour. I just want to quote what the Press Commission has to say about Mr. Bishop; their views are practically identical to the views expressed by the Southworth Commission—

They are in full agreement with the Southworth Commission. Now we come to Mr. Fairlie, and this is what the Southworth Commission says about Mr. Fairlie—

What does the Press Commission say about Mr. Fairlie? It says this—

The Press Commission has been very charitable to this man. I also want to quote what the Southworth Commission says about Mr. Barber—

Let me quote now what the Press Commission has to say about him—

I want to put this question now to the hon. member for Houghton: Here we have the finding of a Judge in Nyasaland in regard to these specific persons and on the other hand we have the finding of the Press Commission in regard to those same persons. Which of these findings does she regard as fairest? When the Press Commission says these things about these people, is she justified as a South African—I hope she claims to be a South African—in making use of this opportunity to bring this Press Commission into discredit for the sake of people who are trying deliberately to drag through the mud and to blacken the name not only of South Africa but also that of the States of the Federation? Is that the role which she has chosen for herself as a South African? It is a shame, Mr. Chairman. I want to give her a further example. She herself was reported in Time the other day. I understand that Mr. Tertius Myburgh of the Star is Time’s reporter. I want to quote this quickly—

Note the use of the word “accurately”. This refers to the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. The hon. member was then compelled to write a letter to Time in which she said—

[Time limit.]

Sir, I am not sure whether I understood the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) correctly. May I ask him what he describes as an untruth? Did that refer to my reply to the Time magazine?

No, I did not say that the hon. member’s reply was untrue. I said that Time has published an untruth.

Sir, I cannot imagine what the hon. member thinks he is trying to prove by this. I am not at all interested in the fact that there was an inaccurate report. I wrote and corrected that inaccurate report and my letter was duly published. Surely nobody in this House has at any time ever said that every report that is sent out from South Africa or, for that matter, every report which is published in the English-language Press or in the Afrikaans Press, is an accurate report. Obviously there are inaccuracies and obviously there are exaggerations and extravagant statements are made from time to time. I do not believe there is a journalist in the profession who would deny that inaccuracies and extravagant statements do appear in reports. My charge against the report of the Press Commission is that it makes absolute nonsense out of the whole idea of journalism. It seems to imagine that unless favourable reports are sent out of South Africa they must per se be extravagant and lying reports. Sir, I am not interested in the people quoted by the hon. member who has just sat down. I happened to single out people who are very well known, reputable journalists, who have a high reputation throughout the world.

Not very reputable.

The hon. member may not think they are reputable, but in their profession and in the newspapers which they represent, which happen to be the best known newspapers in the world, newspapers like the London Times, and the New York Times and magazines of the calibre of Time magazine, they are regarded as reputable journalists. The point I am trying to make is that every example quoted here by hon. members opposite happens not to be an example of an untruth at all. They happen to be critical of the Government; they happen to be critical of the Government’s racial policy but by and large the reports mentioned in this summary are not lies. Yesterday I quoted several examples from the summarized version of the report, and they are not lies. The commission puts them down as lies or as exaggerated reports of the South African scene. From my point of view they are not lies. I believe that the examples I read out in fact reflect the true position, and I will repeat the ones I gave: Firstly, that the Government is antagonistic towards the formation of African trade unions. It is antagonistic to African trade unions. Secondly, that Indians are oppressed. They are oppressed. Sir, there are many other things which I could mention out of this report; I mentioned them yesterday. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) just said that they are lies, but he brings no proof whatsoever to show that they are lies. The commission then mentions the fact that these people give accurate reports in the fields of economics, agriculture, etc. It seems to me that as long as these journalists send favourable reports overseas they are telling the truth. The moment they send anything which is unfavourable to South Africa, then it becomes a lie in the eyes of hon. members opposite. They do not understand journalism, Sir. The object of journalism is not simply to send out glowing reports about the Nationalist Government, but to report the situation as they find it. If their findings do not happen to agree with the views of hon. members opposite, that does not make those reports lies. As I say again there are exaggerated reports, and wherever it is in my power so to do I correct exaggerated reports, but I want to tell hon. members that if they are anxious to maintain the image of this country overseas, they are going about it in an entirely wrong way. To stifle the Press because they do not like the reports which are sent out of this country, is the worst thing that they can do. If there is one thing that I have found in my visits overseas that saves this country from being classified amongst the police states, it is in the fact—and it is one which I have used over and over again—that criticism of the Government is permitted in South Africa and that Press reports may be sent out of this country without censorship. That, Sir, is the biggest argument that I can use and that anybody can use against the oft-reiterated statement that one finds amongst uninformed people overseas, that South Africa is a police state. Sir, if this Government, because it disapproves of unfavourable reports being sent overseas, goes to the extent of introducing any sort of Press censorship, I can assure it that no argument used by myself, who is known to be an antagonist of this Government, or anybody else for that matter, will persuade anybody overseas that this country is not in fact a police state. One thing has become very clear to me from the passionate speeches made by hon. members opposite in this debate—something which I have suspected for some time—and that is that the Government cares very much indeed what the outside world thinks of it. For all the defiant statements we have heard that South Africa will “go it alone”, this Government is very sensitive indeed to overseas criticism. They long to be loved, Sir. I am very glad of it because it may just stay their hands in certain respects. One respect in which I certainly hope it will stay their hand is to take any of the measures which the hon. member for Vereeniging, for instance, was hinting at very darkly in his speech yesterday, and that was to prohibit free reporting.

How do you know what I have in mind.

You see, Sir, there does not seem to be an accurate measure of what is a lie and what is not a lie. The examples read out by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) yesterday were not lies; they were unfavourable reflections on the South African Government.

They distorted our image.

I must say, Sir, a journalist would have to have a very lurid pen to distort that hon. member’s image. As I say, these protestations about lies are nonsense. Nobody in his rightful senses, be it a journalist or anybody else, will deny that exaggerated reports are sent out. But simply, as a result of that, to castigate reputable members of a profession, because their reports do not agree …

Reputable!

Yes, I did say “reputable”, and I repeat it. To castigate reputable members of a profession because they do not happen to agree with hon. members opposite is, I repeat, to make a laughing stock of South Africa. I sincerely hope hon. members will bear this in mind.

Before I call upon the hon. member for Vereeniging to address the Committee I wish to repeat the ruling I gave when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) was addressing the Committee. I again want to point out that the first paragraph of the terms of reference of the Press Commission reads “to investigate and report on the measure of concentration of control, financial and technical, of the Press and its effect on editorial opinion and comment and representation of news”. Whilst hon. members are at liberty to discuss financial control and technical control, the contracts of publishing companies are certainly not under discussion.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said we do not have a police state. But now I want to ask her what she thinks of the following sentence—

Does she think that is true?

That is an exaggeration.

She says it is an exaggeration; she knows it is an infamous lie. She knows that there are no political police here in South Africa. And this article was not written by an insignificant journalist; it was written by Professor Julius Lewin, one of the members of her party, one of the leaders of her party.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is such a great champion of the freedom of the Press. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has repeatedly told him that we are also in favour of the freedom of the Press. I now want to put a pertinent question to the hon. member for Germiston (District): Is he in favour of the freedom of the Press to lie and to besmirch South Africa with lies? That is a very reasonable question. That is all that the Press Commission wants to control. That is all we want to control. The law does not do so. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) the other day said the most scandalous things in this House, things on account of which, if he had said them outside the House. I would have sued him for libel. There is nothing to protect the State against such gross libel.

I know why hon. members opposite are so angry. I know why the hon. member for Yeoville almost had apoplexy this afternoon. I also know why the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is so angry. His anger has nothing to do with the Press Commission. It is because of the fact that Mr. Oberholzer, an ex-Mayor of Johannesburg, is trying to gain nomination against him, and his party supports him. I will help him, but I think Oberholzer is going to beat him. I know why the hon. member for Yeoville is so angry. It is for this reason. There is an attempt being made in South Africa by a certain group of journalists to build him and the Leader of the Opposition up as powerful people, to build up the United Party as a new party, and now this unmerciful Minister of the Interior tables the report of the Press Commission, and that report unmasks those journalists, such as Delius and Stanley Uys, in a merciless manner. Stanley Uys now stands exposed as a journalist who has been accused by a Judge of being a liar.

By which Judge?

Judge van Zyl. The editors of the English language Press which is building up the United Party are now being discredited by the Press Commission; one can attach no value to their veracity, their fairness, their justice and their patriotism.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is very angry with me. He says I am scolding the English journalists and the English language Press. Sir, it is not I who attack the English language Press. The attack on that Press was made in the commission’s report by a Judge of the Supreme Court. They say in the report that the English language Press tells untruths, that it sends out lies about South Africa, and that they attack South Africa overseas with falsehoods.

Whom do they blame?

Individual journalists. That charge was laid by a Judge of the Supreme Court. It is not we who lay that charge. There is a very easy way open to the English language Press. They can investigate the matter and see whether it is in fact so. They can investigate those cables. They can dismiss those journalists, or keep them in employment, as Mr. Sowden was kept in employment after he had conducted himself so scandalously at UN when he interrupted our Minister of Foreign Affairs and told the Black states: You must not believe him.

They can make him Prime Minister, too.

No. Sir, they will not make him Prime Minister. The people of South Africa made Hendrik Verwoerd Prime Minister, and they have rejected the Opposition for one important reason, and that is because over a period of 16 years they have shown how unpatriotic they are towards South Africa, because they have always sided with the besmirchers of South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville says the S.A.B.C. blackened the journalists in a little talk last night. Did he listen to that talk? No, Mr. Chairman. I have the whole talk here and I challenge him to show me one word of criticism in it directed at any journalist. All that was done in this talk was to quote what those journalists had written. And when the S.A.B.C. quotes what those journalists wrote Mr. Marais Steyn says they are besmirching those journalists. In other words, he is saying that anybody who writes those things besmirches himself.

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton and members of the Opposition the sort of thing that they do not condemn, the type of thing that they try to explain away. Let me tell them what appeared in a British newspaper: The Prime Minister of South Africa appeared in public surrounded by friends with sjamboks in their hands, the curling weapon with which the White man has for so long exercised his superiority over his Coloured brothers on the dark continent. That is the sort of thing which he yesterday tried to defend. That is the type of thing which is sent out of the country and which hon. members opposite do not mind being sent abroad.

That is not true.

They say it is not true. Then why do they not want steps taken to prevent it?

What steps?

There are many steps that could be taken. I can, for instance, mention one step. If Mr. Stanley Uys is registered as a journalist, let his licence be taken away, when he sends out the false reports he does about South Africa. Mr. Chairman, any owner of a bottle store who smuggles liquor is deprived of his licence, and he is unable to make a living.

Are you trying to compare the two?

I can compare them. Trafficking in liquor is one thing, but to indulge in trafficking in a lot of lies to the detriment of your country is a thousand times more contemptible. Let me read what Mr. Stanley Uys said. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) said I must calm down. But does she not get wound up by this sort of thing? Does the blackening of South Africa not fill her with such aversion that at times she does not know what to do? Do these scandalmongering stories mean nothing to her? Mr. Stanley Uys writes in the Christian Science Monitor that this Government won the 1958 election and the streets of Johannesburg were patrolled by Saracens on the day of the election. Hon. members know very well that that is not true. There were no policemen, troops or tanks in the streets. But he goes further and he writes in the Observer that this Government won the referendum because there were more votes than there should have been according to the electoral roll. What else does that mean but that the Government manufactured false votes? In one year he earned R2,700 by means of this type of reporting, through this type of treachery against South Africa. See what he writes here: Any person possessing a battleaxe, even as a souvenir, can be fined £100 or sent to goal for six months, unless he has a permit from the police commissioner. He knows that is a false picture of South Africa. He knows that no Bantu has yet been fined £100 merely for being in possession of a battle-axe for peaceful purposes or as a souvenir. He is well aware that that is not the purpose of the law. It is, indeed, nothing other than an attempt to blacken and defame the good name of South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I shall now tell you what a Judge said of Stanley Uys. He said—

Mr. Chairman, I now ask: Must this treachery be allowed to go unpunished? Must we do nothing to combat this smuggling, this trading of the good name of South Africa for 30 pieces of silver? Does the hon. member for Germiston (District) not agree that he and I should get together to try to evolve a plan to put a stop to the Stanley Uyses and the Deliuses? I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) whether he agrees with these utterances of Stanley Uys? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, if there are any members in this House who have had experience of unfair reporting against them, it is we on this side of the House. If there are any members in this House against whom one-sided reports, deliberately destructive and altogether unfair reports have appeared in the Press which supports the Government and against whom similar statements have been made on public platforms, it is we on this side. [Interjections.] I hope that there will still be a debate in this House with regard to the Press. This one has come unexpectedly. When that debate does take place, we shall produce chapter and verse. I am not saying anything here which I cannot prove in black and white. I can give the House evidence of barefaced lies which have been written about what happens in this House, for example, and hon. members can then compare that with what appears in Hansard. I have in mind particularly a report which appeared in Dagbreek of 13 May 1962, with reference to a debate in this House. I am not saying anything here which I cannot prove. The worst misreporting against the Opposition takes place during election campaigns. Look at the sort of reports which appear in the Government Press in connection with United Party meetings and congresses!

Do you approve of it?

For goodness sake, that is what we are fighting against. Why is this side of the House indignant? Our indignation arises from the double standard that is applied by the Government side.

Is the hon. member under the impression that we proposed the appointment of a Press council only for the English language newspapers and only for the United Party?

My reply to that is that I have no illusions in that regard. The Press inquiry was intended to be a witch-hunt. The Government’s object was to look for a scapegoat and to blame the Press for the fact that their policy is not a success. And so it will go on; once they have dealt with the Press they will look for another scapegoat again.

The indignation of this side arises from the double standard which is applied by the other side. If that side had been fair enough first to put its own house in order, to apply to its own newspapers the yardstick which it applies to foreign newspapers, I would have taken off my hat to their efforts and I would have been able to support them. Sir, I have made a very cursory examination of the summary of this report. Let us look at the Commission’s complaints against the foreign Press, amongst other things. One of its complaints is this—

Is there one member here who would say that National Party newspapers give a clear, honest and full picture of the policy of this side? A second complaint is the following—

I listened most attentively to the member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) as one of the experts on the commission, and what did he quote to support the statement that the foreign Press gives a false image of South Africa? The words “lie” and “false” were used here time and again. He quoted from an article on Dr. Malan by Alexander Campbell. I can guarantee the hon. member for Standerton that I can bring him an article that was written by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) about Dr. Malan, an article which is much more critical than the article by Alexander Campbell. The hon. member for Standerton says that the allegation by Alexander Campbell that Dr. Malan was hiding under the Union Jack at Stellenbosch during the Anglo-Boer War was a scandalous allegation. But most of the old Coalitionists who are sitting on that side to-day said the same thing about Dr. Malan. The same thing was said by members in the Cabinet.

Another complaint is that the foreign Press is unsympathetic towards the Afrikaans-speaking section and its cultural possessions.

That is not one of the complaints.

Yes, that is what is stated in the official summary. The hon. member for Vereeniging stands up and condemns everybody; he calls people traitors. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no English-speaking journalist in South Africa who has abused the cultural possessions of the Afrikaans-speaking section as much as the hon. member for Vereeniging did. There is hardly a single thing which he did not attack; he attacked the Voortrekker movement, the dress of Voortrekker women, Afrikanas cultural movements …

That is untrue.

