I have to inform the House that my attention has been drawn to certain remarks in the book “Sticks and Stones” written by Mrs. Joyce Waring with reference to certain members of the Joint Committee on a Question of Privilege, appointed by the Senate and the House of Assembly during the sessions of 1966 and 1967, to inquire into a complaint of a breach of privilege alleged to have been constituted by the publication of a certain article written by Mrs. Waring.

*These remarks can in my opinion be interpreted as implying that certain members of the Joint Committee deliberately put questions to Mrs. Waring when she appeared before the Joint Committee with the object of forcing her to give answers which would render her liable to a later action for libel in the courts. As I considered that the publication of these remarks would, if a member had raised the matter in the House, have constituted sufficient grounds for me to rule that a prima facie case of a breach of privilege had been made out, I consulted the Acting President of the Senate, who had also had the remarks in question brought to his notice, and then requested Mrs. Waring to come and discuss the matter with me.

†After a thorough discussion of the matter, I received a letter from Mrs. Waring, in which she says, inter alia—

… I therefore, hasten to give you my sincere assurance that I had not the slightest intention of casting any reflection upon the dignity and the institution of Parliament, for which I have a high regard. I want to express to you as Speaker, my regrets that innuendoes could be read into the passage referred to, and to emphasize clearly that it certainly never was my intention to make any reflections of a derogatory nature … I therefore apologize to you for any embarrassment that may have been caused by the relevant passages in my book and I withdraw, unreservedly, and express my regrets for insinuations of impropriety that may be contained therein. I hope these expressions of regret will be accepted in the spirit in which they are sincerely offered …

*In view of the terms of the apology submitted and the fact that adequate publicity will no doubt be given by the Press to my statement this afternoon, I recommend that no further action be taken in regard to the matter.

I should also like to point out that Mrs. Waring in her book criticizes the Joint Committee for going beyond its terms of reference. I have, however, carefully examined the Report and proceedings of the Committee and am satisfied that there is no justification for such criticism.

A similar statement will be made in the Senate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the course of the speech of the hon. member for Klip River during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill on Friday, 30th May, 1969, I made an interjection which may have offended that hon. member. I wish to state that no offence was intended and I unreservedly withdraw the remark and apologize to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday’s debate attested to the fact that there is loud acclamation for the hon. the Minister of Police and his Department. I think the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police can justifiably be proud of yesterday’s debate. It attested to the fact that the Department and the Minister are doing their work extremely well and that the Government is at all times coming up to expectations in carrying out its work in connection with the police. This is also the first year in which the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police are doing this work in their respective capacities. Therefore I want to extend my heartiest congratulations, not only to the Minister and the Commissioner, but to each constable and official in the Department of Police, for the great deal of success which they achieved during the past year. We want to praise them all, from the most junior to the most senior, for the immense service they are rendering our Mother Country. Yesterday there was, in fact, no single discordant note in this debate, except perhaps for one on the part of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Admittedly he mentioned the fact that he was going to put on the gloves and fight, but I think that in a moment, when the hon. the Minister replies, he is going to receive the knock-out blow which he deserves. It is already known, and it was confirmed yesterday by the hon. the Minister, that there is a serious manpower shortage in our Police Force. The Report of the Commissioner of Police also attested to the fact that during the past year, as far as white police staff was concerned, there was a shortage of 1,146 men. As far as non-white staff was concerned, there was a shortage of 874 men. On the other hand it must be pointed out that the activities of the Department of Police have expanded considerably during the past few years. Apart from then normal duties they have also been given additional ones. We are reminded of the Arms and Ammunition Act which’ was passed by Parliament this Session. The police will now also have to exercise control over arms and ammunition. The police must also give intensive training to reservists. In addition they also have many other activities which are not even mentioned in the Report. For example, they must train women, who belong to pistol clubs, in the use of pistols. The following Question therefore occurred to me: What positive steps could we take to supplement that shortage? Positive steps have, in fact, been taken by the Department, i.e. a recruiting campaign, films and displays by policemen. All these efforts have, of course, contributed greatly to the strengthening of our Police Force, but what can we do in future to ensure that we shall have a regular influx of people to the Police Force? I therefore asked myself whether one should not perhaps consider the training of female police officers. The question of giving attention to the training of female police officers has frequently been raised. There are many female police officers trained overseas. Our Police Force is held in great esteem, both within this country and abroad. That prestige can only be increased if we are able to train good female police officers. I venture to say that they will be of the same calibre as our men. When we think of the training of female police officers, we must clearly bear it in mind that we must not do anything to detract from their nature and character. The duties imposed upon them must be of such a nature that there is not much danger involved, and that nothing be done to detract from their femininity. They would be of infinite assistance to us in supplementing our manpower shortage. If they were to carry out duties which are to-day carried out by male police officers, those policemen would be available for use elsewhere, where their services are more essential. These female police officers or policewomen, as we would probably call them, would receive a thorough training. We need that training in our country to-day. Our country must be enabled to defend itself in every respect. Both our men and our women must be enabled to defend themselves. It would only be in the best interests of our country for these policewomen to receive this intensive training. The duties with which they would be entrusted could be of such a nature as to bring them into greater contact with juvenile offenders and female offenders. In such cases they could give very good advice. In addition they could be used in charge offices and they could do normal administrative work. They could also be used for many other duties, particularly in the security division of the police and in cases of smuggling and immorality in which girls and women are involved. I therefore think it would be a good thing for us to consider the training of policewomen for our country as well.

Another matter to which I should very much like to refer before my time for speaking is up, is the training which our policemen are receiving to-day. It was mentioned that from January, 1967, several bursaries have been made available to policemen in order to enable them to study further. This matter was discussed in detail yesterday, but another aspect of the matter, which we have perhaps not emphasized sufficiently, involves those policemen whom we take up in the Force and whose academic qualifications extend from Std. 6 to matric. What is being done to encourage these men to study further and to write the matriculation examination? What assistance is given to them in order to enable them to continue with their studies. Are they given sufficient stimulus to qualify themselves further by undergoing that training? I had the privilege of seeing the passing-out parade of the police cadets at Loftus Versveld last year. I can bear witness to the fact that after one has seen the displays which those men gave there, one can only leave with a feeling of pride. In fact, they impressed me to such an extent that I wanted to know each of them personally. Therefore I also found it extremely fitting that, at the opening of the police headquarters in Johannesburg, at Vorster Square, the Prime Minister should have said that that building was a guarantee of the freedom of our nation.

I should just like to reply to a few matters which have been raised in the meantime.

The hon. member for Prinshof requested that greater use be made of reservists. In this connection I want to state here that these reservists are rendering valuable services to us. In many towns they are working together with the S.A. Police at night. We therefore appreciate the help we are getting from them, but I shall nevertheless pursue the hon. member’s suggestion further. He also requested that policemen be encouraged to take academic degrees. Of course, we are already encouraging them as far as possible. But, as I said yesterday, the ten bursaries we have at our disposal are not enough and we are going to ask for more. At the same time, however, I want to point out that we must not neglect the actual training of a policeman. A policeman’s training is, in the first place, police training. That does not mean to say of course that we do not give them recognition for other qualifications. In fact, they receive the same recognition for other qualifications as in other Government Departments. But we must not allow ourselves to become obsessed by academic qualifications only, because the basic training of a policeman must always be police training. Even so, this does not mean that we should not encourage academic training.

The hon. member for Green Point also raised certain matters yesterday. He requested that the ordinary citizen be brought into police work to a larger extent. In this connection he referred to the case of a certain (Mr. Watts, who lost his life while he was helping the police to recover a body on Chapman’s Peak. It is of course true that the police are able to call in the assistance of ordinary citizens to carry out arrests. But these are the only circumstances under which the police have the power to require an ordinary citizen to help them. In the case of rescue work, such as that in which Mr. Watts lost his life, the police do not have the power to force any person to help them, but can only rely on voluntary assistance. As far as this matter is concerned, it is really an open question to what extent the police were obliged to recover the body of that woman there. But we have become accustomed to the S.A. Police always being there to do what must be done when nobody else wants to do it. This was the case here as well. They knew about the letter left in the motor car which contained an indication that the woman had committed suicide. Subsequently they made attempts to recover her body. With a view to that, they approached the Mountain Club. So it came about that Mr. Watts lost his life, something which we deeply regret of course. Then the hon. member wanted to know to what extent the dependants of such a person should be given support. As far as the police are concerned, the matter is referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. He must decide whether, in those circumstances, Mr. Watts could be regarded as a worker. He will make a recommendation in this regard and on the grounds of that recommendation we will then approach the Treasury and negotiate for an ex gratia payment. That is the present procedure. I cannot say whether that procedure can be improved upon. It is probably possible to do so. In any case, the hon. member expressed no positive ideas in this regard. In the absence thereof, I also have nothing further to communicate to hon. members.