…Jukskei, the Volkspele (folk dances) and even Volkskas. There is not a single English-speaking newspaperman in South Africa who has ever represented the Afrikaans-speaking section in such a bad light as the hon. member over there did. At that time I was United Party organizer in the Cape Province and he was the editor of Ons Land in Port Elizabeth. We met time and again to discuss whether he should not be sacked because of his conduct because he was giving the United Party an anti-Afrikaans colour. Sir, I can prove everything I have said here. A further charge made by the Press Commission is this—

And—

Is there any member here who can honestly deny that the Indians are being treated unjustly! A further charge is this—

But the same applies to the Government Press when they deal with the policy of this side. One of the main charges is that the foreign Press does not give a good image of what they call “the traditional race policy of South Africa”. But apartheid was never the “traditional race policy” of South Africa. Legislative compulsion was never our “traditional race policy”.

Mr. Chairman, what are we really dealing with here? We are dealing here with a commission which investigated the Press for 13 years. What was its ultimate finding? It found what we all knew, and that is that the foreign Press is hostile to this Government. But they are entitled to be hostile to a particular policy, just as the Nasionale Pers is entitled to be hostile to the United Party. They are within rights, and the reason why members on the other side are annoyed to-day is because they have no friends amongst the newspapers of the world. I think the time has come when they should institute an enquiry to determine why the Press generally is hostile to them.

Does the hon. member really contend that the Press of a foreign country is entitled to be hostile to another country?

My conception of the freedom of the Press is that it has the right to attack me and it also has the right to attack my policy. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is the last person who should take part in this debate on the Press. I do not think there is one member in this House who takes that hon. member seriously. I think even hon. members on his side know that he said exactly the opposite five years ago. What is more, Sir, they know that five years hence he will again say precisely the opposite. [Interjections.] No, I hope that will not again be on our side, because he is like a goat: Once he has grazed off a bush that bush dies. A party to which he belongs cannot last long. We were fortunate enough to get rid of him quickly.

I can quite understand the United Party being as annoyed as they are to-day. As a matter of fact, they were annoyed before the Press Commission was appointed. They have been annoyed for 13 years because they had a presentiment that the Press Commission would Table a report that would be unfavourable to them. To-day you cannot expect them to be other than very annoyed with the Press Commission. But there is also another reason why they are annoyed with the Press Commission, and that is because it has exposed a certain group of journalists, the group who besmirch South Africa. Because that specific group of journalists are the greatest allies of hon. members opposite in their fight against the National Party and against South Africa.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said he stood for the freedom of the Press. I do not think there is a member in this House who does not stand for the freedom of the Press. But the hon. member must remember that any freedom, no matter where you enjoy it, is accompanied by certain obligations. The moment those obligations are removed there is no more freedom. You cannot give anybody freedom to destroy freedom itself—then it is no freedom.

In order to cushion the impact on that group of journalists the hon. member for Germiston (District) quoted from court cases and I do not know what else, concerning the Transvaler. I just want to tell the hon. member that I, as a former newspaperman, do not accept that when a newspaper is summonsed and gets involved in such a court case, the editor is of necessity to blame. Had the hon. member known more about journalism and the set-up of newspapers, he would have known that from the nature of things it is difficult for the editor always personally to control all the reports of all reporters and mistakes sometimes slip through. The editor concerned of that newspaper was in this case the present Prime Minister, who cannot personally be blamed for it.

Let me say immediately that as far as the report of the Press Commission is concerned, I welcome the proposed Press Board. I had a private motion on the Order Paper last year which unfortunately never came up for discussion due to lack of time. But I am all in favour—and I say this because I have experience as a journalist—of a Press Board which can exercise a certain measure of supervision and control over certain journalists. I always maintain that the journalistic profession is one of the most noble professions you can get but there is a group which casts a reflection on the whole profession. And I as journalist and any responsible journalist have it against that particular group which is dragging the good name of our profession in the mud. People do not say any particular journalist did something. The entire Press is treated on the same basis, as was again done in this Committee this afternoon. The Press as a whole was referred to; the Press did this and the Press did that. However, only a small section of the Press is responsible for the blame which attaches to every fine journalist. I am not necessarily only selecting the English-language Press. I am convinced that there are also English-speaking journalists who are opposed to this particular kind of reporting which besmirches the name of South Africa.

If legislation has to be introduced South Africa will not be the first country to introduce legislation to control the Press. As a matter of fact, there is a country which is known as a model of democracy where strong action is taken against the Press. I am referring to Switzerland. Recently there was the case of a journalist called Nicole who was punished because he had defamed Switzerland. I can also mention various cases in America, where American journalists have been punished for having written extremely unpatriotic reports about America. One asks yourself this question, Sir: Why is South Africa in this peculiar position that its Press is so unpatriotically disposed towards it? That can easily be explained. In 1948 when the present Government came into power every voter more or less accepted it but there was one group which never accepted it and that is the group of journalists who are bent on bringing this Government and, this country, if need be, to a fall. They never accepted the victory of the National Party and they do not accept it to-day. Unfortunately there are members on the other side of this House who also cannot yet accept the fact that this Government has already been in power for so many years; they still imagine that they are in power and they cannot tolerate the idea of having to sit in the Opposition.

There is one particular reason why I am pleased that the report of the Press Commission has eventually been published and that is that the public of South Africa can now get an idea of the type of reporting which does so much harm to our country. Another reason why I am pleased that the report of the Press Commission has eventually been published is that the Press too can now search its own heart and see what is happening within its own ranks. I repeat that I do not think there is a decent journalist in this country who does not welcome this report and who is not pleased that this particular group has been exposed and ferreted out. The Press in South Africa, as the report of the Press Commission clearly indicates, consists of two groups. The one group consists of those bad journalists whose reporting casts a reflection on the profession and the other group of course, consists of the ordinary journalists who feel they are performing a noble task. Those are the journalists for whom I wish to step into the breach to-day. They are practically ignored in this report; no mention is made of them unfortunately. I wish to pay tribute to them because not only do they serve their country but they serve their people and they serve their profession because they uphold their profession honestly and ethically. But you find another specific group, a small group, but unfortunately they do so much damage that one is inclined to include the entire Press. That small group really do not care what they write about South Africa. Their only concern is to provide their newspapers with sensational news, and the more sensational their reports the better their remuneration. All these part-time journalists who are attached to overseas newspapers get paid per report, and they get paid according to the sensational value of the report. I myself was a representative of Sapa and of other overseas newspapers and I know what the position is. They often contravene the ethical rules of the profession because they are bent on making the news as sensational as possible because their remuneration depends on that. Those people are also continually subject to temptation. Those overseas newspapers which publish those reports do not know what the real position is in South Africa; they do not know what is true or not; they want that type of sensational report and their journalists are determined to provide them with it. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) had the courage to say here this afternoon what he expects the Government to do in regard to the recommendations of the commission. I think it is most significant, because no other member on the Government benches in the whole course of this debate, yesterday or to-day, has had the courage to do what the hon. member for Middelland has done. I think in view of what he has now said, we are entitled to ask the hon. Minister if that is in fact what the Government intends to do in regard to the carrying out of the recommendations in this report. Is it the intention of the Government to establish a Press council with all the powers recommended in this report. Are we to understand now that where the hon. member said that he favours the establishment of this Press council that he is speaking on behalf of his party.

My personal opinion.

The hon. member as a Whip holds a responsible position. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) when challenged on this point yesterday, refused to reply. He ran away. When asked to say what his views were in this regard and what his party’s views were, he refused to answer the question. But we now have on his own free admission the statement by the hon. member for Middelland that he favours the establishment of this council.

So do I.

The whole of this debate was an attempt by hon. members on the Government benches in poor taste (which has done South Africa inestimable damage), an attempt to try and couple the standpoint and views of this side of the House in debating the recommendations of the report with the saboteurs and the agitators and those who have sent all these false reports about South Africa overseas. Let me say for the last time for the information of hon. members: We deplore to the deepest degree those false, malicious and bad reports on South African affairs, and we have said so on numerous occasions. But I am not going to do what hon. members opposite have done and that is to give unlimited publicity to people who have sent unfavourable reports about South Africa by naming them across the floor of this House. I leave it at that. I have said quite clearly and distinctly and I repeat that we deplore it and we do not wish to see it, and we believe that the responsible Press can control itself and take the necessary measures in regard to these matters. I hope we will not have these wild accusations again. Let us see how many members on the Government benches have the courage to advise the Government to accept the recommendations of this report, and then let us debate these recommendations in the report on their merit.

I want to start with the point raised by the hon. member for Middelland when he said that he believed in the freedom of the Press. Then he qualified it and said “with restrictions”.

I did not use those words.

The hon. member said “Ek glo in die vryheid van die pers met restriksies”. What we want to know is “what restrictions”? Does the hon. member deny that he said that?

I did not say so.

Must I then understand that the hon. member believes in an unlicensed freedom for the Press? Because I do not.

You are not quoting me correctly.

It is quite clear from what the hon. gentleman said that he believes in the freedom of the Press with certain restrictions and so does the hon. member for Vereeniging.

And so do you.

Of course, but the point is: What restrictions? Now I say, and when I say this I am in good company, that the Press in South African society has a responsibility. It has the responsibility to keep the public of South Africa informed, and the public of South Africa could not be kept informed unless the Press performed this very essential function, and that is to gather, to publish and to comment on the news. But the Press itself does not claim that the right to gather, to publish and to comment on the news as an unconditional and an absolute right. The Press does not claim that.

That is quite correct.

I can refer hon. members to page 835 of this report, there they will see a statement of what the Press believes, and they will find the principle of the freedom of the Press clearly stated, as represented by the Newspaper Press Union. I am not quoting it, my time is limited. There is no question of unlicensed freedom. In other words, the Press says that it is in the same position as any individual citizen in this country; it has the right of free expression, to publish anything it likes and to comment as it likes, subject to the restrictions of the laws of the land. In other words, you may align the freedom of the Press with the right of free speech that every individual and private citizen has, and the Press claims nothing more for itself than that. If that is so, one is entitled to ask: Are the propositions and the opinions and the recommendations of the commission in keeping with that principle? Because you see that the objectives of this Press council are stated in the summary, and there as one of the objectives it is stated “to maintain the freedom of the Press”. But as I read these propositions, with the proposals in regard to the question how the council should manage its affairs, it seems to me a complete negation of the principle of the freedom of the Press, because it says that the object of the Press council is not alone to ensure high principles, but the object of the Press council is in order to criticize the Press itself because nobody else is capable of doing so. That is what it amounts to. Let me read what it says, and not from the summary—

Now substitute for the word “criticize” the word “control”, because if you substitute the word “control” for “criticize” then you get the full sense of what is proposed here. In other words this is a control body, it is not a free body, because this works on the assumption that when you have a free Press in a free society it is only some body established by statute by this House that can effectively criticize the Press. But what about all those people who daily buy the paper and read it every day? Have they no right to criticism the ordinary free man walking in the street, has he not got the right of free criticism?’ Have hon. members in this House not the right of free criticism? Why is it necessary then to establish a statutory body for the purpose of having to criticize the Press of our country, the free unfettered Press? A Press that is subject to the laws of the country. I say therefore as has been said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: We object to the principle of statutory recognition of a controlled board or body for the Press of South Africa. Because, the mere concept of licensing a man who has to report the news is in itself a restriction on this very freedom. There are only two countries in the world that license Pressmen. The one is Ghana and the other is Russia. I challenge the hon. member for Standerton to come and give one example of one other country in the free world that licenses Pressmen who report the news. It is obvious therefore that in rejecting this proposal of a statutory council, we do so for the reason mainly that to introduce legislation of that nature into this House would represent to the world the very essence of what the world thinks about South Africa, that we Whites are a race of racial oppressors. Because it will then be said that by restricting the Press, as contemplated by means of this council, a body to criticize, to veto, is the end of freedom for people of all races in South Africa, and my plea to the Government is not to go ahead with the recommendations contained in the report.

The hon. member for Turffontein says he defies me to say what country in the world registers journalists. I ask him what country in the world has such an irresponsible Opposition as we have here? I ask him further what country in the world fights its political battle in regard to internal domestic matters on foreign soil? We on this side feel that the Opposition are fighting us in this way, not on the national terrain, but on the international terrain, and the hon. members opposite are the people who provide the contents for the cables going overseas. That also is written in the Press Commission’s report. You will find it there, chapter and verse. It is not that we object to the Opposition playing this role. They can just continue doing so for all we care. This is a free country. But when the Press people practice their profession, they do not have a right to tell lies, no more than hon. members, who are free, have the right to tell lies. And when I say I am in favour of the freedom of the Press, then I am standing for the freedom of the Press with all the obligations that go with it. The hon. member for Turffontein also. Let me now give you an example of the claim of the journalists that they have the right to tell lies. In 1953 we passed an Act in this Parliament in which we provided that when a person infringes a law to protest against another law, it becomes a crime. And the United Party voted for it.

The Riotous Assemblies Act?

No, the Public Safety Act. What did our slanderers overseas do? Here is a Mr. Lello. He is employed by the Cape Times. He is a sub-editor. I suppose hon. members opposite know him. I am now reading at page 445 of the Press Commission’s Report a report he transmitted—

Therefore, if a person merely criticizes a law, he would be guilty of an offence, if there had been such an article as is reported here—

Do hon. members wish to defend that? Does the hon. member for Germiston (District) defend that? The hon. member himself voted for an Act in which we say you may not commit an offence because you are protesting against another law. They voted for it.

What is your point really?

My point is that this Mr. Lello, the journalist who has to enlighten the outside world (an outside world heading for a war against us), says that when you protest against an Act, you are guilty of a crime in South Africa. Nobody may even protest. What an infamous lie, and what misrepresentation and distortion? It is completely contrary to the truth. Are you now going to protect that man?

No.

But that is exactly what you want to do. That is my complaint against the United Party. Therefore I say: Appoint a Press council, so that when you or I have a complaint, we can lodge a complaint there.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are you suggesting that there should be a law to prevent a case of this nature arising, and that if this were vetoed or investigated beforehand, Mr. Lello would never have been able to send it? Do you want to censor it before he can send it?

No, no. No censorship. Our recommendation is that the cables should be made available so that the hon. member for Turffontein and I may know what kind of trash Mr. Lello is sending and so that, if we object to it, we may be able to lodge a complaint with the Press council, or so that the Press council may take steps mero motu against the person who sent it. Let him lie as much as he likes. Let him appeal to his freedom to tell lies, but let him bear his punishment if he tells lies. If he makes his bed, he must lie on it. That now is Mr. Lello, who was only a sub-editor of the Cape Times.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) made a great fuss because the editors of the Transvaler made themselves guilty of certain things, of a libel. Let met tell him now that these things do happen. It happens in the highest quarters. But in the case of the Transvaler, it happened under pressure while the news was coming in. As the hon. member for Middelland has said: “You cannot always be at all the places”. But here I have an article in front of me, written by the great journalist Flather of the Star. During January 1953 Flather wrote an article in the “Bulletin of the International Press Institute”. This was not written under pressure but after calm reflection. This article was responsible for Unesco coming to the decision that our Press is not free.

You cannot prove that.

But here is the article. There you have it again, the hon. members are so sensitive, they do not wish to hear the facts. He says this—

He says the Press of South Africa is not free, and he says to edit a newspaper in South Africa is to walk blindfolded in a minefield. He says this—

What about the Act?

The hon. member for Houghton surely knows that is not true. She knows it is a blatant lie. But Flather himself wrote this, and he admitted it.

Is there nothing in our laws which forbids editors to publish anything they want to publish?

I could conduct a debate with the hon. member on that point, but the point here is that Flather says that the Riotous Assemblies Act may lead to a newspaper editor being sent to goal, that he may be heavily fined and that he may be deported when he writes certain things in his newspaper on the non-Whites vis-à-vis the Whites. We found many instances where that newspaper—the newspaper employing him—could have contravened the Riotous Assemblies Act on this basis, but he was never prosecuted. He must have known he could not be prosecuted. Then we had Mr. Flather as a witness, and we put the Act to him. We think the man was not quite bona fide, but afterwards it in fact did appear that he had that fear. And do you know what else? When we told him: “You misunderstand the Act”, he would not believe us, because he did not understand the meaning of English. We then referred him to the Oxford Dictionary meaning, and he then refused to accept the Oxford Dictionary meaning. He did not want his fear dispelled. [Time limit.]

I do not know how often the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has already spoken to-day but each time he has cut a very pathetic figure; he was a political ghost; he was somebody who had to explain and defend something and he could not do so because he does not even know what his party’s policy is in connection with the report. He was talking nonsense all the time. What he said amounted to a big nought, the nought which we had from the hon. the Minister himself. Let us study what the hon. member for Standerton said although he had no case to defend because his own party did not even want to support him. The hon. member told us that he had been under a terrific strain during the past years. You can practically say he reached bursting point in his desire to say something, but he refused in all circumstances to say anything in connection with the activities of the Press Board. Let me reply to him. Let him look at Hansard of 23 January this year, that is not long ago. He made an attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and said this.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to quote from this year’s Hansard?

I believe I may do so under the new rules.

No, not even under the new rules.

The hon. member challenged me to show him one instance where he had offended and here I have the proof. If I am not allowed to read it I suppose I may say that the hon. member at some time or other attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and said that certain facts would come to light when the Press Commission’s Report was tabled. In other words, he, a member of the commission stated, before the report was tabled, what facts would be contained in that report. I lay that charge at his door and I challenge him to deny it.

But let us take another submission by that innocent hon. member for Standerton. He went to great pains to tell us that he was not attacking the English Press; he wanted to attack the English-language Press. He is not anti-English, he is only against certain English newspapers. I want to ask him who wrote the following words—

That was what the hon. member said; let him deny it. He admits it. He went on—

Of course.

He still says so. Then he asks whether unilingualism can be forced upon people, whether the English-speaking section can be turned into Afrikaners. Then he says on what conditions: “We shall only decide upon that when we know what the chances of success are.” I also want to know how it was possible for the hon. member for Standerton to have been so wonderfully impartial considering the attitude he adopted this afternoon towards the ordinary working journalist when he said he was sick and tired of journalists, and when he want so far as to say he had chased a journalist away who, in the execution of his ordinary duties, wanted to take his photograph. Of course, I do not doubt his impartiality but I want to know how he found it possible to be impartial if he is as against journalists as he is.

The hon. member for Standerton told us he had actually said everything he wanted to say in the report. I want to put this pertinent question to him: Was he the main author of this report?

What has that to do with you?

We should like to know whether the words appearing in this report are his or the Judge’s. Because the words of that hon. member who wrote those other things will not give me any confidence in him. The irrefutable fact is that the Press Commission refused to investigate the Afrikaans Press. They knew that if those newspapers were investigated a fantastic state of affairs in South Africa would be revealed, a state of affairs that would shock the country, yes, that would shock the world. Why does the hon. member not answer this simple little question of ours?

We have said this report serves no purpose. It deals mainly with the years 1950-4 and with three months in 1960, and not with anything since 1960. It does not deal with a single report by an overseas journalist since the Press Board of Reference was appointed. In other words, since the appointment of that board no complaints have been lodged, except one, as far as I know, against overseas reporting. The Press Board of Reference has not yet been put to the test. The examples given by the hon. member for Standerton and his commission in the report are examples of what happened four to ten years ago, before this board was appointed. [Interjections.]

I have read part of this report. It complains about unbalanced reporting, but how unbalanced is the report itself? To what extent do they mix comment and fact? They mainly attack the English newspapers and not in any instance the Afrikaans newspapers. The hon. member for Standerton is very proud of his report, is he not? Does he stand by what is said about Sapa?

Oh yes, by every word.

I am pleased to get that admission. In that case does he at the same time attack the Burger, the Transvaler and all the Nationalist newspapers, who get their news from Sapa? On more than one occasion the chairman of Sapa has been a member of the Nationalist Party and connected with the Nationalist newspapers.

Read the report.

I have read it. The old question arises: What is the Government going to do about this matter? The only reply we have had so far has been a big nought. They have no policy in this connection. They cannot even prepare their own speeches. They have to read everything from the report. [Time limit.]

I was saying that our people were concerned about the fact that sections of the Press have formed a common front with our enemies who threaten our existence, and our people have reason to be concerned. They cannot understand why we are being attacked because we are following a policy which can be called a liberal policy; we are trying to bring relief in all spheres by means of a policy which will eventually culminate in the liberal policy which this Press so assiduously tries to dictate to us, that is to say, equal opportunities for everyone on a vertical basis throughout and not on a horizontal basis. Because this is the case, our people feel insulted and they want to preserve their freedom. I want to say this. The freedom which the Press enjoys to-day is a freedom which is granted to it by the nation: The nation grants this specific privilege to the Press and to citizens of ours to establish a Press undertaking but this privelege is given under three specific conditions. The first is that the Press must educate the people to the truth; secondly, the Press must assist the State in its administration and, thirdly, the Press is co-responsible for the maintenance of order and stability within the State. Those three conditions are basic conditions which the nation lays down in giving the privilege to our citizens to establish a Press undertaking, and this specific privilege must only be given to certain citizens. As far as action against this irresponsible section of the Press is concerned, I should like to put forward this suggestion: Firstly, that this right should be given to certain selected citizens of the State who comply with certain qualifications to edit a newspaper or to be employed on a newspaper. Is it right and fair for us to license people or to give people the right to be connected with a Press undertaking which has one asset only and that is money? Has any foreigner who comes to South Africa and who has a certain amount of capital the right to write and form opinions about a country whose background and history he does not know? That is why I say that the granting of this specific privilege to establish a Press undertaking will have to be subject to specific conditions, the most important of which is that the person establishing such an undertaking must be a citizen of the country and a person who is well acquainted with the circumstances of the country because he lives in South Africa. We have seen what a strong hold certain newspapers have over journalists. I think there are journalists who are probably very grateful for the fact that this report does not show up certain specific abuses which take place and which are made possible by the fact that financial interests within those Press undertakings make nothing but slaves of some of these journalists. They are forced to write “blood-and-guts” stories, to write sensational reports and to speculate as to proposed governmental action—all for the sake of money. The governmental plane is a delicate plane and a responsible plane. It is not a plane which lends itself to speculation by every young inexperienced journalist who does not know the circumstances of the country. Is it fair that a journalist who has all those shortcomings should be permitted to speculate upon and express opinions about national policy at Government level? If I may make a suggestion as to how to rectify what is wrong with the Press, I would suggest that persons wishing to express opinions at that level and wishing to speculate at Government level, must be qualified persons who have been properly tested and who comply with certain qualifications. Thirdly, the Press should not be under the control of a group of capitalists who wish to exert political pressure. Sooner or later we shall have to draw the line somewhere or effect a break-through. We cannot permit a Press undertaking which is a utility institution, which has to educate the public to the truth, which is responsible for the maintenance of law and order and which has to support the State, to be monopolized by a group of capitalists who make use of that Press undertaking in order to exert political pressure. Sooner or later we shall have to make that break-through.

Do you agree with the report?

I do not want to express an opinion in regard to the report because I am not like the hon. member. I do not discuss something which I have not yet read. I want to end on this note. The Press in South Africa has a responsible duty. The Press in South Africa receives its freedom from the people. That freedom is a specific and special privilege. That privilege imposes certain responsibilities and obligations upon the shoulders of the Press. Those responsibilities involve the interests of the State and they are such that they cannot be entrusted to irresponsible, unqualified and incompetent people. [Time limit.]

It is a great pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), because he has sumbolized as nothing else could have done the course of this debate. We entered into this debate as the result of a challenge by the Minister of the Interior to discuss the Press Commission’s report; and now the last speaker on the Nationalist side has told us that he was not going to say a word about the Press Report, and I can well understand it. I looked at the various points made by hon. members opposite, and what were the main points? Member after member accused us of being cross. Perhaps we are, but I thought the crossness would come from the opposite side, for this debate has come as the result of a challenge from them. Where are these tremendous forces which were going to be thrown into the debate? Where is the tremendous exposition of the evils of the Press that we expected to get? We have had nothing but one damp squib after the other and a repetition of a few isolated examples. There has been no general charge sustained against the Press of South Africa. There has been nothing to justify the abolition of the Press Board of Reference and the substitution for it of a Press Board with dictatorial powers from which there will be no right of appeal, a board will have the right to deprive people of their livelihood. The least we expected when this challenge was thrown at us by the Minister was that members opposite would fill in the tremendous weaknesses in the commission’s report, namely that it did not do the work it was asked to do; it did not examine the South African Press. And there is no case against the ¡South African Press. The hon. members say that we want freedom of the Press without concomitant responsibilities on the part of the Press, but that is utter nonsense. Throughout our attitude has been that this Press Board of Reference has not had a chance. It has been in existence for only two years, and I think about eight charges have been brought to it against the Press. Surely if such widespread wickedness is being practised in South Africa, it was the duty of hon. members opposite to bring cases to the attention of the Press Board sitting under the chairmanship of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. We have been told again and again to-day that we must accept the commission’s report because it was under the chairmanship of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The Press Commission heard evidence but did not give any opportunity for those against whom there was evidence to refute that evidence. There was no cross-examination allowed. Before the Press Board of Reference there can be counterevidence, but they did not use it and they now want to impose something which is dictatorial in the place of the Press Board of Reference, which is an expression of responsibility by the Press itself. But they did not do so. There is only one explanation for their remissness. They did not have a case to bring before the Press Board. The interesting thing was that although the Minister told us that he was postponing judgment, not a single member opposite has postponed judgment. I wonder who reflects the atttitude of the party and the Government? I have not had a chance to read the full report, but on the basis of this summary I have had from the Department of Information, for which I am grateful, I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can judge on the contents of a report like this. We can understand why the Minister says he must postpone judgment, because this document exposes the Press Commission in a most unfortunate light, and it can only be explained by the fact that most of it was probably written by the hon. member for Standerton. One of the major complaints of the commission is not really about the reporting, but that there is not enough comment in favour of the Government in the reports sent overseas. If you look at page 14 of the summary, the commission says—

They ask for more comment to explain the Government’s policy in the most favourable light. Why should the free newspapers of South Africa lend themselves to that, unless there is a dictatorial, totalitarian Government? On the very next page it says—

Throughout this report the main complaint is not that the reports give the wrong facts, but consistently they complain that there is not comment in favour of the Government. How does one deal with a report like this? It makes it absolutely valueless as a judgment on news and news reporting. It is a judgment on the fact that this Government cannot gain favourable support from independent newspapers. That is what it means. This commission sat for 13 years. Why did it take so long? To judge from the internal evidence, it took so long because it could not find the evidence on which to pass judgment. It could not bring out a report on the evidence available, and so it had to waste its time in the most fatuous way. I want to point to something which occurs again and again in this report, and it is the most fatuous thing imaginable. Listen to this—

We who know something about journalism know that the number of words in a message is important, but one counts the number of words by taking an average per line and per page and then getting an average of the whole article, which is usually given in round figures, but here they have counted these words down to the last hundredth thousandth digit, and this appears again and again in the report, and then they analyse these words and assess how many were in favour and how many against the Government. It is ridiculous. On what principle did they count the words and put them into these categories? Were all four-letter words bad and all three-letter words good? [Laughter.] It is a childish business. But on this type of report we get words used like “traitors to South Africa”, “villain” and “criminal” thrown across the floor of the House in a most irresponsible manner by hon. members who should have more respect of their fellow-citizens in this country.

One of the most surprising things is that on several occasions the commission tried to gain sympathy for its condemnation of certain Press organs by complaining that the United Party also did not get fair treatment. I am sorry that we had to be dragged into it. We never complained. What is interesting is that elsewhere when it suits the commission it complains that the Press reports which went overseas almost exclusively supported the United Party point of view! [Laughter.] I find on page 31 of the summary an immediate contradiction in one paragraph. It says—

Then they go on—

But when it suits them the complaint is that the United Party was badly treated. [Time limit.]

There are three things which have become perfectly clear from the debate so far. Firstly, the United Party are unwilling to dissociate themselves from the common front which has been built up against us during this Session. You will remember, Sir, that the United Party joined the common front against us in connection with the South West question, and this debate has clearly proved that the United Party are so trapped in the results of their own actions in recent times that they can no longer dissociate themselves from their friends. They are irrevocably committed to maintaining that common front with all of those who are opposed to us. The second point is that the United Party are unwilling, particularly having regard to a certain by-election which is due to take place, to leave the leadership in the hands of the fair lady who sits here. They have to keep her in mind. In other words, they are committed to the leadership of the Progressive Party. The third point is this. Every week-end they are given a new lease on life. They remind me of a pot-flower on the verandah. When it has gone without water for a few days, it wilts and one has to water it again. Every week, on about Friday afternoon, the United Party drop and wilt; then the week-end newspapers come along and water them and on Monday morning they are full of life again. They are therefore committed not only to the front which they themselves have created and not only to the leadership of the Progressive Party, but they are also committed to the recipe which the English-medium Press prescribes for them every week-end and every morning. That explains the sudden inexplicable scene which is being enacted here. The hon. the Minister has stood up here and has said: “Here we have a report; it is a long report; we must have time to study this report.” The least one can expect of a member of this House to do is to see that he has the facts before he speaks. The hon. the Minister told us yesterday: “I want to say on behalf of the Government that at a given time, after everyone has had an opportunity to study this voluminous report properly, we will make known our decision in connection with the report.” He did not say that we would accept or reject the report or accept or reject it partially. But here we find that the United Party are irrevocably committed to these three things that I have mentioned; they are no longer masters of themselves. Sir, a tragic thing has been happening here during this Session. I am not going to say anything about the report of the Press Commission and I shall tell hon. members why. I cannot speak about the contents of that report because I do not have the necessary information. But that does not prevent me from expressing an opinion in regard to the tragedy that is taking place here. I want to say this. If we take out a national balance sheet for the 15-year period during which this campaign of vilification has been in operation, we find that we have become economically stronger, not economically weaker. Secondly, although our numbers in South Africa are small, South Africa is playing a role in international politics which is out of all proportion to our numbers in this country. When Verwoerd speaks, the whole world sits up and takes notice. [Laughter.] The pro-leftists sit up and take notice; those who belong to the right wing sit up and take notice and those who sit between two stools also sit up and take notice. But because of the honest attitude that she has adopted, South Africa has carved out a place for herself in international politics, a place which is unequalled in history, and it is that achievement which the Press, against which the report of the commission is directed, seeks to destroy.