Will you go into the matter to see whether the procedure can in fact be improved upon?

Oh yes. I want to state unequivocally here that as far as the police are concerned, we will on our part do everything in our power to lend the necessary support to Mr. Watts’ next of kin. There need be no doubt about that. We realize that he volunteered his assistance to the police, and because he lost his life in the process, we feel that we on our part must do everything to help where we can.

Then the hon. member referred to the amount which appears under this Vote opposite “Secret Services”. He was quite right in pointing out that this amount had not been decreased regardless of the fact that the Bureau for State Security had already been established. But a great quantity of work still remains which the S.A. Police has to do in the interior, and funds are necessary for that. Under the circumstances it was not possible for us to reduce the amount; in fact, the amount has been increased slightly. In any case, I am quite prepared to discuss this matter in private with the hon. member. I am not able to furnish the necessary particulars for general cognizance.

In addition the hon. member pointed out that the amount for general investigation had been increased twofold. The reason for that is that certain technical investigations which previously fell under Justice have now been transferred to S.A. Police. That is the reason for the amount requested here being so much greater than previously. As far as extraneous duties are concerned, I want to refer the hon. member to page 13 of the report where he, to his satisfaction I think, will see what services fall under that head.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom also discussed academic training, in other words, the acquisition of degrees by members of the 5. A. Police. This also links up with the remarks made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. Now, the fact of the matter is that in our Police College we enrol men with Std. 6, Std. 7, Std. 8 and Std. 10 certificates. Of course the number of Std. 10’s we are enrolling in the Police College are not as many as we would like to enrol. For that reason we are obliged to enrol Std. 8’s and Std. 7’s in the College as well. But I would like to give the assurance that in the first instance those young men who come to the College with Std. 7 or Std. 8 or even Std. 9 receive every encouragement to improve their academic position. If hon. members are interested they will find that the training in the College of these men with Std. 7 or Std. 8 extends over a period of one year, while the training of matriculants extends over a period of six months only. Recently we have made a few changes to the training in the college. We effected these changes precisely because we felt that matriculants were not receiving the same good training as the Std. 8’s were receiving. The Std. 8’s were in fact receiving better training during the year they were at the College than the matriculants who were there for only six months and learnt only the fundamentals at the College. But as far as encouraging them to improve themselves is concerned, we have no problems. We are doing everything in our power to make it possible for them to pass their matric if they want to do so. I have already referred to the question of the degrees in reply to the hon. member for Prinshof. I then stated that in that respect as well we wanted to improve the position by providing a greater measure of encouragement for acquiring degrees.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised certain matters. The matters she raised are a little out of date, for they take her back to 1967.

I referred to other cases too.

You did not mention them yesterday, did you?

Look in my Hansard.

Leave it at that then. In the first instance I should like to inform the hon. member that for years it has been the task of the police to take steps in regard to group areas. It was the task of the police long before there was a Group Areas Act. In the old days when we still had the old Land Tenure Act it was at that time already the task and the duty of the police to take steps in that connection. The same circumstances have now, to a large extent, been transferred to the Group Areas Act. Now it is also the task of the police to act in cases of contraventions in terms of the Group Areas Act. The hon. member wants me to state what instructions are given to the police. I am not prepared to inform her what instructions we give the police.

I made my points specifically in terms of the Population Registration Act and identity cards, and not the Group Areas Act.

Yes, I am still coming to that. I shall come to that in a moment. In the first instance I just want to make it clear to the Committee that the task of the police is a far-reaching one. As regards the race classification inquiry to which the hon. member has just referred, I just want to say that the police only investigate contraventions. The police only turn their attention to contraventions in terms of the Race Classification Act and contraventions resulting from the Race Classification Act. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the police are not interested in race classification itself, only in offences which arise out of race classification. The hon. member—and I am stating this with all due respect to her—should rather confine herself to education and matters of that kind, because I do not think the hon. member knows how investigations ought to be made and conducted by the police. That is the trouble. In this case to which she referred investigations were instituted which arose out of possible contraventions in terms of the Communism Act.

The anonymous letter?

Wait a moment, I am still coming to the anonymous letter. In connection with this investigation people were summoned to the Thomas Boydell Building. In this way information was obtained which later gave rise to the charge against Sulliman and his eventual conviction. As I said, if the hon. member gave a little thought to how the investigation of an offence takes place in practice, she would realize that during such an investigation one matter leads to another. In the process of an investigation which is aimed at achieving a certain objective, we often find that other criminal offences have been committed. That is precisely what happened here. We began here by instituting an investigation into suspected contraventions in terms of the Communism Act, but as we proceeded we found other contraventions along the way. She told us the story of a white person who had been interrogated as a result of an anonymous letter. This anonymous letter, I must add, was all part of the investigation in regard to the falsification of documents. Sulliman was subsequently charged and found guilty on these grounds, and at the same time an anonymous letter was sent and these people were interrogated in regard to it. But I should like to tell the hon. member this. She is amazed that we should act on the grounds of an anonymous letter, but I want to give her and the Committee the assurance that some of the best information in regard to the gravest crimes which have yet been investigated have often in the past been obtained from anonymous letters. This happens every day, and if the hon. member thinks that when the Police receive an anonymous letter in which mention is made of a crime, the Police should lay it to one side or throw it in the wastepaper basket then she is asking the Police not to do their work. In this case we acted on the grounds of this anonymous letter and the matter was investigated. Under the circumstances I think I have more or less replied now to the allegation the hon. member made here, and also on the basis of the reply I have already furnished to her questions, I do not think there is much more for me to say. I just want to say this: All information relating to crimes is dealt with by the Department of Police for the Department of the Interior, if that is necessary, but other administrative matters are dealt with by the Department of the Interior without intervention from the S.A. Police. The hon. member asked me what cooperation existed between the Police and the Department of the Interior, implying that the Police controlled the Department of the Interior, but that is not so. It is only in regard to security matters that the police are used to advise or to act on behalf of the Department of the Interior.

Finally, I want to say this to the hon. member for Wynberg. What is wrong with the Police acting on their own initiative? Must the Police sit and wait until people come to them and prefer charges? It is one of the most important tasks of the Police to ensure that laws of this country are obeyed, and where the laws of this country are broken, the Police will act because it is their work to do so, and without anyone preferring a charge at a police station, or anywhere else for that matter. The hon. member for Aliwal mentioned a speech which was made in the Transkei and which contained complaints that white farmers were being held responsible for cattle thefts. I just want to inform the hon. member that the Police, in pursuance of that speech interviewed the person who had made that speech, and I must honestly admit that the information we obtained from him, when he was approached by the Police, was quite scanty. In fact, that person was not prepared to make a statement in regard to the accusations he had made there. The hon. member also put a question to me in regard to control posts on the borders of reserves. This is a matter to which we can give attention, but to which I cannot at this stage reply.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked me at the very outset of his speech whether it was necessary that a religious gathering should be broken up halfway through, because the hon. member saw a newspaper report with the title “Multi-racial Service Broken Up” in the Cape Times of 2nd June, 1969. But that is not quite what happened. It is another case of the Police doing their duty. It was not a question of steps being taken against the clergy. The actions of the Police there were outside the church. A member of the S.A. Police saw the Rev. Collins, who is the general secretary of the University Christian Movement, and 10 Whites who subsequently proved to be students from the University of the Witwatersrand in the square outside the church, and there they spoke to them. But I should like to give you an inside glimpse into what this religious meeting was all about. The report to me reads—

In other words, the report was not entirely correct—

This was the so-called “religious meeting”! —

Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of “religious meeting” where Communion and dance parties are held at the same time!