I want to mention a third point. We have a good idea within the country as to what we are up against in the outside world. We know on what fronts we have to fight both within the country and outside the country. But what worries our people is the fact that an overall image has been created of South Africa—and now I am not speaking about the Press Commission; I am speaking from my own experience—which fits in with three things: It fits in with the methods of our enemies; it fits in with the strategy of the common front which has been created against us and it fits in with the overall picture which is associated with the onslaught of the enemy upon our right of existence, and this is where the crux of the matter lies. We are disgusted with this Press; the people are disgusted with it, whatever anybody who sits here may say. The public has made up its mind about the Press and the Government of South Africa will have to take note of the attitude of the public, whether it wants to do so or not. This is the voice of the nation and it is because our people regard the assault made upon us by the enemy as synonymous with the attack of certain Press organizations upon our struggle for existence, that they are perturbed and that feelings are running high. [Interjections.] It is not even necessary for me to read the report of the Press Commission. I know that I am right and these hon. members know that I am right. Do they want to deny that we are engaged in a life and death struggle, together with the Western world, and that we are at the moment being used as a “whipping boy” in order to camouflage their disunity and their strategic aims? It is because our survival is at stake that our people have a grudge against certain Pressmen—not so much against organs of the Press as against Pressmen—who are joining forces with our enemies in attacking our right of survival. [Time limit.]

I was pointing out some of the peculiar deficiencies in this report itself. One of its most astonishing mistakes to me is the attack it makes on the South African Press Association. It has been referred to by other speakers. A few minutes ago, one of my colleagues referred to this and showed it was criticism also of the Nationalist Party newspapers in this country. The hon. member for Standerton, who is one of the few survivors of this commission—he managed to survive the life of the commission—said that he still stood by every word. Does he really stand by the attack on the South African Press Association? Does he? Does he really, as he has said, stand by every word that was written in this commission’s report and the statement that the South African Press Association presented a wrong picture of South Africa to the world? I wonder whether he realizes who the people in charge of the South African Press Association are?

It does not matter who they are.

I am sorry. It matters very much indeed. Yesterday evening we had the names of people like Mr. Clive Corder and Mr. A. I. D. Brown thrown across the floor of this House. Then it mattered. I want the hon. member to stand up and tell me: “Does he really think that the people who are the directors and the people who control the policy and the practices of the S.A. Press Association would remain silent if Sapa harmed their country?

By whom are they controlled?

Some of them are controlled by the hon. the Prime Minister. As far as I can see, the Press Commission’s report nowhere shows that any of the responsible directors of the S.A. Press Association have dissociated themselves from the practices of their company. Who are these people? Among others, Mr. Hubert—Mr. H. de V. Coetzee of the Nasionale Pers—one of the prominent, one of the more intelligent former editors who is now on the business side. He is a fine man. I know him. I cannot believe, as the hon. member for Standerton obviously does, that he will allow an organization of which he is a director to bring discredit on South Africa and be quiet about it. Another of these people is Mr. H. H. Dreyer of the Volksblad, who is, I think, known to every member of this House who has been here for some years. Must we really believe that Mr. Dreyer would lend his name to an organization that brings discredit to South Africa and distorts the picture of South Africa throughout the world? There is another name, Sir, namely Mr. Otto Schivellnus. He is a friend of mine. I know Otto as an honourable man. I want to see the day that Otto will allow his name, as suggested by the hon. member for Standerton, to be put on the board of directors of an association which practises the vilification of South Africa’s good name. My biggest surprise of all was to see the name of an old university friend of mine, Mr. C. D. Fuchs, of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, who is a director of Sapa. The Press Commission tells us that these people willingly associate themselves with an organization that libels South Africa and distorts the South African picture throughout the world. I know how I feel about this, but I ask hon. members opposite: “How much importance can we attach to a report that stoops to stupidities such as these from the Nationalist Party point of view?” The main trouble with this report is that it is utterly superficial. It deals with many examples of what it calls “good reporting”, “bad reporting”, “very bad reporting”, “malreporting in English” and so on. Hundreds and thousands of words have been analysed, but nowhere does it go into the fundamental problem that faces us in South Africa.

Have you read the report?

I have not read the report. I have …

Then you must not say things like that.

I have read the summary.

The summary was not written by the commission.

The summary was written by the State Information Department. The hon. member for Standerton has repudiated the leaders of the Nationalist Party Press. Now he must please stand up and repudiate the State Information Office and my day will be complete. This is, from the Government’s point of view, a fair summary. The hon. member can tell me if I am wrong, but nowhere is there an analysis of the fundamental problem that faces South Africa, and that is: “Why do the newspapers of the world prefer to publish adverse criticism of South Africa rather than criticism favourable to the Government?” The answer is very simple. It lies in the fact that the Government we have in power to-day is out of touch with the realities of the world in the second half of the twentieth century. It lies in the fact that the Government expects the Press to explain to the world a policy which cannot stand the analysis of an honest, unbiased mind. That is our problem. This Government has made a mistake which the world will never be able to understand, no matter how much favourable comment the Press sends at the request of this commission. They have taken away the organized political voice of the vast majority of the people who live in this country and they have denied them an opportunity to speak through this Parliament. When people are denied a political organization which is legitimate they resort to illegitimate organizations. That is why Pressmen who come to South Africa have to go, as is stated in the report, to irresponsible men. They cannot go to responsible people representing, for example, the Black people of South Africa. There are none, except perhaps in the Transkei. The Government must accept that. Sir. The Government have abolished their councils and they have abolished their representation in this House. They have been silenced. The only people who can speak for them are the self-appointed agitators. People who want to present a full picture of South Africa like the correspondents of the world Press, are forced to rely upon agitators for the views they send overseas. Can the hon. member for Standerton tell me whether the Press Commission paid any attention to that fundamental problem that we face as South Africans when we want to sell the good name and the good image of South Africa to the world outside?

Let us face the facts: All the Press commissions in the world, all the broadcasts by radio and all the reports sent overseas by well-disposed Pressmen will not change the fundamental fact that as long as the present Government is in power there is no hope that South Africa’s image in the world will be what it should be, namely, an image of a prosperous land peopled by enlightened folk who are determined to see progress and justice for all the peoples in that land.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) once again yielded to the true instincts of the United Party at the end of his speech. He tried at the start to make use of a political trick by leading this debate in the direction of asking whether we wanted the Press Reference Board or the new council recommended by the commission. But in the long run he reverted to United Party practice. What have the United Party revealed to-day? The hon. member spoke about a superficial report, Mr. Chairman! The United Party have revealed in the first place the fact that they stand for the unconditional freedom of the Press, irrespective of whether their members have read the report or not. In the second place the United Party, through the medium of the hon. member for Yeoville, have rejected the accusations against the journalists who have fed unfair reports to the overseas Press because the United Party believe that the image of South Africa overseas is unfavourable simply and solely as the result of the actions of this Government. In other words, the United Party associate themselves with the critical attitude adopted against us overseas by saying: We agree with the outside world that the fault lies exclusively with the Government.

In the third place—I want to discuss this matter because the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has now come into the Chamber—the United Party have through the medium of that hon. member revealed their groundless race hatred for the Afrikaners in this party. The hon. member who likes to make himself out to be an objective person, to be a person who is ostensibly well-disposed towards the Afrikaner, stated quite simply that in spite of what may be contained in this report, he is absolutely in favour of the freedom of the Press. He tried to support his personal view by referring to the fact that during the war years General Smuts also adopted this attitude. But to what lengths did he not go, thus revealing his deeply spiteful nature! He took a judgment of Mr. Justice Millin—and I challenge him to deny it—which by all standards was not the best judgment ever given by Mr. Justice Millin.

Who says so?

I say so, and I challenge the hon. member to deny in any debate or at any place that that judgment was certainly not one of the Mr. Justice Millin’s best judgment.

Why did he not appeal?

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the hon. member for Germiston (District). We can discuss this matter later. The hon. member quoted the whole judgment of Mr. Justice Millin, which, as I say, was certainly not his best, and why did he do so? In the first place, he quoted it in order to give the outside world, which is interested in this debate, the opportunity of using the tarbrush of Nazism on the Government, and accordingly on South Africa. This judgment which he quoted describes our present Prime Minister as a person who was sympathetically disposed towards the Nazis. That was the hon. member’s prime intention. He wanted to make use of this favourable opportunity to give the outside world the opportunity of seeing us as Nazis. In the second place, the hon. member quoted that judgment in order to belittle the hon. the Prime Minister and to give himself the satisfaction of showing up the hon. the Prime Minister as a person who was guilty of publishing a distorted report although he, the hon. the Prime Minister, the symbol of this Party and of the people, makes himself out to be the champion of the freedom of the Press. I say that I am grateful that the hon. member has once again revealed his personal and his party’s race hatred in this way.

Let me deal now with the merits of this report. We have never objected to reporting which has indicated that there are practices, pieces of legislation and also occurrences in South Africa which are unacceptable to the outside world. We must frankly admit that. Those things can be reported lawfully. But we maintain that there are also many incidents, pieces of legislation and practices which are highly acceptable to the outside world and which are even attractive to them. And we say that it is a striking fact that these favourable things are hardly ever reported but that the unfavourable things are always reported. We say that if this Press reporting shows itself to be a system of reporting in terms of which only the unacceptable image is shown to the outside world and the acceptable image is hidden from the outside world, then it is the responsibility of our people to act against that sort of thing. We cannot avoid the issue by saying, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) said: I am in favour of the absolute and unqualified freedom of the Press. We cannot shirk our duty to protect our country by saying, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, that all the bad reporting overseas is due to the actions of this Government. He himself knows that that is not true although that is what he likes to say for political purposes. It has been stated in attacks made on the report of the Press Commission, amongst others, by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in regard to whom I have nothing further to say, that wrong information was also sent overseas in the past by the South African Information Office and, according to her, it was information that was favourably coloured. That is reasonable and it is to be expected. They must paint a favourable picture of South Africa. It is now a Department which was originally brought into being as an Information Office to paint a favourable picture of South Africa and if one is able to accuse them of not being objecive, there is at least some excuse for it. But the Press as such—and here I am referring particular to Reuter and Sapa and other Press agencies—have a duty to report objectively. It is a completely different matter when a Press agency, which is supposed to give all the news, colours that news. That is what we object to. That is why the attitude of this side of the House is that although at this stage we are not committed to any particular action in regard to the Press, we say in the first place that this report does support the general feeling of concern that we have often expressed in regard to the actions of the Press in South Africa. We accuse the United Party of having adopted the attitude that no matter what this unread report may contain, they exonerate the Press. No matter what proof to the contrary may be produced, the United Party, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) told us, is in favour of the absolute freedom of the Press, no matter what may be contained in the report.

He did not say that.

The hon. member will do better to listen than to talk because what he says is usually wrong and what I am telling him now is true. The attitude of the United Party is that they are in favour of the unqualified freedom of the Press. This is what we have been told by the hon. member for Germiston (District).

Under the existing rules.

There are no rules. The Press Reference Board has no authority. The Press Reference Board is a purely voluntary body without any authority for imposing sanctions. In other words, there are no rules.

It is a body which has responsibility.

It is a voluntary body without any authority to impose sanctions, without the authority to enforce anything. In other words, it is a body which is completely powerless. In any case, that is not the point at issue. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has come here with an argument typical of his party—the argument that it is quite all right for them to do what they like and to say what they like, but heaven help anyone else who dares to criticize. The hon. member had the nerve to take the hon. member for Germiston-District to task for quoting out of a court record. If anything can be more official and reliable than a court record, I would like to know, but that hon. member reflects on the judgment of a court and prefers to rely on the judgment of one of his colleagues, a politician, who is the last remaining member, with the exception of the chairman, of the commission; a person who, here in this House, as a politician sits in judgment on political issues, quotes extracts from reports, and the hon. member for Kempton Park prefers those extracts from reports to court records of facts and then criticizes us for dealing with the facts as set out in a court case. The reason is that they themselves know that part of the blame for the world attitude to this Government and to South Africa under this Government, is the shocking shambles of a record which their party put up when South Africa was at war. The history of the falsity of South Africans towards their own country is something that has not been forgotten by people who suffered so that the world may be free. Yet when an example is quoted of a newspaper which was found guilty of aiding the enemy of South Africa, we may not mention it—then we are dragging South Africa’s name in the mud. It is all right to do that thing, to do the deed, but we must not talk about it.

You reveal yourselves as the racialists you are.

If the hon. member objects to our referring to this fact, why does he not get up and make excuses for the deed which we refer to?

Before I conclude, I want to come back to the Minister, who said to us that we would get our just desserts. He flung out his arms and said: I challenge you to a debate; I am not going to answer you; you will get your just desserts. He said: “Sa”, and we waited or the dogs to bark, but all we heard were just the little puppies. The gladiators have turned out to have wooden swords and tin shields. The hon. member for Ventersdorp said he did not even read the summary of the report and that he would not talk about it. Not only have we not had a single justification for the Minister’s challenge to us, not only have we not had a single attack from that side of the House which requires answering…[Interjection.] The Minister did not even trust that gladiator, the Minister of Information. He was prepared to give that Minister’s officials a copy of the report, but not to the Minister himself. No, he is the last gladiator to talk, when his own colleague will not even trust him with the report.

You are not winning the debate, but you are losing the election.

What a fit epitaph! The Minister has now admitted that what he is interested in is not the welfare of South Africa or the freedom of the Press of the image of this country, but the votes they can win by trying to blame the Opposition for the scandalous reporting in some papers. We have condemned those reports, but we seek freedom for the Press, with responsibility. Every one of us condems false reports, but this Minister has written the epitaph to this debate, by saying: You will lose the election. In other words he does not give a darn for South Africa and he is not interested in the freedom of the Press; he is just interested in the little political glamour he may win from it. I want to ask the Minister whether this report is good value for R350,000. I think that Minister owes South Africa an explanation. Does he regard this as good value for R350,000, sitting counting the number of words in cables and adding them up on an adding machine? Is that what the taxpayers paid R350,000 for? I think that Minister owes the people of South Africa and this House an explanation and an apology for wasting the money of the taxpayers.

Vote put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

On Revenue Vote No. 21—“Public Service Commission”,—R1,233,000,

May I Sir, ask for the privilege of the half hour. There is one advantage in persevering with hon. Ministers of the Government and that is that if you are consistent enough and state your case pertinently enough and frequently enough, you will in the end inevitably find that the Minister concerned gets the idea that the suggestions we have put to him across the floor of the House are his own and that he in due course gets up and announces as Government policy that for which this side of the House has struggled for a long time. We had evidence of this tendency the other night with the hon. the Minister of Transport. For four years we have been asking him to appoint a commission for certain purposes. The other night he got up and said that he would appoint the commission, but he created the impression that it was on his own initiative. But I can only hope that we will have similar success to-night with the hon. the Minister of the Interior under whose jurisdiction the Public Service Commission falls.

I want to tell him that we on this side of the House believe that the time has come that it is necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry into the public service and that with three main objectives. Firstly: To investigate the conditions of the service in the light of the needs of public servants; secondly: to examine the existing and ever-increasing staff establishment in order to establish whether in the light of modern management techniques this establishment is top-heavy or not and whether it fully meets the administrative needs of the country; and thirdly: to consider whether the public service as organized at present, adequately meets the object of serving the needs of the people of South Africa in the light of the development of our country into a modern industrial State. Now, let me say right away that we know the replies the Minister will probably give to our arguments. Nevertheless I want to ask him to-night to lift himself out of the rut into which his political thinking has brought him and to think objectively and of South Africa as it is in the 20th century. There is no doubt, not even amongst top-ranking public servants, public servants who are devoted to their calling that there is to-day a doubt in these people’s minds as to the effectiveness of the present administrative procedures of the public service. These men, just as we on these benches, feel that unless the Government adopts a new approach to and takes a new look at these administrative practices, there is the danger that the service will become completely outdated.

Twenty years have passed since there was last an independent commission to investigate the Public Service, i.e. in 1944. That commission considered the period of 20 years before that time. But in the 20 years that have passed since that date. South Africa has undergone vast changes. The fact remains, however, that we are still adhering to old practices in our administrative procedures of State, practices which consequently are completely out of date, fitting as they do the times of 1944. As against this, nothing has or is being done to adjust our administrative procedures to meet the needs of 1964 or of the years that lie ahead.

There is another aspect to the matter, i.e. the human aspect. To-day there are 167.000 posts on the fixed establishment of the Public Service, i.e. on the authorized establishment. But that is not all. Taking into account their families and dependants there are altogether thousands of persons concerned. It is a conservative estimate to say that there are about 300.000 persons who are affected by what happens in the Public Service. Now if this mass of people should harbour disagreements and feelings of irritation, then it can have only one effect and that is that our country’s administration will be adversely affected. There is no doubt that there is a measure of discontent within the ranks of the Public Service to-day. I know the Minister will deny it. As a matter of fact, on a previous occasion he has attempted to prove that that was not so. But it is a fact that such discontent does exist to-day. Since the last statement of the hon. the Minister in this House to the effect that everything was rosy in the garden as far as the Public Service was concerned, plenty of evidence has come into the possession from outside of the House, plus comment from outside, to show that that is not so. Time does not permit me to go into details nor to cite a number of cases but I nethertheless want to draw attention to one or two instances even if just to emphasize my point. Take, for instance, the basis on which promotions are at present being granted in the Public Service, i.e. on the basis of a merit system. The Minister is on record as having said this year that, and here I quote his words—

And then follow these significant words—

Now, let me say that public servants disagree violently with the hon. the Minister in this connection. As it is no use making a statement without bringing the necessary proof therefor, let me give the necessary proof for what I am saying. I hope the hon. the Minister takes note of what is going on in the Public Service. I want to quote from a publication published in the Orange Free State. In August 1962 300 public servants met at a meeting of their association and took the following unanimous resolution—

I do not want to quote the full report but the following also was said at the meeting—

This then is the attitude of responsible public servants—they do not wash their dirty linen or broadcast in public what is happening within their service thereby undermining public confidence. The report goes on—

Here it is well to recall the words of the hon. the Minister, i.e. that it was only the disgruntled, that it was only those whose merits were too low that complained. But this report said—

Now let me ask the hon. the Minister whether every one of these 300 public servants have a merit so low that they cannot get promotion. The facts of the matter are that there is disagreement amongst the public servants themselves about the manner in which promotion is presently being granted. This is endorsed by the fact that the Public Servants’ Association also wants a review of the present system of promotion.

There is another aspect which gives emphasis to my point and that is that there are constant delays in attending complaints from individual staff members. It is a fact that the present regulations are completely inadequate for the purpose of dealing quickly with such complaints. If the hon. the Minister wants to challenge me on this point, I shall quote to him from the official publication of the Public Servants Association of April 1964. That issue carried a leader under the heading: “Scandalous delays” with the following comment—

Here I am reminded of the contention of the hon. the Minister that they do not want this inquiry. In fact public servants do want such an inquiry and they have never stopped asking for such an inquiry.

Let me now turn to the second reason for asking for this commission of enquiry, i.e. to examine the ever increasing staff establishment. What now is the existing position in this connection? For the last year of operation of the Public Service Commission for which we have information, no less than 6,065 new posts were created. What does this indicate? It indicates that since 1956, i.e. during an eight-year period no less than 43,053 new posts were created on the fixed establishment of the Public Service, making a gross total of about 167,000 posts altogether. This increase of 43,000-odd new posts represents an increase of 33⅓ per cent of the establishment of the Public Service over a period of only eight years. But in the same period of eight years no less than 22,106 public servants resigned! Now, I know what tactics the hon. the Minister will resort to when he replies to the debate, i.e. that he will take one or two divisions, make a percentage out of it and thereby try to paint a glossy picture of the whole situation. But if he challenges the correctness of these figures then he must realize that if he quotes any other figures in this connection he will be discounting his own Public Service Commission because these figures have been given by the commission itself. I repeat: No less than 22,106 resignations took place during a period of eight years. But the tragedy of these resignations is that of this number no less than 5,000 are resignations of public servants belonging to the technical and professional divisions of the civil service. Another shocking fact is that of the existing approved establishment no less than 20,420 posts are being filled by non-permanent appointments. Let me repeat: No less than 20,420 posts are not filled by permanent units. The question which now arises is: What about the management of to-morrow? What about the men who to-morrow must assume responsibility in the service if we have this large number of vacancies and resignations now? Who is going to be trained to take over the responsibility of top-management positions in the Public Service in future if we have this large number of vacancies and resignations now? As a matter of fact, so bad is the position in this regard that the commission is now resorting to the use of non-Whites, temporarily I admit, in posts on the fixed establishments for Whites! Where is job reservation now? I notice that dead silence reigns on the other side. Nor do I hear any challenge from there that what I am saying is not true! [Interruptions.] I am sure that hon. members can draw their own conclusions from these figures I have quoted, and form their own opinion in regard to what is happening in the Public Service to-day in so far as meeting the administrative requirements of our country is concerned. Knowing the policies of this Government, we know how serious the situation is if we notice that non-Whites have to be appointed to posts reserved for Whites.

My third reason for appointing such a commission of inquiry is the introduction of new administrative techniques. In this fast-moving world of ours, there is need for the necessity of making rapid decisions and of making virile action possible. It is a further fact that the salaries granted to top-management personnel of Government Departments have no comparable basis whatsoever with the salaries of their counterparts in the private sector of our economy. It is, thus, ridiculous that we have to sit in this House and vote R200 entertainment allowance for the Secretary for Commerce and Industries while he is daily brought into touch with the entrepreneur and the topmanagement personnel of industry and commerce. He finds himself in a position where he cannot even return the normal hospitality required of a person in such circumstances. The facts of the matter are that the allowances given to top-management personnel of Government Departments are not even equivalent to that of a third-rate motorcar salesman.

It is also quite obvious that if we do not apply new management techniques, the adequate training of the personnel who will have to fill the posts of to-morrow and thus ensure an efficient State administrative machine will collapse completely with a resultant collapse of the whole administrative machinery of the State because the men will not be there to fill the responsible posts of to-morrow.

I think I have said enough in the time which was available to me to indicate that there is the necessity for appointing an impartial commission of inquiry fully representative of the various interests of this country in order to ensure that we shall have an efficient administrative set-up in South Africa in this the 20th century. The time to do so has now arrived and I hope the Minister will at long last see the light and accede to the wishes and representations of this side of the House in this matter.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has again raised a matter on which he moved a motion in this House earlier this Session. The matter was thoroughly discussed on that occasion. Of course, a vote was not taken on the motion although the hon. the Minister did participate in the debate. It appeared quite clear from the debate in this regard that the reason advanced by the hon. member for the appointment of a commission of this nature—that the public servants themselves had asked for it—was not a valid one because actually the public servants did not make a request of this nature. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now chatting with the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) and is not listening to what I have to say to him. As far as the hon. member for Florida is concerned it appears to me as though he does not yet know the rules of etiquette in this House. Let me tell him therefore that it is only common courtesy not to distract an hon. member when, after he has addressed the House, another hon. member is replying to him. He must listen to the reply to his speech. In any case, the hon. member for Turffontein has once again contended that the public servants themselves want a commission of inquiry. But it is not true that public servants want a commission of inquiry. This is what happened. The Public Servants’ Association asked the Public Service Commission whether that body would support the request of the association for a commission if such a request was made. At the same time the association pointed out that a commission of this nature had been appointed 20 years ago and asked whether the commission did not think that the time was ripe for the appointment of another commission of inquiry. But the commission stated that it saw no justification for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into general conditions in the Public Service at that stage. The commission pointed out that it had the machinery available to enable it to keep abreast not only of developments in the Public Service of South Africa but also of developments in the Public Services of other countries. The fact is that in many respects the organization of South Africa’s Public Service is superior to that of other Public Services. Accordingly, other countries can learn from us. So we find people coming to this country from overseas in order to study our particular Public Service structure. We are generally considered to have an excellent Public Service organization in this country.

I want now to deal with the various reasons advanced by the hon. member for the appointment of a commission of this nature. The first point that he made was that a commission of this nature should ascertain whether the service was organized efficiently or not. In this connection I may say that changes in this respect are continually being made by the Public Service Commission precisely because they are watching the position so carefully. Every possible change which may be of advantage to our service is introduced and applied. The Public Service Commission have expert staff available for this purpose and I do not think that a commission can teach it very much more about these matters. I do not believe it. Another matter which the hon. member wants investigated is the merit system of promotion. There is a great deal to be said for and at the same time against the system of promotion. Public servants generally admit to-day that this system is better than the old system under which officials were promoted simply on the grounds of seniority. Under the old system it was quite possible for a person who would have received no merit rating to have become the head of a department. Under the new system anything of this nature is of course impossible. This new system has now undergone its probationary period. But there are still shortcomings in this system and that is why we are pleased to notice that the Public Service Commission revises the system from time to time precisely with the idea of eliminating any grievances that may exist in this regard. But we shall never succeed in eliminating one thing and that is the question of the human element. Where judgment has to be passed upon the merits of officials, the human element will always play a part. This can give rise to the fact that some officials may not be given the number of marks to which they are entitled. But we shall always have to run this risk. It is something which can never be eliminated completely.

Another point which the hon. member made was that there were many complaints in the Public Service itself. But where on earth will we find a service having 167,000 permanent officials as well as many thousands of temporary officials in which no complaints are forthcoming? Humanly speaking, such a thing is not possible. Indeed, we shall not be able to find one firm in which there are no complaints, even though that firm may only have 50 people on its staff. So how can we expect no complaints to be forthcoming amongst 167,000 officials? I agree with the hon. member for Turffontein that in many causes sufficiently swift action is not taken in connection with complaints. But this is not something which justifies the appointment of a commission. This is an individual factor and can be tackled direct. What is more, the Government has already given attention to this matter and staff heads and staff managers will be appointed. It will be the function of these people to meet officials with a view to eliminating any grievances that may arise or which do in fact exist.

But that has only just been done.

That is true, so why does the hon. member want results at this early stage?

What is the actual reason for the appointment of those officials?

There is the tendency to-day on the part of many business institutions to appoint staff managers of this nature. This is a new development in the technique of staff control. The same technique is now being introduced into the Public Service. It is a step forward.

The hon. member also spoke about the number of resignations—22,000 over a period of eight years. But are 3,000 resignations per annum out of a staff of 167,000 such a very very high percentage of the whole? It is only in the vicinity of 3 per cent. In my opinion a service in which resignations number only 3 per cent is an excellent service. The hon. member referred particularly to the professional officers who are leaving the service. But does the hon. member not know that it is these people who are sought after not only in South Africa but throughout the world? As far as this qualified type of person is concerned therefore we have to compete with the whole world. Does the hon. member not know that the salaries of these people were raised considerably last year? Details in this regard were given when we debated this matter early in the Session and so I do not want to repeat them now. Suffice to say that their salaries have been greatly improved. But no matter what their salaries may be, the State will never be able to compete with the private sector for the services of these people. There are no rules and regulations governing staff salaries in the private sector and so private enterprise can offer an official two or three times the salary that the State can offer him. If the State tries to compete in this regard it will upset the whole of its salary structure.

The hon. member who has just spoken says that it sometimes happens that private concerns offer an important technical or professional State servant two or three times his salary in order to get his services. Although this does sometimes happen, it is not of very frequent occurrence. It is not on that account that the Public Service fails to retain these men especially on the scientific and professional side. The real reason why the service fails to retain these men is that the posts at the top are too lowly graded as far as salary is concerned. The young man wanting to join the service looks at the top posts which he hopes to reach and when he sees that the salary attaching to those posts are too low, he considers it not worth his while to join. Let me give a few examples of the salaries attaching to these top posts in the service to-day. A new scheme has been brought into operation in terms of which provision is made for adequate remuneration for really outstanding scientists by the introduction of a special salary scale and promotion on a personal basis. But how does the Public Service Commission find out who is really an outstanding scientist? Who is to guide them? Do they pick the man who threatens to leave the service and go elsewhere? And what is more, it is not the loss of a few men at the top that matters so much as is the failure to keep young men. Not only do these young men find pay overseas much better but they also find that circumstances in which they have to work are much better. For instance, they are not stinted for laboratories, nor for clerical help, nor for technological assistance. Neither are they handicapped by questions of language. It is these things which are driving our young men from our service. The Public Service Commission must realize that they must create posts of such a value that young men would make it their aim to get there. Let us take the post of the Government Mining Engineer. Now, if there is to be an outstanding scientist in this country, that scientist should be the Government Mining Engineer. He is carrying on his shoulders alone the responsibility for the lives of 500,000 men going underground. The mining industry said to the Government that that industry was paying a consulting engineer of about the same standard as the Government Mining Engineer a salary of R15,000 per annum. The Government Mining Engineer gets R6,800. The industry recommended that he be paid R10,600 per annum, i.e. allowing for the fact that a State servant is paid a little less. And it must be remembered that a consulting engineer from the point of view of pension, etc., is just as well off as the Government Mining Engineer.

Take the position of the Chief Medical Officer. This person is being paid R8,100 per annum. Think of his responsibilities and of what he has to do and what onus he carries. Think also of what he can earn in the private sector. The result has been that the Minister of Health has had to call in an outside person and pay him something like R2,000 extra, while being a full-time servant in another State department, as a planning officer. Why not grade the position of Chief Health Officer high enough so as to attract the best men? He does not get as much as a traveller for pharmaceutical drugs, Sir. Take the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene. Why are there so many vacancies in the Department of Mental Hygiene? There are 25,000 mental hygiene beds in the country, apart from outpatients, and everyone is under the care of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, who is paid less than the Chief Health Officer at the moment. Not that he should be paid more. Take the chief of the Department of Tuberculosis. [Interjections.] He has the responsibility of spending R11,500,000 on the sick but what is his salary? Six thousand eight hundred rand!

When you look into the Post Office engineers’ Department and compare them with other countries.…[Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is it competent for me to suggest that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) should be given psychiatric treatment?