The hon. member also raised the question of the so-called or alleged interrogation of a certain person …

Not “so-called”.

Seen from my point of view it is “so-called”; it may not be “so-called” from the point of view of the hon. member. The person concerned is a certain Mr. Corrigall. The hon. member quoted here yesterday from a sworn statement. I want to state here that there was no interrogation of this person. In the first instance, that person’s residence was searched on the authority of a warrant, and subsequently he was on various occasions asked to write a few words in order to try to identify his handwriting. Sir, what I reproach the hon. member for is that he is prepared to allow his position in this House to be abused in order to prevent the Police from doing their duty.

Disgraceful!

That is what he did here throughout. This is a case which we are still investigating, and while we are investigating it, he allows himself, as member of this Parliament to be influenced by this little upstart, or anybody else outside for that matter, to ask questions in this House in order to obtain information at this stage in regard to a matter which we are still investigating.

Disgraceful!

For the sake of publicity.

Why did you not merely answer the questions?

Sir, I did reply to the questions. If the hon. member for Transkei would only exercise a little patience he will hear all the answers. However, I must make haste because I see the hon. Leader of the House is sitting looking at me. I shall read out to the hon. member the question he put to me. The question read—

That was the first question. My reply to that was “No”. The question went on as follows: “If so, …” In other words, if the reply was “yes”, then he wanted certain other information. But that further question fell away because my reply was not “yes”; my reply to the first question was “No”. That is what happened as far as this question is concerned. The hon. member for Transkei does not know what is going on here and is now trying to be clever.

Now you are being impertinent.

The second part of his question read—

The reply to question (2) was “No” (a) and (b) fall away. The third question was whether any charges were being contemplated; if so, what charges and against whom? My reply was—

There I informed the hon. member that an investigation was in progress, but he continues to allow himself to be used by a student. What effect must that have? The only effect it could have would be to obstruct us in the execution of our duty of investigating this matter. In the first instance the room of this student was searched on the authority of a warrant and subsequently the Police spent some time with him obtaining samples of his handwriting in order to compare it with certain communications which had been received, which I do not want to elaborate on at this stage.

That is why you would not answer the question.

I am not prepared to elaborate on this matter, and why should I? This person was never interrogated, and if he thinks he was subjected to interrogation, he does not know what interrogation is. [Interjections.]

Order!

I almost want to tell the Opposition now that they should teach their grandmother to suck eggs, because they want to teach me now what interrogation is and what interrogation is not. My reply is that there was definitely no interrogation of this person. The Police interviewed this student, not for the purpose of interrogation but for the purpose of obtaining samples of his handwriting. The hon. member also put questions to me in regard to the police station at Hammarsdale. On the one hand he is obstructing the Police in the execution of their duties, and on the other hand he asked me, just before he resumed his seat, for a police station to be built at Hammarsdale. I want to mention to the hon. member that the tender date for the building of a police station at Hammarsdale has been postponed until April, 1970. In April, 1970, tenders will however be called for the construction of a police station at Hammarsdale.

The hon. member for Colesberg raised certain matters in regard to Oviston, Midshaft and Theebus. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will give this matter our attention and that the position there will be investigated, and that the necessary police protection will be supplied. I should like to express my appreciation towards the hon. member for Lichtenburg, even though he is not present at the moment. He stated that they had been very successful in collecting funds for the Police on the borders. I do not want to create the impression that the South African Police are making propaganda for contributions to the men on our borders. Quite a good deal was said about this and all I want to say is that this is appreciated very highly by the Police. It means a great deal to those men who often, in the interests of South Africa, place their own lives in jeopardy under difficult conditions.

The hon. member for Umbilo made a very constructive speech and suggested a few very positive ideas. He spoke about the reservists and said that we should make more use of Bantu in this work. At this stage I can say that the experiment to use Bantu as reservists has to a large extent succeeded. We will increase the number of Bantu reservists as far as this lies in our power and in so far as it is practicable. The hon. member also requested that reservists should be recognized as an integral part of the Police. That is the case: we do regard them as part of the South African Police, and if the hon. member glances at the latest annual report he will see that there is quite a good deal of information in regard to the activities of reservists. The hon. member also requested that they should be supplied with free uniforms. That is being done. There are approximately 15,000 reservists and last year we made 5,000 uniforms available to them free of charge. The hon. member also mentioned the temporary members of the Police Force, and the fact that they were only entitled to 30 days’ sick leave. This is in line with the policy of the other Government Departments, and if we were to deviate from this, we would differ from the other Government Departments in respect of persons employed in a temporary capacity. The hon. member also discussed the appointment of women to the Police Force, and now I also want to reply to what the hon. member for Potgietersrus said in this connection. Recently a short report appeared in a newspaper as a result of an interview which had been conducted with me. The caption to this report is a little confusing. I do not at all want to state at this stage that we are in no way thinking along these lines, or that the possibility of women in the Police Force is totally excluded. In fact, the entire matter is being investigated at the present stage, and we feel that there are certain police duties which can in fact be performed by women. The hon. member for Umbilo made the very constructive statement that policewomen can be used in regard to the prevention of crimes. This is a very sound idea and it is also being investigated. However, in South Africa with its mixed society one can hardly think of a woman as a policeman and as a person who should walk the streets with a baton and who must apprehend criminals. In other words, in the true sense of the word one can hardly think of a woman as a policeman. However the possibility of using women in other facets of the service is being investigated.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Marico. The hon. member for Marico drew our attention to the fact that the crime rate per 1,000, as indicated in the last table of the annual report, has decreased tremendously in recent times. This is not quite correct; in fact, it is not correct. I do not want to go into details on this, but hon. members will note that from a certain date only the more serious crimes are reported. In other words, the figures and percentages indicates as from that date are only in respect of serious crimes and not in respect of all crimes.

But has the number of serious crimes in fact decreased?

No, I am afraid I cannot say that the number of serious crimes has decreased. It is a tendency throughout the world that the number of serious crimes, and particularly those accompanied by violence, are on the increase. I am sorry to have to admit that the number of crimes has not decreased.

The hon. member for Mooi River mentioned cattle thefts. Vigorous attempts have recently been made to combat this, and we are expanding cattle theft units, particularly in the area to which the hon. member referred. We also intend making greater use of horses in order to help prevent cattle thefts. I think I have now replied to all the questions and in conclusion I should like to express my appreciation for the fine, constructive discussion which has been held here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is he not going to reply to any of the questions I put to him about the use or misuse of the Terrorism Act and the methods of interrogation?

No. I do not think misuse is being made of the Terrorism Act and I did not think it was necessary to reply to that. The hon. member and I differ so enormously in respect of the way the Police are making use of their powers that it is hardly necessary to go into the matter. The difference between us is that I say that these powers are not being abused and that hon. member keeps on alleging that the Police are in fact abusing their powers.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I must take exception to the inference made by the hon. the Minister. I resent his remark that I have misused my position in this House, and I want to say that I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. the Minister. He has virtually admitted that this young man was questioned by the Police as was put in my question. I also want to say that the hon. the Minister has misread the question which I put to him on the 9tih May. The question I put to him on the 9th May reads as follows—

So far so good.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the matter seems to be sub judice.

Why?

Because the hon. the Minister said that the matter is still being investigated by the Police.

No charge has been laid, and therefore the matter cannot be sub-judice.

I will ask the hon. the Minister. Is the matter sub judice or not?

No charge has been laid, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister then tried to infer that the rest of the paragraph referred to all the rest of the question. The question then read as follows—

Then followed part (2) of the question which had nothing to do with the “if so” portion of part (1) of the question. Part (2) was a new question on its own and read as follows—

The answer by the hon. the Minister to that question was a categoric no. In the light of what the hon. the Minister has said this afternoon that office bearer was questioned by the Police and this cannot be denied …

Nonsense.

… for all the “nonsense” that hon. members on the other side may call it il want to repeat what I said in this House yesterday, namely that if the veracity of answers given to questions by Ministers in this House is to be called into question, then the whole of this Parliament might cease its function, because it is impossible to continue under these conditions.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 43,—Interior, R3,800.000, S.W.A. Vote 22,—Interior, R86.000, Revenue Vote 44,—Public Service Commission, R3,300,000, S.W.A. Vote 23,—Public Service Commission, R60.000, and Revenue Vote 45, —Government Printing Works, R6,518,000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? I want to refer first of all to the item which appears on the Estimates as a contribution towards the cost of erection of the 1820 Settlers monument for which an amount of R500.000 is provided. I want to say that this contribution by the State, as representative of all sections of the South African nation, is noted with appreciation and is fully approved of. I believe it draws attention as did the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister at the laying of the foundation stone, to the contribution made by those settlers and their descendants to the development in particular of the Eastern Cape and of the Border. It also calls to mind the history of the Kaffir wars and of the vast numbers of 1820 Settlers who lost their lives in the establishment of law and order in the Eastern Cape. It also draws attention to their contribution, as South Africans, to the very foundation of the nation of South Africa, as it exists to-day. With them they brought their culture and their language, a heritage which all South Africans to-day should value and preserve. The fact that this monument will be a living monument, that is to say, a complex of buildings which can be used by South Africans to-day and to-morrow, is, I think, a further cause for gratification at this contribution by the State towards the cost of erection of the monument. I also believe that it will undoubtedly contribute to the development of a culture which is acceptable by and representative of the South African nation.

This is the first occasion upon which the hon. the Minister has the responsibility to this House to elaborate upon his approach to various problems of an administrative nature relevant to the Department of the Interior and the other Votes which we are considering simultaneously. During the course of this Session we have had the hon. the Minister’s frank opinions on various matters, including aspects of censorship. Perhaps the most illuminating was his ready acknowledgment of the difficulties of establishing a norm in the administration of various Acts which fall under his Department. We have dealt en passant with several other matters but it is necessary that we should ask specific questions upon which the hon. the Minister can comment. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with these matters fully as this discussion proceeds. Obviously I shall not deal with all questions. Other members will, during the course of this debate, add other matters to those which I may raise.

The first matter I want to draw attention to is that in the course of this Session certain facts have emerged from debates and from questions formally put to Ministers which give rise to questions as to the efficiency of the administration of the Civil Service in this country and the administration of national affairs by the Civil Service. We have found for instance that there is an alarming shortage of personnel as against authorized establishment in most Departments of the Service. Secondly we found indications of a complete absence of work costing of a most elementary nature within the Civil Service. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Justice for instance, who has not been able to inform the House as to the costs to the State in regard to 39 Supreme Court actions which arose out of the Population Registration Act; the hon. the Minister of the Interior was equally unaware of the cost of this litigation. The hon. the Minister of the Interior, when asked to give this House an idea of the cost of administering the Population Registration Act, also confessed that he had no idea as to what this work cost. Various Ministers have at various times with perhaps more frequency, I believe, this Session than before, when faced with questions from hon members of this House, replied that the information was not readily available. I believe this is indicative of a disturbing state of affairs.

I believe that one of the most amazing developments under the Nationalist Government has been the expansion of our Civil Service I referred before during this Session to what I believe is a process of creeping bureaucracy. It is this hon. Minister’s responsibility to ensure that there are no unnecessary posts in the Civil Service and that efficiency is maintained. The necessity for this approach has been highlighted by the recent publication of the economic development programme for the Republic of South Africa for 1968 to 1973. Now, what are the facts? The position as I shall give it in some detail, is based on the statistical yearbook of 1966. Obviously, the position is a little more serious to-day, at least more serious than it was then.

But let me deal with the comparisons of the Civil Service as between 1960 and 1966. Sir, the number of Government and semi-Government employees, namely employees of the South African Railways and Harbours, the Post Office, the Central Government, Provincial Administrations and local authorities, increased by 148,378 from the figure of 769,863 of all races in 1960 to a figure of 918,241 of all races in 1966. The total number of employees in Government and semi-Government employ in 1966 was just under one million persons. Stated as percentages, during that period of 1960-’66 all races increased in number by 15 per cent, while the employees in Government and semi-Government employ increased by 19.2 per cent. A large percentage of these employees are not this Minister’s responsibility, but I would ask him to look for one moment at the position of the Central Government employees. In 1960, the Central Government employed 219,736 persons of all races. In 1966 the figure had grown to 321,192. That happened during that six-year period. While the population growth rate was 15 per cent, the civil servants employed by the Nationalist Government increased by 46 per cent in the corresponding period. Now we reach the alarming position, which has been made abundantly clear by the published statistics, that 32.7 per cent of the economically active white population was in 1966 employed by Government or semi-Government institutions. The position is even more serious today. Figures published during the Session made that abundantly clear.

According to the estimates of Professor Roux of the University of South Africa, during the 30-year period 1937 to 1966—I agree that that covers the war period and the subsequent period—the Civil Service establishment in South Africa increased by 276 per cent, as against increases in the white population of 70 per cent and in the total population of 87 per cent during that particular period. Every facet of life in South Africa seems to be coming more and more subject to some Government degree, control or regulation. It seems that we are fast becoming and developing into a nation of regimented and regulated robots under this Nationalist Party Government. Such comparative figures as I have been able to obtain indicate that against our national white percentage of 32.7 per cent, the percentage of the economically active population in the Public Services of other countries in 1966 was as follows: In France it was 8.8 per cent, as against our 32.7 per cent; in Canada 6 per cent; in West Germany 7 per cent; and in Holland 5.2 per cent. These figures demand action by the Government. The public is entitled to know from this Minister what he is going to do about this problem, because it is a serious problem. It is, after all, his responsibility as Minister of the Interior to make recommendations to the Government and to his colleagues as to what should be done in connection with these aspects of the administration of our country. I need not now indicate how the continual increase in the establishment of the Civil Service is conflicting with the needs of our industrial and commercial development in this country, and that the two are becoming more and more conflicting, where the competition is now based on the question of who is the highest bidder for the services of the person seeking employment. The matter has been dealt with on other occasions in this House.

The absence of information as to the cost of various administrative functions is, I think, justifiably to be accepted by us as showing that there is not a careful analysis of the work of the employees required in order to complete or perform a particular task by the Government. I believe that there has been too haphazard a growth of the Civil Service under this Nationalist Government, where department after department has been established. Surely, it is an elementary business principle that the cost of the service, of the manufacture of an article, is carefully and continuously watched, if one is going to apply business principles in the administration of any business. How much more necessary is it when the Government is handling State funds in the administration of the Civil Service. If the hon. the Minister’s ignorance of this cost factor, in so far as his own Department and as regards one of the functions of his own Department, is indicative of the whole of the attitude of the Cabinet, there is something radically wrong. An enormous amount of time and energy has, for instance, in this Department been dissipated over a mere 1,100 classification disputes, a process which would not be tolerated in the private commercial or industrial sector. This Minister is unable to tell us what it has cost the State to try and settle 1,000 classifications under the Population Registration Act. In fact, it is less than that. These are some 700 as others have lapsed without being proceeded with.

I want to say by contrast the following. I must be fair. When one turns to the Department of Inland Revenue, one finds that it has been stated by a representative of the Public Service Commission—one accepts the figures —that via the introduction of automation in the Department, it has been possible to reduce the number of civil servants required to do certain work from 1,300 to 111. The saving in salaries in that Department alone is R1.5 million per annum. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us why this analysis of work costs has not been done; why has it not been maintained in the various departments, and particularly in his Department, and whether we are to accept that this is a malady which exists throughout the service? If the high percentage of the economically active white population in Government and semi-Government employ is to be reduced to reasonable proportions, then it is the responsibility of this Minister to take steps to achieve that end. I want to ask him to what extent he is prepared to recognize the necessity of finding other employees when as a fact, which each one of us in this House must accept, 20 per cent of the population, i.e. the white population, cannot provide a Public Service for the whole population. If he is going to bring down the percentage of economically actively employed Whites, he must find more and more avenues for the employment of non-Whites within the Public Service, to accept more responsibility in so far as their own people, the non-white sections of the population, are concerned. I should like to know whether the Minister agrees that that is a process which must be adopted, and if he does agree, what does he intend doing to establish training centres? [Interjection.] The hon. member here said something about Rip van Winkle. I want to say to him that he is a Rip van Winkle to allow this creeping bureaucracy to continue without facing up to the fact that it is being harmful and damaging to our country. [Interjections.] It is dangerous to our economy, and if the hon. member will stand up and say he is not concerned at the fact that 32.7 per cent of the white people of South Africa are actively employed in the Public Service, then let him stand up and say it, and let us know what the thinking is of the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.]