How can you expect the engineers in the Post Office to take the interest in their work that they should, and how can you expect young men to enter the Post Office service, when you think that in Great Britain there are five public servants in the post office whose salaries are higher than that of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Director General gets £8,200 compared with the Minister who gets £5,000. The tele-communications engineer gets £5,800 and so it goes on. The Engineer-in-Chief gets £6,780. I failed to mention that the Chief Health Officer in England is paid £12,000.

The position is this, Sir, that unless the Public Service pays greater attention to the salaries of professional men they are going to lose them and they are not going to attract the young ones. [Time limit.]

In view of the fact that the Public Service Association of South Africa has for several years recommended to the Government the need to accept the principle of equal pay for equal work as between men and women in the Civil Service, I wish to add my support, and that of this side of the House, to that plea. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who is not here this evening, moved a private member’s motion on this subject in this House in 1962 on behalf of the Opposition. I was very interested this evening to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever), with whom I very seldom agree on any matter at all, saying he was all in favour of the “meriete stelsel”. Well, I was delighted to hear him say that provided he is prepared to admit that the principle should apply to both men and women in the full sense of the word.

The policy of this side of the House, as hon members know, is the rate for the job. We take the view, and I think it is a justifiable view, that where training and qualification and experience can be proved to be equal there should be no discrimination between the salaries paid to men and women in any profession. So let us start with the Civil Service. It is our view that a lead should be given by the Government in this matter. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that right back in 1954 this principle was accepted by the United Kingdom Government, where they applied it to the Civil Service, and that principle is today applied throughout in the United Kingdom. One of the arguments used against the principle of the rate for the job is that the man must always be considered to be the breadwinner in any capacity, but of course, particularly in his capacity as the father of the household. That does not by any means always apply in the modern world of to-day. As hon. members will know there are many women in the world to-day who are responsible either for dependants of one kind or another or who find it necessary to assist their families by financing them for one reason or another. ….

And keep their husbands.

Yes! Sir, I have always thought it an intolerable intrusion on the part of the authorities to concern themselves with the domestic affairs of any family in this regard. The question of who is the breadwinner in any family is no concern of any Government Department. That is the view the women of South Africa take in this matter. In other words, we ask no favours in this regard at all. We are mreely asking for a square deal. If my qualifications are equal to yours, Sir, then our salaries should be the same.

Many curious anomalies exist in South Africa at the present time. I think you will agree, Sir, that there would be an immediate uproar if, for instance, a woman medical doctor or a qualified woman architect or assistant public prosecutor, or a Member of Parliament or Provincial Councillor were paid less than their male colleagues. I would be the first to create an uproar. On the other hand we have the strange position where teachers, nurses and other women who are professionally trained are in fact discriminated against in this regard. I think if the Minister would accept this principle of equal pay for equal work he would be doing South Africa a good turn because the men and women of the Public Service Association have been recommending the acceptance of this principle for some years.

Another argument which is often used by prejudiced people, if I may put it that way, against this principle of equal pay for equal work, is that if competent women were promoted the men would refuse to serve any such women. I find that a rather unnatural and arrogant attitude. After all, our husbands and our sons are prepared to accept that situation so I cannot really see why others should not! The fact of the matter is that the country is desperately short of workers at the moment and the Public Service, as the hon. member for Turffontein has pointed out, is desperately short. It has already been agreed that many of these gaps should be filled by women where possible. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to Annexure D to the report of the Public Service Commission. There is given the number of vacancies and the number of temporary employees employed against vacant posts. The number of posts on the fixed establishment not filled by permanent encumbents is 10,559 and the number of temporary employees against vacant posts filled by women is 6,307, and of those 4,768 are married women. So you have the extraordinary situation whereby it is necessary for a footnote to appear underneath this table which reads as follows: “The excess of women employed over the number of posts for women is due to the employment of women against posts for men.” In other words, 60 per cent of the posts temporarily filled in the Public Service are at the moment filled by women. And of that percentage 75 are professional people and 27 are technical people. I am quite certain that those 75 women employed in a professional capacity are not getting the same salary as their male equivalents and that they certainly do not get the pay which the posts demand.

Let me say one thing quite categorically on behalf of the women workers of this country, namely, that the average woman, especially the trained woman, can safely be trusted to see that her home and her family are not neglected. We do not require a Government Department to tell us where our duty lies in that regard. I am sorry, Sir, but I think it is something which is really outdated. You can safely leave it to us to decide where our duties and our responsibilities lie. The important thing to the Public Service is, I think, that if it wants to employ the maximum number of women workers it must be prepared to give them adequate promotion and adequate prospects because people simply will not continue to-day to hold jobs which are dead-end jobs. Why should they? If the State gives the lead in this matter I can only tell the hon. the Minister that the response of women workers in this country would be immediate. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister in case he does not know it already, that there are thousands of university-trained women in South Africa to-day who are not gainfully employed. Many of them are people with great knowledge and experience. They could play a very great part in assisting the country in this immediate crisis of a manpower shortage. The introduction of this principle of equal pay for equal work in the Public Service would go a long way to encourage them to come back and give what assistance they can.

As the hon. the Minister has had rather a tough time this afternoon I want to end my speech this evening by quoting to him four short extracts to prove to this House how very wrong some of the built-in prejudices have been in the past with regard to what could happen if women were given any sort of headway in public life. I have short quotations here, which won’t take me long, from the debate on the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill of 1930. This will prove to the Minister how false those fears have proved to be. When we were given the vote by General Hertzog in 1930—I may add that that measure was opposed by the Nationalists and supported by the Opposition. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He asked for a commission of inquiry into the Public Service. He advanced three important reasons why he thought that such a commission was necessary. In order to relieve his anxiety I want to tell him immediately that it is not my intention to appoint a commission of this nature. We have had two commissions of inquiry into the Public Service. The first was the Graham Commission which investigated the Public Service after the First World War. After this we had the Centlivres Commission which investigated Public Service matters at the end of the Second World War. Both of these commissions were appointed at a time when conditions were not normal. Conditions in the Public Service needed investigating as a result of the two world wars. Since that time the Public Service Commission has been able throughout, as a permanent commission, to effect the necessary changes and to make the necessary inquiries. A clear proof of this is as follows: In 1960 our Public Service Commission sent a deputation to Canada. While our deputation was over there to see how they went about things there, a commission of inquiry was investigating the Canadian Public Service. The report of that Canadian Commission came out in 1963. A comparison between that report and its recommendations and those of our own Public Service showed that the recommendations of the Canadian Commission had long since been applied by our Public Service Commission. If the hon. member for Turffontein will just take the trouble to study that report on the Canadian Public Service he will realize that the conditions in South Africa’s Public Service compares very, very favourably with those in the Public Service of a large and civilized country like Canada. That is why I say that I cannot actually see any advantage in the appointment of a commission of this nature particularly in view of the fact that hon. members opposite are allergic to all commissions of inquiry. They do not want to accept the reports of those commissions or give any attention to them at all.

The hon. member referred to numbers of reasons why he thought such a commission was necessary. He referred amongst other things to a meeting which was held in the Orange Free State at which 300 public servants were present and at which they accepted a proposal in which they declared themselves to be opposed to the merit system. A few good sneakers at any meeting can point out weaknesses in any system. I am the last one to say that the merit system has already developed into a perfect system. We are continually discovering new shortcomings resulting in our having to make adjustments. But I want to say this to the hon. member: During 1963, 5.787 promotions were made on a merit basis. I do not know whether the hon. member or other hon. members who are interested in this matter are acquainted with the voluminous report dealing with this merit system. Everything does not depend upon the judgment of only one person. Many people are involved before a final decision is reached. I must honestly say that my experience has not been the same as that of the hon. member for Turffontein. He should not base his arguments on what happens at public meetings at which people express certain opinions, meetings at which feelings can be stirred up and at which the train of thought can be guided in the direction in which the speakers want it to go.

The hon. member also tried to create a few wrong impressions. For example, he asked what had become of the apartheid policy of the Government, because, he said, a large number of posts for Whites are filled by non-Whites. What is the position now? Those positions to which the hon. member referred are chiefly positions for messengers, messengers in the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and Coloured Affairs and so forth. It is the policy of this Government that the various race groups should, as far as possible, serve their own people. We must make employment available for these people. If the hon. member analyses the position he will realize that these are not posts which are occupied by non-Whites simply for the sake of convenience.

The hon. member also made the definite accusation that we were following obsolete methods. Our methods are “out-dated”; we are still in the old rut; we are still going on in the old way! I want to mention to the hon. member a few of the methods which are the latest methods being used by the staff management sections of very large business undertakings and which are also being applied in the Public Service. Production planning: By the use of standards of work and the planning and control of production, especially at institutions of a manufacturing nature. Where the Public Service takes the form of a factory that has to produce, extremely modern methods are applied. A standard system of requisitioning has been designed and is applied in all departments. As the hon. member, who is himself a member of the business world and a director of undertakings, will know, this is a very important method in the business world. Mechanization: There is continued research under the guidance of the Public Service Commission into mechanization on a central basis for the purpose of discovering labour saving devices. Mechanization is applied as much as possible. Accommodation requirements: Let me give an example in this regard. The chief Archivist of the Republic is leaving before the end of the month to study archives overseas in order to ascertain the best methods of preserving documents, the most effective methods and the cheapest methods in this regard. Increase in number of posts: Efforts are continually being made to discover ways in which the public can be served better and more efficiently. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House by quoting examples in this regard but I am so interested in the Public Service Commission and the results that they are achieving that I can give the hon. member the assurance that he need not be afraid that we are dealing here with a service which is in a rut. We are dealing here with a living organism, a living organism which has its eyes wide open and which makes use of the best advertising methods and other means at its disposal to render more efficient service.

I come now to the complaint in connection with the great increase in the establishment. The increase of 6,065 officials is due mainly to expansion in the Departments of Defence, Prisons and Police. If the hon. member will go through the Estimates he will notice that the number of officials in each Department is indicated under the Vote concerned. This figure looks high of itself but one has to consider the increase in relation to the total which the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) mentioned. For example, in 1959 the increase was 4,400, which was 3.4 per cent of the total. In 1960, the increase was 4,305, or 3.5 per cent; in 1961, 3,582 or 2.4 per cent; in 1962, 8,861 or 5.8 per cent and in 1963, 6,065 or 3.7 per cent—3.7 per cent on the total establishment. This is not an abnormal increase. On the contrary, since 1960 there has been a falling tendency in the percentage increase in the number of appointments. But the more the activities of the State increase, the more Departments that are established, the larger becomes the staff. Just consider the number of Departments that have been established. But if we consider the number of officials in relation to the expansion of activities—and this figure is only 3.7 per cent—I think that we will admit that it is really a very normal expansion.

What would you regard as an abnormal percentage?

We have not yet experienced anything abnormal in the Public Service, and so I have no knowledge of it. I say that in any business undertaking a 3.7 per cent expansion of staff would be considered to be completely normal if that business wanted to pay a good dividend to its shareholders.

Following the logic which you used on a previous occasion and following the same logic which you are now using in regard to a 3.7 per cent annual increase, and according to the figures before us as far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, we will within the next ten years have a Public Service numbering about 360,000 people with a static population.

It is quite possible that that may happen. If the services require it it may be necessary to have that number of officials. But the hon. member must remember that there has been an abnormal growth under this Government in every sphere. Everything has grown so swiftly that we must have the staff to keep these services going.

The hon. member also complained about the number of resignations. I must say that this matter has also been exaggerated. Appendix M to the report explains why 3,186 people left the service. They say that 225 men and 24 women retired on pension; 1,855 men and 66 women resigned; 107 men and 3 women died; 292 men and 9 women were dismissed or retrenched either because they were incompetent or because their posts became redundant. The total is 2,479 men and 707 women. The number of people who resigned is therefore not 3,186 but something in the excess of 2,000. The number of people who joined the Public Service was in excess of 6,000 The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) made the wild allegation that young people were resigning. This is true in many cases. A young man or young woman may join the service. They join the service and work for a while, let us say, in Pretoria or Johannesburg. Someone persuades them to leave by telling them; Why do you work for so little; I can offer you a very remunerative position. They accept that position. After a year or so they find that there is no future for them there and so they return to the Public Service. Many of them do return. We have a record of those who resign and then return to the service again.

Why do you not give those figures in the report?

Why does the hon. member want those figures? There are so many cases of this kind; in any case, he will not believe it. I am sure that the Public Service Commission will be able to supply me with these figures so that I can give him that information. My officials are so efficient that it appears to me that if I wait for a minute or so I shall have that information,

One is really amazed at the statements made by hon. members here because they are wild statements. The hon. member for Durban (Central) is quite rightly disturbed about the question of low salaries and the number of officials whom we are losing. I agree with him. As a Government can never compete with the private sector. We shall never succeed in doing that. The private sector can always offer more than Government bodies can. We are in a far better position to-day because of our differentiated salary scales than we ever were before. I want to assist the hon. member in one respect. He said that the Government Mining Engineer receives R6,800. He is paid R8,100 to-day. The hon. member quoted the old salary scale. The hon. member gave us figures to show how high the salaries are that are paid in Great Britain. But the hon. member neglected to tell us what percentage of those salaries has to be deducted by way of taxation. He neglected to tell us that in this land of Canaan of the Republic of South Africa people do not pay the taxes that are paid in Britain. Once taxes have been deducted, I do not think that we are very far behind Great Britain in this regard. It is so easy to say that we lose officials to foreign countries; that our professional and technical officials leave us and go to foreign countries. That is a general accusation. What are the facts? Last year, for example, we recruited about 40 engineers for the Department of Water Affairs from abroad. If what the hon. member says is true, we are only losing officials, not gaining them. I do not even want to mention the countries that have pleaded with us to get the Medical Council to agree to allow doctors from foreign countries to practice in this country. But the Medical Council only allows a limited number to practice here.

Do you know how many doctors are admitted from other countries? Doctors simply do not come to this country.

The hon. member knows just as well as I do that the Medical Council does not allow an unlimited number of doctors from other countries to practice here. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that they have an agreement to the effect that they will admit a certain number from Holland and a certain number from various other countries but no more. There are bilateral agreements in operation. That is the position and we must take care that we do not generalize. We are undoubtedly losing officials but we must not say that we are only losing them. We are also recruiting officials. Generally speaking, I want to say that the Public Service need have no fear in this connection.