Order! The House is in Committee now and that hon. member can make his own speech.

The hon. member can take this down on his tape recorder if he likes. A further and obvious necessity is, I believe, a redirection of Government thinking and that there should be more consolidation and less diversification in the Public Service. I say this because of this particular fact. I do not know whether this Government can really justify the fact that between 1957 and 1967 it established no fewer than ten additional departments of State. In ten years it created ten new departments of State, each one requiring a Secretary and personnel. Surely we have not reached that position that each small function of government necessitates the establishment of a new department of State. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister has plans to go into this multiplicity of departments and functions within the Government Service. He has had certain investigations into salaries like the Mönnig Commission, which investigated the salaries of the professional class, but that is not the complete answer. The Minister is no doubt aware of the report of the Fulton Commission which was recently published after an investigation into the Public Service in Great Britain. This is a report which has been commended by businessmen and industrialists in South Africa as having some valuable suggestions for the streamlining of the Public Service in South Africa. I believe the challenge is there for this Minister now to ensure that we have a Public Service streamlined for the seventies, and that matters should not go on in the old way to which we have become accustomed. I hope the Minister will tell us that this matter is being investigated and that the introduction of new modern methods is being attended to. It is unfortunate that the Government did not accept the suggestion that this be done when it was made by my hon. Leader in 1967 in this House.

I want to refer to another matter, and that is the proposed publication of what has been called the book of life, not the one for commercial distribution, but the one which is to be issued by the Government combining identity, licence and passport documents for the citizens of South Africa. This matter was raised last year with the Minister’s predecessor, and I would like to read to the Minister what was said by his predecessor in column 4706 of Hansard of 6th May, 1968. The then Minister said—

He then proceeded to say—

I understood that the introduction of this book of life was imminent, but recent reports indicate that there is some doubt being expressed by some departments of the Public Service as to whether this scheme can be effectively operated. I want to ask the Minister specifically to inform us whether he intends to carry on with this scheme and what is his proposed time-table for its implementation? Will it be possible to implement the scheme without increasing the Public Service establishment; will the adoption of this scheme lead to a saving of time and costs; and if so, what is his assessment of its impact upon the various departments whose work will now be consolidated into this particular register?

In conclusion I want to say that we on this side of the House are well aware of the difficult and, I believe, sometimes exasperating life which our public servants have to endure at the hands of this Government. While the deluge of plans aimed at implementing all sorts of unattainable ideological goals cascades upon them, they are expected to discharge their duties without any modern, streamlined plan, first of all, for their conditions of service and their salaries. It is not there; it is missing. There are no streamlined terms of employment and more and more Government schemes involving wide and unremunerative regulations and controls place additional burdens on the Public Service as it exists to-day. We are aware of these matters and because of that awareness we are most appreciative of what the senior public servants in particular are doing and attempting to do for South Africa. We believe that they deserve consideration from the Government and that they deserve to have available each and every aid to modern business methods, and why these basic requirements are denied to the Public Service is beyond our understanding. I hope the Minister will be able, now that he has taken responsibility for the Public Service, to ensure that in future all modern aids for effective business administration will be made available to public servants and that they will not be expected to continue with the old-fashioned—I was almost going to say “oxwagon”-—facilities which are given to many of them when at the present time modern equipment facilities should be made available to them.

Mr. Chairman, here to-day we have had an altogether different kind of argument from the hon. member for Green Point. Throughout this Session, in one debate after another, the Opposition has taken the opportunity of coming forward with the accusation that in virtually every Department there is a dire manpower shortage; that the Public Service is not being administered properly, etc. The hon. member for Orange Grove came forward with that accusation in respect of the Post Office and the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of the Railways. One member of the Opposition after another came along here with the complaint that the Departments had not succeeded in drawing manpower for the Public Service; that there is a manpower shortage and that consequently there are deficiencies in the Public Service. But now the hon. member for Green Point came along here to-day and in almost so many words reproached the Government about the fact that in recent years there has been too great an increase in the number of Public Servants.

You missed the point.

No, the point the hon. member made was that the Public Service Commission, as a result of its activities, was drawing away manpower from the private sector and from industry where there is now a shortage. The story which we have always heard here in the past is that the Public Service, the State institutions, cannot compete with the private sector because salaries and conditions of service in the Public Service are not comparable with those which the private sector can offer. To-day the hon. member for Green Point came along here and simply turned the argument inside out and made the accusation that too great a percentage of Whites are going to the Public Service; this consequently creates a bureaucracy and we are then drawing essential manpower away from industry. What is more, the hon. member is so inconsistent; he said that the Minister should ensure that some of the Whites in the Public Service were got rid of; that some of them should be dismissed; that their numbers must be reduced because there is too large a percentage of Whites in the Public Service. But, at the back of his mind, he was at the same time aware of the fact that the Public Service still has a manpower shortage. In virtually every branch of the Public Service there is still a manpower shortage. What the hon. member was therefore recommending here— he also said this—was that we should reduce the number of Whites in the Public Service, that we should reduce the white bureaucracy, and that we should replace it with a Coloured bureaucracy; that we should dismiss the Whites and appoint non-Whites in their stead. In other words, the hon. member came along here with a plea for integration, and immediately after he had said that we were drawing too many people to the Public Service, he made the claim that the Public Service was not doing enough to draw people into its service.

Sir, I do not want to continue in the negative tone which the hon. member for Green Point decided to adopt here to-day; on the contrary, I want to try to sketch a positive picture of what is being done by the Government in order to get people to enter the Public Service in a growing South Africa where tremendous development is taking place in every sphere. Sir, this Minister, the Public Service Commission and each recruiting section of each department, has a tremendous task to carry out. Sir, this is being done with a large measure of success in the face of competition with the private sector. The fact is that in the majority of cases the Public Service cannot compete with the private sector when it comes to salaries, because, since an ordinary private industry perhaps needs two or three engineers, it is in a position to offer these people almost any salary, while the Public Service employs hundreds of engineers and, each time they need an additional engineer they cannot get one by simply offering him the salary he wants. Therefore the Public Service is taking certain steps to draw people, people who are necessary in order to keep the State machinery going and who must take the lead in keeping the country’s development on the move. I just want to point out that since March of last year the Minister announced improvements in salaries and conditions of service for Public Servants amounting to not less than R110 million a year. This amount has nothing to do with the Railways and other branches of the service.

I want to refer to the amount of R25 million which was made available at the beginning of April, 1968, for the establishment of uniform low tariff contributions to the pension fund and for increased subsistence allowances and vacation bonuses. I also want to point out that in November last year he made an amount of R85 million available for general salary increases for teachers and for all branches of the Public Service. Over and above this R110 million a year the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that he was setting aside a further R15 million for improved conditions of service; and yesterday we heard here from the hon. the Minister of Police what he wants to do in respect of the salaries of policemen. Sir, frequently the Public Service cannot pay the salaries which the private sector can offer, but what is often forgotten is that the Public Service offers other benefits which make people decide to place their services at the disposal of the State— additional benefits which are frequently not mentioned, benefits such as the vacation savings bonus and the housing benefits which are granted to Public Servants by the various departments. Here I specifically want to refer to the announcement yesterday that rented houses would be made available for the police and that the Department had decided that when the Department of Community Development launched schemes, State Departments would receive priority. Sir, it is these kinds of additional benefits which persuade people to enter the Public Service. Then there is also the question of medical aid and pension benefits to which the State makes a large contribution. There are also other benefits such as the mortgage loan schemes for Public Servants which have been in existence for years and which have now been extended so that old mortgages can also be transferred and so that a person only has to pay 4 per cent while the State subsidizes the remainder of the mortgage redemptions. These things are being done because we realize that we must try to make the Public Service as attractive as possible so that we can draw the necessary manpower to supply these very important services in South Africa. Sir, if there were delays in the Government Departments, if certain things did not go according to the wishes of the public, they would be the first people to complain, and hon. members of the Opposition would come along here with the refrain that the Public Service was not in a position to do its job. It is this Minister’s job to ensure that the Public Service is made attractive enough to be able to draw the Whites to perform these services. The hon. member knows as well as I do that with our population set-up the Whites have, to a large extent, and virtually for centuries, carried the burden of administration in this country, and that this will still be the case far into the future, while we are still training the non-Whites and the Blacks to do that work eventually.

Sir, I cannot allow the hon. member for Parow to get away with the political gymnastics in which he indulged at the start of his speech. He put words into the mouth of my hon. colleague which he never uttered. I want to fling back at him the allegation that the hon. member for Green Point or this side of the House suggested that we should replace white Civil Servants with non-Whites.

He said so.

Sir, that hon. member is still living in an ox-wagon age. If he had been listening he would have heard the hon. member describe how a saving of over 1,000 people could be brought about in one Department by instituting modern machinery; that was the example given by the hon. member for Green Point.

He said that we should make more use of non-Whites.

The hon. member for Parow, in dealing with the shortage of staff in the various departments, said that we referred to two departments. He referred firstly to the Railways where we are short of engineers and technical people; he referred to the Post Office where we are short of technicians. The people who are needed by those departments are specialists. That hon. member would like to have every white South African sitting there with a pen adding up figures instead of having computers or modern machines to do the job. He seems to think that if you have a lot of people then you must have an efficient service. What we want, Sir, is efficiency together with modern aids.

If we can get that efficiency in the routine work then we will be able to release and train the people who can fill the vacancies in the specialises ranks. What the hon. member for Green Point said about Whites and non-Whites was to draw attention to the imbalance, the load that is placed on the white section of our people as a result of this Government’s policy.

That is the set up in South Africa.

What is happening is that South Africa is becoming a nation of penpushers and form-fillers. No matter what you want to do in life to-day you have to fill in a mass of forms in quintuplet or sextuplet. For everything we have to fill in forms, almost to the extent of filling in forms when one wants to breathe. This Government is building up more and more a jungle of red tape, regulations and forms. I wonder what percentage of the productive life of our people is spent by having to fill in forms and applications …

You are always exaggerating.

The hon. member says I exaggerate. But if he looks at the growth of clerical staff in commerce and industry, he will see the fantastic increase in the number of clerks that have to be employed to fill in the forms this Government requires—an increase of 10 per cent over recent years in industry alone. A similar position obtains in other spheres as well.

What forms are unnecessary?

70 per cent of them. For instance, the foolscap form you have to fill in when you enter South Africa. In any other civlized country you have to fill in only a card. Then there are the forms you have to fill in when you want a Bantu labourer in Cape Town—three pages of them in quintuplet. But I have only a few minutes left and I am not going to be diverted from what I still want to say.

The problem is not only one of pay. The hon. member for Parow dealt with the question of pay. But it is a question of morale as well, the feeling that they are members of a team working together in a spirit which will bring the best results and that this is appreciated. J submit that there is considerable discontent in some fields of the public service in connection with the activities of the Public Service Commission. This dissatisfaction affects the efficiency of the Departments in which they work. What is more, this is known. On 2nd May, I asked the Minister whether any investigation, other than routine organization and method inspections, has recently been made into the difficulties and problems of departmental administration and, if so, with what results. His answer was a flat “no”. I should like the hon. the Minister to deny that the following circular went out from his office. The document is headed “Ministerie van Binnelandse Sake” and is marked “geheim en dringend”. It was addressed to all private secretaries. The heading of the document is “Staatsdiens-doeltreffendheidskomitee”. It says—

Does the hon. the Mnister deny that this circular was sent out?

Will you tell me where you got that letter from?

No, Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister to deny that this was sent out. Is it untrue? Was this circular sent out. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Minister to deny that this circular went out from his office.

I shall reply to you.

I hope he does so because there is a growing creditability gap if one can have a circular dealing with an efficiency committee while the Minister says there was no investigation. Either something must be radically wrong or there must be some strange explanation for this circular and the answer of the hon. the Minister. The Minister cannot deny that this circular did go out. What he would like is to get it into his hands. But what I would like him to do is to deny it, to disprove it. I have it here. Let him disprove it and let him prove that this is not a circular which went out from his office.

Watch out for the Special Branch.

I am not worried about the Special Branch. I say there is dissatisfaction wider than mere pay dissatisfaction. And the Government knows it. And I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done about it. There is, for instance, dissatisfaction about merit rating. I asked the hon. the Minister what staff were involved in merit rating and at what cost but as with all questions you put to him about costs, the answer is a lemon—he does not know; they have no special people and they have no record of costing. Yet this is supposed to be an efficiency measure; it is part of the streamlining to have merit rating. Why then is it that there is dissatisfaction about merit rating? Why is it that out of 212,000 public servants only 850 awards for meritorious work were given in a year? Doesn’t this indicate that there is something wrong? Does it not indicate that there must be something wrong if so few awards are granted? Does it not indicate that there is something wrong when people in the service speak with the contempt they do about the efficiency of merit rating? There are complaints that people are being transferred and promoted into fields of work with which they are unfamiliar and that promotions are not based on knowledge of the work they are required to do. How can that lead to efficiency? [Interjection.] I am not going to name any public servant. The hon. the Minister has examples. I have already used some of them. The hon. the Minister knows of cases where people were transferred into highly technical departments while they had no knowledge of that department and yet within two or three years they became the secretary without even knowing details of the technical functioning of the department. I raised this with the hon. Minister before. His answer then was that they were there on account of their general efficiency in administration. We are dealing with the smooth running of government and I submit that government can run more smoothly if attention is given to the real problems of the urgent and necessary work of government. But so much time is being spent on red tape and on carrying out ideological schemes … [Time expired.]

I want to repeat the words which the hon. member himself so frequently likes to use, i.e. in connection with these accusations against our Public Servants I want to say: “I fling it back at him”.

The hon. member and the hon. member for Green Point levelled a direct accusation at our Public Servants here this afternoon. In the same breath their position is deplored, and a reflection is cast upon them which they really do not deserve and for which an apology is due to them. When the hon. member quotes figures here to prove how tremendously the numbers of the Public Service have increased, and he compares these with previous years, one can do little else but deduce that those officials were unnecessarily appointed or that this is proof of the fact that Public Servants cannot do their duty. I want to make the claim that every post created in the Public Service was absolutely necessary because every official, with few exceptions, pulled his weight and did his best. They are still keeping our Public Service in the excellent condition in which it is to-day.

But there was a second serious accusation made, i.e. against the Public Service Commission. I cannot understand how people, occupying the positions that those two hon. members occupy, can make an accusation of this nature against people such as those serving on the Public Service Commission. Surely they are also people who are competent to judge the needs of a changing era and a changing world. Do hon. members now really think that the Public Service Commission is not competent to judge whether mechanization should be introduced at places where it is necessary? Is it news to those hon. members when I say that efforts are already being made in the Public Service to introduce mechanization in all spheres? I should like to take these two hon. members, and the hon. member for Umbilo, who in any case displays a sense of responsibility, with me to see what has happened at the Department of Pensions. By mechanization this Department has cut down on a great deal of work and pointed the way to what can be done. But the hon. members must consider a second aspect when they speak of mechanization. These machines are not simply installed and then left to operate themselves. People must be trained to operate this machinery. These machines for mechanization in the Public Service are complex machines. I claim that the Public Service has done tremendously great and important work to train people in the use of mechanical methods in order to have work done more efficiently.

I want to deal further with the hon. member’s claim about more use being made of non-Whites. The hon. member for Parow is quite right about that claim having been made. [Interjections.] The hon. member for North Rand is now laughing, but I feel one should rather laugh at such a ridiculous claim.

The way you state it makes it seem ridiculous.