In conclusion, I want to say a few words about equal pay for equal work. I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) that I think that she and I have similar views in regard to this matter. I am also one of those who believe that if a woman does the same work as a man, she ought to be remunerated to the same extent. There are a few factors which one must consider. I hope that the hon. member does not hold the view that a woman should be paid exactly the same salary as a man immediately on appointment. I say this because experience in the Public Service has taught us that within the first year between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of young ladies who join the Public Service, get married. Many of them on joining the Public Service find that the men in the Public Service are so attractive that they immediately fall in love and get married! Even though a young lady may have been to university and may have all the necessary qualifications, the training period in which she gains practical experience does take a few years. As soon as one is reasonably sure that a person has made the Service his career, one ought to pay that person accordingly. At the moment, in cases where men and women are doing the same work, where they are doing the same work in junior grades, the maximum salary for the two sexes is the same. It is true that the rate of promotion of the woman is less favourable, but the qualifying period for promotion to a higher grade is the same as for men. Let me give an example. Within the scales, promotion is as follows: Males: R1,410 x 102—R1,920 x 120 to R2,280. Women: R1,320 x 60—R1,440 x 84 to R2,280. I also agree with the hon. member for Wynberg in that I feel—I have already discussed this matter with the Public Service Commission and they are investigating it—that the rate of advancement for a woman ought to be swifter. We must make the position more realistic. We cannot want her only to reach her maximum when she is a comparatively old woman. When she can do the same work that a man can do the period which is fixed to ensure that she can do the same work must also be reviewed. I am in favour of that. There are many of these women who do excellent work. There are women doing professional work and we must consider this fact. This matter is being investigated and I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am co-operating fully with the body making the investigations. As far as the Public Service Commission is concerned I feel that I am dealing with officials who have this matter very much at heart and I hope that I am in a position to report progress in this regard next year.

Seeing that the hon. the Minister is in such a good mood to-night, and that he is going to do something for the women in the Civil Service, I hope that the plea I am going to make on behalf of the Coloured employees in the Civil Service will meet with a similar sympathetic response from the hon. the Minister. I notice in the Report of the Public Service Commission that there are differences between the pay and the methods of rewarding a White employee, as distinct from a Coloured employee. I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. the Minister to the position, and ask the hon. the Minister if he will not consider reviewing salaries and wages in the light of the few remarks I am about to make. In the first instance the report says that the large number of Coloured persons in the service is due to the large number of Coloured persons in White posts. The Minister says that the number in the service, which is mentioned particularly in the schedule at the back of the report, is due to the fact that the bulk of them are messengers—I take it, filling the posts of White messengers. The question immediately arises whether or not they are receiving the same money as the Whites for whom they are substituting. I notice also that in the upper brackets, the senior ranks received an increase of no less a sum than R150 to R300 per annum. In this report I find no mention at all where the Coloured man is considered, except in one or two cases. I wonder if the hon. Minister realizes that the 5 per cent vacation savings bonus would be a thing of great benefit to the Coloured employees in the service. Could the hon. Minister not consider introducing a system whereby the Coloured employee would also get the benefit of the 5 per cent savings bonus on basic salary? I notice that the Whites—here again it is mentioned “White” as distinct from “Coloured” got a bonus of R60 in the case of married and R30 in the case of unmarried personnel. The report specifically states “for White personnel” and then it says “to ensure more realistic total gains in the lower-paid groups”. I think it is well-known that the lower-paid groups of which the bulk are Coloured employees have great difficulty in coming out on their money and I would ask the hon. Minister to give very serious consideration to the plea I am making this evening on behalf of Coloured employees.

Again, there were improved commencing salaries in the entry grades. I am referring to the bottom-end of the list. But, again it is only for unskilled White employees, on the existing age-wage basis, and the report says “This was specially adjusted to ensure higher starting wages as well as greater earnings over the years”. If I tell the hon. the Minister that it has come to my notice that in a Department of State a married Coloured man gets R20 a month, the hon. Minister will realize that that man cannot possibly live on a wage of that size.

To the credit of the Department let me say, and I want to place that on record, on behalf of Coloured employees, that they appreciate the one-notch increase with effect from 1 January 1963. Can the hon. Minister tell us when the recommendations of the commission, that was set up to go into this matter will be available, and when he contemplates being able to make adjustments for the benefit of Coloured employees?

I notice further, that the old plea of adequate salaries for Coloured teachers and Indian teachers has been considered and that an additional notch has been granted. Can the hon. Minister tell me whether he does not think that the time is long overdue that the question of the adjustment of salaries and scales should receive attention? It says here, that the matter had to stand over until the transfer of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. That has taken place, as the hon. Minister knows. I feel that it is unfair to Coloured teachers to have been kept waiting for so long, because, when they were under the control of the province, it was said, that first there was no money, and secondly, that one day something would be done when the Coloured Affairs Department took them over. I would like the hon. Minister to give some consideration to what I am asking there, and tell me if he can, when he expects these increases will take place? I would like to know whether or not they are going to be salaries in keeping with the position which Coloured teachers must maintain, and I hope he will tell me, that the scales which were applied before, are out of date, and that they will be raised to a considerable extent. I wonder further, whether the principle of “remuneration according to achievement”, is going to apply to Coloured personnel, because I believe that the hon. Minister could well introduce a system of courses of training to give the Coloured people openings in the State service. The hon. Minister says that they are going to be employed to serve their own people and in departments which are established for their benefit; to put it that way. I say, that if we continue to regard the Coloured man as merely a messenger, we will never have trained personnel to cope with the work that is going to fall upon the shoulders of the Coloured people.

The final point I wish to make is this: I would like to say on behalf of the Coloured community that they feel, that it is no longer a valid argument to suggest, that because a man is Coloured, he should be on a lower scale of pay. Here again the rate for the job, or equal pay for work of equal value, is one which should be applied, and applied without delay. I can say that there are a tremendous number of people among the Coloured community who are educated, could be trained, and are people who are anxious to work in the Public Service and could be employed there. I do hope that the hon. Minister will give this matter his most serious consideration and that he will listen to my plea. It is a most serious matter from the Coloured man’s point of view. The Coloured person finds more than anybody else that his standard of living is on a par with that of the White man whereas his scales of pay are very much lower.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein in reply to his question in regard to allowances that the Cabinet has ordered an investigation into the whole question of the entertainment allowances of heads of departments and changes will most probably be made in this regard.

As far as the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) is concerned, I may just inform him that only to-day I received the report containing the recommendations of the Public Service Commission in regard to increases in the salaries of all the non-White staff, that is to say, employees, including teachers. That report reached my office to-day, or at any rate, so the Chairman of the Public Commission informs me. But hon. members know that I have been here the whole day so I have not yet even read that report. I have, however, been told that the recommendation has been made to the Cabinet that these increased salaries should come into effect as from 1 April this year. In other words, some time has yet to elapse before this happens but salaries will be improved with effect from the 1 April, to what extent I am not able to say now. I hope, however, that these increases will be satisfactory to everyone.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 23.—“Education, Arts and Science”, R31,326,000,

May I have the privilege of the half-hour?

This is the first occasion we have on the Estimates this year to consider this very important portfolio of Education, Arts and Science. Since the establishment of the Advisory Council for Education, the National Advisory Council, we have become aware of the closer association between the various departments of education under the Central Government. It is a subject to which I know the hon. Minister will give his attention, because we have in South Africa to-day four provincial departments of education and in addition we have South West Africa; we have under our Central Government four portfolios for education, four Ministers for university education. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister—I regard him as the senior of our Ministers of Education—that it would be in the interests of education generally in this country if all the portfolios of education could come under one Minister. He could, of course, have deputy Ministers. I would add that it would not affect the principle of apartheid in education which the Government has accepted as its policy, but it would make for more efficient organization. The effect of the present organization that we have is to increase expenditure under what has become known as Parkinson’s Law. Parkinson’s Law of bureaucratic growth. We have in the establishment of portfolios Ministers who will naturally establish departments under them. That is the first of Parkinson’s Law and that increases expenditure. Then there is a second law, that every persons wishes to have more assistants added to his own department and that expenditure will rise with income. In our financial state in South Africa that is certainly something very dangerous. I feel that if such an organization could receive the consideration of the hon. the Minister, of a central department of education under the Central Government, that would cover the four departments we have to-day, it would make for greater efficiency, and—if I may refer to the speech of the hon. member for Karoo—it would mean that this reservoir of Coloured manpower which we have in South Africa could be used to greater advantage. So much for the general question.

This year we have not been fortunate enough to have received the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. We had on occasion in previous years to thank the Minister and to congratulate him on the early production of the report. But we have two other very valuable reports, also issued by his own Department. We have the report of the National Advisory Education Council, and, in addition to that. I have been privileged, and I hope other members have been privileged, to see the Professor Cilliers’ Report on University Education. To that report I shall refer later.

The point I wish to make about the councils report is one on which I hope the hon. the Minister will give me the necessary information. It is not clear whether the executive of the advisory council has now been appointed permanently. On the first page of the report reference is made to the appointment of one member permanently, Mr. Osler, from the first half of this year, but no mention is made of the chairman, the two deputy-chairmen, and the fifth member. Miss Steyn. Sir, have those members of the executive been appointed permanently? What is the present organization of the council? Our attitude when the council was established will still be fresh in the memory of the hon. the Minister. We said quite frankly that we regarded the size of the council as being too great. We said in addition to that that we felt it was too narrowly academic, too narrowly professional, and not representative of the community as a whole. In addition we felt that then English-language representation, of English Government schools, was not adequate. But, Sir, we accept the council now as constituted. We do not wish to revive those arguments, and we will assist as far as we can by appreciation and criticism in receiving the best work possible from that council. Sir, the first thing I notice about the council is the reference they make to the manner in which they have arrived at decisions. On the top of page 3. in the second column, they make a statement in capital letters which. I think, deserves the urgent attention of everybody here, because it is an epoch-making decision, I think, in the work of this council. They say—

And then this in capital letters—

I think that is a great achievement. Now I should like to put this to the hon. the Minister: When recommendations are made, when changes in the system and in respect of our relations between the Central Government and the provinces are introduced later, can he give us the assurance that all recommendations and introductions of new systems will be accepted unanimously, by the provinces, and by the Central Government? That would be a great step forward. I have had recent experience in this House of work on a Select Committee where all decisions were unanimous. The result was that it lead to a greater spirit of co-operation, a willingness to make a success of the work.

I mentioned Parkinson’s Law, and if we turn to page 8 of the report, the last page, we notice this—and the council has been in existence only 12 months. Under paragraph 48 we find—

Already an appeal for extra staff, when we were led to believe that it would not be necessary to build up a large staff for the council! But if we turn to page 7, we read a report, which I think is most significant. We have a body at present operating under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, a body for which I have the very highest respect. I have had occasion to pay tribute to their work, viz., the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research. That bureau has done very valuable work in South Africa. I should like to refer just to Part I of the report of investigations they carried out three or four years ago on the supply and demand in respect of teachers in science and mathematics in South African high schools. That investigation was commenced on 1 June 1958, six years ago. This is what the Advisory Council say on page 7, under (v)—

We said at the beginning when this National Advisory Education Council was established that we had the bureau to advise the Minister; now we have the National Advisory Council saying that it needs an increase of staff and the bureau in turn must have an increase in staff. This year the staff of the bureau has been increased from 76 to 90, with an increase of R29,000 per annum. In other words, Parkinson’s Law is now in full operation in this Department.

I come to the next point I have to make. It is the first investigation being carried out by the National Advisory Education Council. It is concerned with what the hon. Minister will agree is most important, the teacher. I should like to refer to the speech that was made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). She spoke about the conditions of service of women in the Public Service. Now when we come to the supply of teachers, the English-speaking section of the population suffers, if I can use that word, or is at least under a greater disadvantage than the Afrikaans-speaking section. English-speaking people are generally urban-dwellers and there are more opportunities for professional work and trade in the cities than on the platteland. Now, Sir, there are four sub-committees appointed to deal with the question of the training of teachers, the recruitment of teachers and so on. In this report of the bureau that I referred to, they refer to temporary ineligible staff. Now what are “temporary ineligible staff” to which they refer to in their investigation in respect of teachers in mathematics and science? Temporary ineligible staff they define as “temporary teachers who can never be appointed permanently”. Now who are they? They are married women. Now I want to put this question, to reinforce what has been said by the hon. member for Wynberg …

Which paragraph are you referring to?

I am referring to the paragraph right at the beginning where they say that the first work they tackled during the year was the most important, that is to say, the work in regard to the teacher. It is on page 3. Now why is there this shortage of staff? We speak frequently about the shortage of staff in the English-language schools. I think the chief reason is that married women, married teachers, have to give up their profession when they marry. I know of no other profession where that is asked. When a woman doctor marries, she carries on her profession. A lawyer carries on her profession. We have had a woman lawyer in this House who carried on her profession while she was a Member of Parliament. If a woman becomes a Member of Parliament, she carries on her other work. Why should the married teacher be the only person, a member of the only profession, that is penalized in this way? What is the position in other countries? I speak of the United Kingdom, with some information. In the United Kingdom to-day, not only are they continuing to employ married women, but they are recruiting married women. There is a campaign on foot to recruit married women for the profession. I think, Sir, to say to a married woman who has been in the service for some years: “Now you are marrying, you must give up your profession” is a waste of effort. We talk of manpower. What a waste of manpower! What is the average teaching life of a woman? Three years. I am now quoting on the authority again of the bureau. Three years! And a man—Fifteen years. The reason is simply that she becomes married. How do we train a woman? We train her for three years. And the average period that we receive in service from her is three years. What a waste of effort! I should like the hon. Minister to give some consideration to that aspect as well.

I want to come now to the second report, the university report. Here I think the hon. the Minister made a speech when we last discussed this matter, in which he said he was very satisfied with what he was doing and the progress that was being made in regard to the supply of manpower. The hon. the Minister feels that if he is prepared to do more financially for universities, there is a danger of their losing their autonomy. I want to tell him that there is no danger whatsoever of that. He can dismiss that fear from his mind. I want to give some figures. Here is a figure from Professor Cillier’s report. You will remember that he used the formula g: i + g, that is, the Government subsidy over the total expenditure by institutions plus the Government. The hon. Minister was very proud of the fact that there had been an increase from 66 per cent to 71 per cent, in respect of the next quinquennial period. That was the point the hon. the Minister made. Seventy-one he regarded as high. It is much higher. I admit, in some of our colleges. I am not pitting one college against the other. Obviously we can’t compare the Witwatersrand with Potchefstroom or Rhodes. Potchefstroom is the lowest, and it is probably one of the smallest universities. There it has been increased to 80 per cent, and as far as the Witwatersrand is concerned, there is an increase to 63 per cent. Those increases are very much appreciated. But they are not large increases; 63 to 80 with an average of 71 is not a large increase. What is happening in other countries? In Australia the State subsidy is 81 per cent. In New Zealand it is almost 90 per cent. And not only that. The cost of educating a student at a university in South Africa is very, very, low indeed, in our White universities. It is not low in the Bantu university colleges. There they spend money like water. I do not know what is happening in the Coloured university colleges. The amount that we actually spend is R436 per annum per student, of which the Government pays R300. In the United Kingdom R1,028 per student per annum. Australia R864. So we are very, very much lower. Now let me give the real cream of South African universities, Fort Hare. In reply to the questions that I put to the hon. the Minister he gave me some figures. Fort Hare per matriculated student, who should be at the university. R3,166 per student per annum! And if we take all students R2,500 per student per annum! A large percentage are not matriculated. That is Fort Hare! What showpieces they are to show the world how we are looking after our African population! Zululand R3,305 per annum per student. A student is going to be there for four years. They are going to give him R12.000 to R13,000. He could retire for life with all his family on the amount. Turfloop, R2.876 per matriculated student. Those are the figures. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is no danger whatsoever of any loss in autonomy. We in South Africa are accustomed to entrusting to men, nominated by the Government, the authority to deal with the affairs of their institution. Let me quote some of the utility corporations. Take a huge financial concern like the Industrial Development Corporation. They are responsible to nobody. They have just a board of directors appointed by the Minister with no responsibility to this House; they don’t have to debate their funds, as the hon. Minister has to do here …

Order! The hon. member is now out of order. ?