I shall state it precisely as the hon. member stated it. The hon. member said that greater use could be made of non-Whites. I want to ask the hon. member whether he really thinks that we should follow in the footsteps of the other African countries who transferred these Public Service duties to non-Whites? Those countries have landed in the chaos in which they are at present. I should like to know from the hon. member whether he wants to see the same pattern emerging in South Africa and the same chaotic conditions which the other countries of Africa have already shown us? The National Government has proceeded from the standpoint that it is acting as guardian to the non-Whites and will do its work as such. In other words, this work which was done in a disorderly fashion during the prewar years will now be done in an orderly fashion. The Whites will honour the obligations which rest on them, i.e. firstly to train the non-Whites and to give them the necessary guidance before they are slowly allowed to act as Public Servants themselves. Progress has already been made in this direction. During the Budget speech it was surely pointed out several times how progress is being made with the training of non-Whites so that they can do that work in their own areas. But this Government has refused, and this side of the House refuses, merely for the sake of the clamouring of a few people opposite, to hand over our legacy to a lot of people who are not competent to do the work and who are only able, under present circumstances, to jeopardize, by their efforts, the good work which has been done over the years.

What are you busy doing in the Transkei?

The hon. member has asked me what we are doing in the Transkei. We are doing precisely what I was explaining a moment ago. He cannot sidetrack me with his remark. I told him that the Government is training people to work for their own people. He knows that this is so. On all administrative levels and in the Public Service too we are training them and slowly qualifying them to do their own work.

There was also some general discussion about new departments which were established. This is so. I not only want to admit this frankly, I also want to applaud the Government for the fact that, in a developing South Africa—thanks to a National Government—it has created possibilities for the existence of new departments. This has placed a great and heavy load on Public Servants. That is all the more reason why we should pay tribute to the Public Servants for what they have done and for what they are still doing. As the hon. member for Parow said, the manpower shortage in the Public Service is not a shortage which is solely attributable to conditions of service or salary scales. It is attributable to a general manpower shortage in the magnificently developing Republic of South Africa. We have this general manpower shortage because South Africa is growing phenomenally; because this country of ours is developing as it has never before developed throughout its history, thanks to the Government which is in power. That manpower shortage exists, not only in the Public Service, but in all sectors as well.

I think that one suggestion which could at least be considered by the hon. members on the other side of the House is to tell private industrialists that they can also undertake this service which is being imposed upon the State at present, i.e. bringing immigrants here to work when their industries are being expanded. This is at least one positive effort which could be made by industrialists, who draw people away from the Public Service, to supplement the manpower shortage. This manpower shortage is a general one. The Public Service has always drawn its rightful share, thanks to the Public Service Commission and the concessions which were made by the Government. I want to reject, with all the decisiveness at my command, any reflection upon the Public Servants or the Public Service Commission, which has to recruit the officials. In addition, I particularly want to reject any suggestion that this Government did not do everything in its power; and is not still doing so, to ensure a sound and vital Public Service for our country.

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that the hon. member for Witbank has taken amiss what the hon. members for Green Point and Durban (Point) have said in regard to the Public Service. We on this side of the House endeavour to put forward suggestions to improve the smooth running and the functioning of the Public Service. The hon. member for Green Point specifically mentioned various aspects which he believes should have greater attention. One of these aspects was mechanization and automation. If one looks at the modern trend to-day and with the shortage of manpower existing in the private sector as well as the public sector, it is obvious that this must be the answer and perhaps the only answer to the shortage of manpower, namely the greater use of modern methods of automation and mechanization. In the latest available report of the Public Service Commission, mention is made of mechanization and various investigations in various Departments. It is undoubtedly meeting with success. The only point on which I can really agree with the hon. member for Witbank is that it is of course necessary for people to be trained in the taking over and the administering of automation and new mechanized methods as far as our records and so on are concerned. That is the one field to which the hon. the Minister will obviously give serious consideration as regards the training for the programming of computers and other latest methods of mechanization.

However, whilst this is more of a long-term policy to a certain extent, one must face reality in regard to the shortage of staff in the Public Service. The hon. member for Witbank and also the hon. member for Parow seem to consider that this side of the House has suggested something sinister when mentioning the greater use of non-Whites in regard to the services. But if hon. members opposite had read the report of the Public Service Commission, they would have found on page 5, where it deals with the number of units additional to the establishment, it makes the remark that in comparison with the figures of 1966 furnished in the previous report there has been an increase in the number of married white women employed additional to the approved establishment whilst there has also been a general increase in the number of non-Whites employed against authority for the employment of Whites. This is contained in the report of the Public Service Commission. They are facing the reality that in certain fields and certain spheres it has become necessary to have a general increase in the number of non-Whites employed against authority for the employment of Whites. This is clearly stated in this report that has been tabled in the House.

Yet hon. members opposite seem to think that the United Party is suggesting something sinister and dangerous whereas in actual fact it is a matter which is commented upon in the latest report. [Interjections.] If we face reality it certainly becomes obvious that the various Departments and the Public Service as such are facing virtually a crisis as far as the manpower shortage is concerned. According to annexure H (2) on page 26 in the latest report for instance, in the various divisions of the Public Service Commission the greatest increase in shortages taken on a percentage basis has occurred in the technical division. In 1966 there was an 8.9 per cent shortage of manpower. By the end of 1967 that increased to 13.7. As far as the technical division in the Public Service is concerned the number has almost doubled. In the professional division the percentage was 14.2 in 1966 compared to 17.2 per cent at the end of 1967 and to a lesser extent in the general A division, general B division and the non-classified division. All of them showed an increase in percentages as far as the shortage of manpower is concerned. If one looks at the question of recruitment it also becomes obvious that the situation, is deteriorating. That is why I believe that the position is reaching crisis proportions as far as the manpower of the various Departments is concerned.

With a growing economy it is essential that there should be an efficient Public Service. Therefore, if one looks at these figures one can only become alarmed to see the number of resignations. The reply to a question I asked the hon. the Minister during the course of April, showed that the number of people joining the Public Service has also decreased at an alarming, rate. In 1967 6,211 persons joined the Public Service; in 1968 it dropped to 4,600. The resignations by persons terminating employment in 1967, amounted to nearly 6,000, whereas it was 4,632 in 1968. During the year 1968, taking into account other reasons for termination of employment such as retirement, abscondment, death and discharge, the number joining the Service was 4,600 and those who terminated their employment were 4,632. In actual fact there was a net loss, as far as the Public Service was concerned. This means that avenues have to be found of attracting further people to join the Public Service, to improve the image of the Public Service so as to attract further recruits and also to find ways and means of retaining, where possible, the existing public servants. I believe there are certain important fringe benefits, which can be offered to the public servants which would to a certain extent place them in a position where they could compete with the private sector, and at least retain existing staff. If one looks at the resignations during the past few years, one sees that many of them resign after two or four years of service.

In the recent years, however, some of these persons are persons who resigned after eight to 12 years service. This means that experienced personnel are being lost. As far as competing with the private sector as regards wages and salaries is concerned, the private sector obviously has a tremendous advantage over the Public Service Commission in the fixing of salaries and wages. Therefore it is necessary for the Public Service Commission to find ways and means of endeavouring to counter the added attraction which the private sector has. Here I refer to the question of improved fringe benefits.

The hon. the Minister has recently made a statement concerning the question of housing, the availability of 100 per cent loans and the improvement of housing. This is an important step forward because public servants do experience a great deal of difficulty in providing themselves with housing. However, there is also the question of those persons who are transferred. Could they not be granted some rent assistance for a period of perhaps the first two months, until such time as they are able to find suitable accommodation? Then there is the question of improved pension benefits. As I have mentioned earlier a considerable number leave the Public Service after three to four years service and in recent times some have resigned from the Public Service after as much as eight years of service. I believe this difficulty can be met if the hon. the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Pensions will consider the possibility that the first ten years of service should be on a non-contributory basis, which would to a certain extent discourage those persons who resign from the Public Service to get an immediate financial pay-out. Then there is the question of travel allowances. Here the hon. the Minister is in a powerful position of being able to negotiate with his colleague, the Minister of Transport to see whether more cannot be done to assist them in respect of travel concessions. Then holiday bonuses can also be increased. This is another item where the hon. the Minister is in the position to improve fringe benefits.