I am on the question of autonomy, Sir, that there is no danger of loss of autonomy, and the principle is accepted in the United Kingdom and in Australia and in New Zealand.

Now I want to close on another note and it is rather an unpleasant note. I am very sorry to have to mention it, but it has to be mentioned. I want to quote from a speech made by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, which was reported in Dagbreek on 1 September 1963—

Hear, hear!

I want to give another one. It is from an article in the Argus of 16 July last year, under the heading “Vorster hits again at ÑUSAS: Reply by Students”—

He was replied to by NUSAS, as follows—

Order! The hon. the Minister is not responsible for students’ organizations.

Do you prefer me not to finish the quotation, Sir? It is very brief.

My ruling is that the Minister of Education, Arts and Science is not responsible for students’ organizations.

Yes, but the Minister on his Estimates has made provision this year for R6,271,000 to be voted for those four universities, and the universities are under the patronage of the Minister.

Order! The hon. member was referring to students’ associations like NUSAS.

Well, I have given up referring to those associations. I say that the Minister is responsible for the money given to these universities. He has been reasonable this year I would say, and the universities look to him for protection when attacks of this kind are made by his own colleague. On the one hand, the Government is voting money for the universities, and on the other hand, we have two Ministers advising parents not to send their children there. That is the situation at present. I ask the hon. the Minister to repudiate his two colleagues. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I should like to say that the Minister has a great responsibility in South Africa. It is his duty to work together with these universities. I am not going to make a personal appeal to him, but I would remind him of my own university, the University of the Witwatersrand, who was the first, on the morning after the great fire at Potchefstroom, to arrive there and to tell Professor Postma, the vice-chancellor of that University: We have come to help you. It was Dr. Raikes. There is great co-operation between our universities. Afrikaans- and English-language universities co-operate on every possible occasion. We expect that the Minister will not tolerate this sort of criticism from his colleagues. These men of our universities are not communists. It is irresponsible talk and wild accusations, with no foundation at all.

I want to begin by saying that it is a long time since I have found myself so much in agreement with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) as is the case this evening, except in regard to his last remark. I do not want to express an opinion in regard to NUSAS because it is a student organization for which the hon. the Minister is not responsible, but I do want to say something in pursuance of the criticism expressed by the hon. member of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in connection with the activities at certain universities. I cannot do better than to mention the case—I do not want to mention the universities at which this happened—of a lecturer at the university who turned up to a football match with a car full of Bantu. While they were sitting on the stand watching the match the White lecturer lit his pipe, took a few puffs and then passed it on to the Bantu sitting next to him who also took a few puffs and then passed it to the Bantu behind him, and so it went the rounds until it was returned to the White lecturer. I say that when this sort of thing happens at our universities it really undermines the standard of the White man and of the White boy and girl at the university. In so far as that sort of thing does happen at certain universities, I think that it was quite correct of the hon. the Minister to say that certain things take place at certain universities which undermine our national life and morals.

Having dealt with that point I can say that the hon. member for Kensington gave me a pleasant surprise this evening. He started by saying that they wanted one Ministry for all education, particularly for all White education, in the four provinces and South West, so that there could be a central control of education. I am in the enviable position this evening of being able to quote the hon. member from a speech which I made in this House in 1953, a speech which no other hon. member has quoted more to me than the hon. member himself. In that speech I maintained that education was indivisible. The hon. member threw this up in my face at a later stage when I voted for the transfer of Bantu education to the Department of Bantu Education and Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. I explained that although education as such was a unit, the control over education did not necessarily have to be the same. Up to a short while ago the United Party advocated divided control over White education between the four provinces and South West. Each time mention was made of the central co-ordination of education, they opposed that principle on the grounds that it would detract from the powers of provincial councils. That is why I am very pleased that the hon. member has now realized that White education must be indivisible as far as the bringing about of greater co-ordination between the four provinces in regard to curricula is concerned. I really want to congratulate him in this regard and I hope that his party will support him and that we will not again experience the petty complaint in the future that we are undermining the authority of provincial councils when we talk about a greater national co-ordination of education in all four provinces and in South West Africa.

That is not what I said.

Is that not what the hon. member wants? I wrote the hon. member’s words down. He said: “One Minister for all education; central departments of education to cover the four provincial administrations.”

Four portfolios. I want one Minister for the four portfolios.

I think that it amounts to precisely the same thing: The hon. member advocates four portfolios and he wants one Minister for all four. Is he now talking about White education or non-White education?

White, Coloured, Bantu and Indian.

The hon. member is now ahead of me. He agrees that White education should be under one control but besides this he also wants that same body to have control over Coloured, Bantu and Indian education. He therefore wants all education to be under one control. This is going even further than his party wants to go. The attitude of his party has always been that even as far as White education is concerned we must split it up amongst the four provinces. No less a person than the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has always been the leading protagonist of this principle. When we have said that there should be a greater national coordination of education, he has always replied that this would undermine the authority of the provinces. [Interjection.] That hon. Whip must not try to discuss educational matters. These things are beyond his comprehension. The hon. member said of the report of the Advisory Education Council: “We accept the Council as now constituted.” I hope that he also accepts the recommendation of the Advisory Council that we must proceed in the direction of the greater co-ordination of education for Whites and that we must find a national formula for White education. Actually, the hon. member goes further and includes non-Whites and I hope therefore that he agrees that we must have this co-ordination for the Whites at least and that we must keep White education as a unit.

And what about the non-Whites?

We will discuss non-White education when the Votes of Bantu Education and Coloured Affairs are discussed. We are dealing now with White education. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) cannot of course distinguish between White education and non-White education.

The hon. member spoke about more staff and increased funds for the Advisory Education Council. I can only say that I am overjoyed that the Council is progressing so well and is doing and wants to do so much more that it needs a larger staff, which will of course increase expenditure. Our greatest task is the education of our youth and because this Council has already done so much work in the direction of obtaining greater co-ordination and efficiency in regard to the training of our youth, we can only welcome the fact that they need more staff and will therefore incur increased expenditure. The hon. member also mentioned the question of married women in education, and I agree with him to a large extent. [Interjections.] I wish that the hon. member for Durban (Point) would be quiet and give me a chance to speak. I think the greatest discourtesy is shown by those people who can never keep quiet but are always mumbling about something. [Interjections]

On a point of order, may an hon. member tell another hon. member that he has a big mouth?

Who said that?

I said it and I withdraw it.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has just said: “But he does have one”; in other words, a big mouth.

I withdraw it.

Hon. members must not make such inane remarks.

When a female teacher has a family of young children, she cannot be expected to remain in the service of education fulltime. She simply cannot reconcile this with her duties as mother and housewife. But when a woman is to a large extent free from family responsibilities, I fully agree with the hon. member that in such cases, if they qualify, women ought to be appointed fulltime.

I want to raise a matter which I think deserves the serious attention of this House. I am referring to the scientific organizations in South Africa organized on a voluntary basis which receive grants-in-aid from the Government. As far as I can ascertain, there are approximately 17 such voluntary organizations, of which about eight or nine receive subsidies or grants-in-aid from the Government. I was surprised to see in the newspaper yesterday confirmation of a letter which I have in my possession, sent by the Government to these various scientific organizations. I shall read one paragraph of that letter—

This circular was sent out about two years ago. In the beginning of this year, in February, a second letter was sent out by the Department to these societies. And again I want to quote it—

Now, whatever the merits of the case to bring in apartheid in these scientific organizations, may I just draw attention to the fact that as far as I know there are approximately 14,000 members of such organizations. As far as we can ascertain, there may possibly be—but we cannot guarantee this—between 14 and 15 of the 14,000 members who are actually non-Whites. If you take into consideration that they may be divided between at least nine to ten organizations, you will see how absolutely impossible it is for those Coloured members to form their own organization. Ever so many of these organizations have no Coloured members at all. In addition to this, Sir, I must draw your attention to the fact that in these scientific organizations, as in all scientific organizations all over the world, membership depends on professional and scientific qualifications only. No other qualifications count. In addition to this, ever so many of these organizations serve not only South Africa, but have a membership far wider than the borders of the Republic. There are members of these organizations not only living in the whole area south of the Sahara, but in a few cases also overseas, and in addition to that they also have other organizations affiliated to them in other parts of the world. You will therefore see, Sir, the complete impossibility for any of these organizations to ascertain the colour of the skin of its members. We dealt this afternoon with the report of the Press Commission. Sir, can you imagine the sabotage that will be done against South Africa if a circular should emanate from this country to find out all over the world which of the eminent scientists who may be members of any South African organization may be non-White? Can you imagine the irreparable harm which will be done to scientific organizations and to science as a whole in this country if such a circular should be sent out by any of these organizations to ascertain the colour of the skin of its members and of its affiliated societies?

Why do you not ascertain the facts first?

There are obviously irresponsible people in this House and outside it who will do what the hon. member for Ventersdorp is now suggesting, but there are also others, politicians and even scientists, who love South Africa first, and who will not agree with this sort of thing. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to say, “You lie”?

Sir, I take no notice of that.

Did the hon. member say that?

The hon. member misinterpreted me, but I withdraw it.

I am saying that if publicity is given to this circular, and if these organizations could ascertain the colour of their members, then South Africa will suffer irreparable harm. Ever so many of our scientists are exceedingly worried that the isolation of South Africa, although not quite complete, may then be made complete as far as our scientists are concerned. We are at the moment in this difficult position, perhaps not as the result of Government policy, that we are excluded from practically every scientific organization south of the Sahara, and I would not like to see it go further. Apart from that, the scientists are worried that if the Government persists with this policy they will be excluded from international conferences where, I am proud to say, South African scientists have played a great role. Apart from this. I believe that one organization has already been notified that the monthly publications which they now get from other similar organizations have been stopped because of the discriminatory policy followed in this country. But it has always been a good bargaining point for these scientific organizations to say that they are not concerned with politics and that they are interested in science alone. The Government has not gone so far as to prohibit these mixed—if you can call them mixed—associations, but they will stop the R80 to R800 grants-in-aid they receive. So all this can mean is a savins to the Government of less than R4,000, but it is the principle that is important, because the Minister will not find a single organization in the whole of South Africa or anywhere in the world which will be prepared to change its constitution to conform with the racial policy of this Government. And it goes even further. Scientists tell me that they are afraid that the discrimination which may follow as the result of this circular may go even further. Let us take the Medical Association. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) will forgive me if I do not reply to what he had to say. I want to make use of this opportunity to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister. I refer to a matter which has been occupying the attention of the hon. the Minister and that of the hon. the Prime Minister for some time now. This is the question of adequate facilities for the training of doctors in this country. We know that this subject has been investigated by various bodies and we also know that the hon. the Prime Minister has given special instructions to his scientific adviser to investigate this matter. We know that that gentleman has provisionally expressed the opinion that the present facilities are adequate. We also know that the hon. the Prime Minister has told us that when his adviser’s detailed report has been received, it will be referred to the Scientific Advisory Council and that a decision will be arrived at thereafter.

I want this evening to make use of this opportunity to bring another aspect of the matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is generally known that medical training in this country is given in a particularly liberal spirit at more than one university. I am not expressing an opinion for or against this fact; I am merely stating it to be a fact. I say that there is more than one university at which medical training is given in a particularly liberal spirit. I say that if parents have no objection and want their children to be trained in that spirit, that is their affair, and if young people want to receive their medical training in that spirit, that is also their affair, but I want to state as a fact that ample provision is made for that sort of training. There is also more than one university at which medical training is given in a strictly scientific and professional spirit. I do not want to express an opinion for or against this fact either. If parents want their children to be trained in a strictly scientific spirit, that is all well and good. But there is another group of parents and another group of students who want that training to be given in another spirit. I mention this fact here this evening because I want the hon. the Minister to make a note of it. There is a group of parents and a group of students in this country who want that training to be given against a Christian background and who want to approach science in the light of God’s Word. This is a definite requirement. The point that I want to make is this: Because the existing universities have already stated—Witwatersrand University has done so and so have Pretoria, Stellenbosch and Cape Town—that their present facilities are not being utilized to the full, or that if they are already being fully utilized, they can provide additional facilities without much trouble, I submit that adequate facilities do exist for the first two groups I have mentioned. But there are no facilities for the third group. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that when he and the Cabinet decide on this matter, very careful consideration should be given to this aspect. We must remember that the vast majority of our people are Christians, that we have a Christian Cabinet, and I feel that if this need exists in the country, if a certain group of parents and a certain group of students want medical training to be given against a Christian background and want the approach to science to be in the light of God’s Word, then it is the duty and the task of the Government to ensure that those requirements are met.

When my time expired, I was pointing out that the Medical Association, although it does not receive financial assistance from the State, is also an organization which ought to fall into this category and that the Medical Association has perhaps more non-White members than any other organization we know of. It does not need a genius to realize the dangers inherent in and the results to South Africa from a reaction on the part of the outside world resulting in reciprocity being withheld from the Medical Association in this country.

The scientific associations approached the hon. the Minister—I say this again so that the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—to ask him for an interview. According to them, the hon. the Minister refused that interview. I myself contacted the hon. the Minister and, as far as I was concerned, I did not accept the refusal of the hon. the Minister to meet this deputation as being final because I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was very busy that day and had not been given prior notice of this request. But these scientific associations would like an interview with the hon. the Minister in order to point out to him the real dangers that do exist, not only as far as they are concerned, but as far as the whole of South Africa is concerned. In actual fact, it is not worth the trouble because there are many of these associations which have no non-White members. Most of them have one or two out of a total membership of hundreds, and, in some cases, thousands of members. The hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to receive that deputation. I should like to know now from the hon. the Minister whether he will not perhaps change his mind at this late stage and receive that deputation. The hon. the Minister replied to a question in this House last year. He was asked whether he had refused money to any of these organizations unless they amended their constitutions, and whether he would be willing to receive a deputation. His reply was brief and to the point—“No”. That is not as I know the hon. the Minister to be. I know him to be a very friendly man who is at all times willing to receive a deputation, particularly in regard to a matter as serious as this. I think that the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that many of our students who go overseas to obtain Honours’ degrees do so as a result of the personal contact between a professor here and a professor overseas. These people tell me that if they have to give effect to this request of the hon. the Minister, they can forget about making arrangements for South African students to go overseas. I think that the hon. the Minister and his Department must be aware of the seriousness of the matter. I say that we will assist the hon. the Minister in trying to solve these problems. I shall support the hon. the Minister if there are social dangers inherent in the fraternization of students at these organizations. But the hon. the Minister knows just as well as I do that there are only a few of these people, eight of whom we know, or possibly 12 or 14, out of the 14,000 members. Sir, we cannot go on in this way. The hon. the Minister will solve nothing in this way. He will merely succeed in creating fresh and unnecessary trouble for South Africa. For this reason I believe that the majority of hon. members in this House will agree with me when I say that we must have apartheid if needed, but do not let us apply apartheid unnecessarily and so add to South Africa’s difficulties. Let us apply apartheid if we need it as a solution to a problem, but do not let us apply it if it is merely going to create new problems. [Time limit.]

House Resumed:

Progress reported.