There is another important aspect. One sometimes finds public servants who have talented sons or daughters who wish to take up a university education and further education, but who are faced with certain financial difficulties. I believe the hon. the Minister could give some consideration to the subsidization of these public servants who have sons or daughters who wish to further their university education. Then I should like to deal with a question in regard to the Public Service Bursary Scheme. If one looks at the Estimates for the Public Service, one will see that there is an increase of some R300 000 to be voted by this Committee; it was previously R450,000 and it is now to be increased to R750,000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I value most highly the last points raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, particularly where he asked for better conditions of service, the so-called fringe benefits. The hon. member quoted fairly extensively from that list, as it appears in the May, 1968, issue of the Public Servant. I want to endorse his words wholeheartedly. He knows that this side of the House took the initiative in pleading for those fringe benefits and in gradually being able to obtain them. But when, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member tried to defend the statements of the hon. members for Green Point and Durban (Point), he merely emphasized further that their policy is actually aimed at increasing the numbers of Whites in the Public Service and replacing them with Coloureds. This has now been recorded in black and white.

That is your policy.

Thus far, instead of making positive contributions to this debate, the hon. members have tried to make political capital out of such vague accusations as the hon. member for Durban (Point) made here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is not prepared to give examples in support of his accusations. We shall see to it that the public servants take proper note of the insults and accusations which have been flung at their heads in this debate. The essential point which is being circumvented by the hon. members of the Opposition is that, in spite of the Government’s efforts to check the cost of living spiral, and in spite of the salary increases, commerce will always be swallowing up those salary increases of the public servants, and that vicious circle will simply begin again. Those salary increases, of which the hon. member for Parow spoke a moment ago, will simply be absorbed again and in this connection our public servants can make a very positive contribution towards putting matters right. What I mean by that is the following. In recent months there have been repeated pleas in this House for the creation of a National Consumers’ Council. Various hon. members supported me in that. The object is to protect these officials in particular, as well as other consumers and salaried workers, from this exploitation and unjustified increase in the cost of living, and to combat this tendency realistically and effectively. At this, stage there are also indications that the various staff associations, of which the Public Servants’ Association is one, the trade unions and the existing Consumers’ Council, are tackling the matter in all earnestness. Since we are now discussing this Public Service Vote, the time has now come for the mouthpiece of our public servants, i.e. the Public Servants’ Association, to come forward with a definite and positive contribution, for the sake of its members, for tackling and combating this cost of living problem once and for all. Only by combating the increase in the cost of living will public servants ever achieve the financial stability which they and the Government are striving to obtain. The attempts on the part of the hon. Opposition to compare the private sector with the Public Service does not hold water. How many times have officials not sat down at our desks, officials who were bought like merchandize at high cash prices. They plead with us to get them back into the Public Service in their previous posts, at their previous salaries and with their previous status. This is not always possible. The position is that where they have once been bought by commerce, it is not so easy to take them back into the Public Service at the expense of their fellow-workers who remained and continued to do loyal work. They are then off-loaded on to our members of the House of Assembly and on to the Department of Social Welfare. All the hon. members can bear witness to such cases. These officials, who left the Service, quickly discovered that more money outside cannot be off-set against the long-term security which the Public Service undoubtedly offers, in spite of the arguments employed by hon. members opposite. We all know of these benefits, for example the assurance of a pension at the end of one’s career. We are aware of the predicament in which people find themselves who eventually, at 60 or 70 years of age, come to us without having any pension and who must go to meet their old age without any pension. We know that our public servants are the smallest number to complain of this to us.

Mention was also made of housing for public servants. This interest subsidy which the hon. the Minister has just announced, i.e. a subsidy of 4 per cent for persons with a salary of up to R3,36O and 5 per cent for persons earning more than R3,36O, now materially enables the young married official to buy his own house and to go to that house with an additional R25 or R30 in cash in his pocket, which, in effect, now enables him to balance a budget which he previously found difficult to balance. Therefore we thank the hon. the Minister and the Government very warmly on behalf of the thousands of public servants who are going to benefit by that. We hope that the time will soon come when the representations which we have made from this side of the House since 1966 will be needed i.e. that the huge accumulated pension fund, to which the officials have contributed their share, will eventually be used in support of their own independent public service housing schemes under which our public servants can obtain loans, at a low interest rate, with which to build their own houses. Those people would then think twice before leaving the security of a public service career. The high interest rate on housing loans is to-day the pre-eminent factor exercising a stranglehold on our officials, and not the reasons mentioned by hon. members opposite. The majority of resignations also takes place as a result of this and not as a result of the low morale and all the other reasons about which the hon. member for Durban (Point) had so much to say. It is no secret that since the establishment of the 100 per cent housing scheme loans, more than 12,000 of our officials have been assisted in acquiring houses. The value of these houses if R75 million, R20 million of which was guaranteed by the State. Our officials are not so thankless as to disregard this. This shows the State’s interest in housing and we have great expectations for the future in this respect.

Since a serious reflection was cast upon our officials this afternoon I want to say in conclusion that we are aware of Government Departments in which the productivity has increased in recent months by as much as 300 per cent. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that, where there are such Government Departments with such manifestly increasing productivity, and I want to mention the Department of Water Affairs in this connection, these officials should be amply compensated, and provision should also be made for promotion for them. I extend a plea to the officials to strengthen the arm of this energetic young Minister of the Interior in extending this Public Service of ours, as we all know he would like to do. Our Public Service is not at as low an ebb as the hon. Opposition and other bodies would like to suggest. I, for one, am not ashamed to say to-day that I am proud of the majority of the officials in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I have already brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and I now want to bring to the notice of this House, the pre-listing statement of the Bank of the Orange Free State Limited. This statement appeared in The Star on the 16th May, 1969. The Bank of the Orange Free State is a general bank with a registered office in the Orange Free State. According to the pre-listing statement the directors of the Bank are as follows: Hendrik Johannes Samuels, director of companies and Chairman of the Armament Board; Pieter Louis Stephanus Aucamp, member of the Executive Committee of the Orange Free State; Johannes de Beer, Director of Hospital Services and director of companies. Here I want to say that I find it difficult to understand how a director of hospital services can describe himself as a director of companies, because he is holding out to the public that one of his functions in life is a director of companies. Then Pieter Willem du Plooy, school principal and director of companies; Daniel Peter Erasmus, professor and director of companies; Jan Daniel Marx, Deputy Provincial Secretary (O.F.S.), and director of comapanies; J. D. Potgieter, attorney, farmer and director of companies; J. E. K. Tucker, director of companies; and J. W. van der Riet, medical practitioner and a director of companies. One sees that according to this pre-listing statement six out of the nine directors are associated in one or another with Government or provincial departments. Let us take these directors once again. Mr. Samuels is the Chairman of the Armament Board and I understand that he is now a full-time employee of that organization. As such one would imagine that his activities are confined to that organization. Mr. Aucamp is a member of the Executive Committee of the Orange Free State, and as such he is obviously free to choose such directorships as he chooses, unless he is a full-time member of the Executive Committee. I do not know whether he is or is not. Mr. De Beer is a director of Hospital Services. As such he is filling a classified appointment and therefore, having been appointed by the Public Service, if he wants to take any outside employment. I understand the position is that he must obtain permission to do so from the Executive Committee of the Orange Free State. Unfortunately I have not been able to check that. Mr. Du Plooy, who is a schoolteacher, is very much in the same position. I have no knowledge of whether Professor Erasmus is a full-time or part-time professor. He may well be at liberty to accept any such directorships as he wants. Mr. Marx, the Deputy Provincial Secretary of the Orange Free State, is in exactly the same position as Mr. De Beer. He is full time in the provincial service, holding a classified appointment, and he presumably requires the permission of the Executive Committee before he can accept such an appointment. I brought these facts to the notice of the Public Service Commission and the Minister about two weeks ago, and so far I have had no comment from them. There was also reference made to this matter in the Financial Mail on 21st of last month. I am, therefore, forced to utilize the facts as I find them in this pre-listing statement, and what I have to say from now onwards is based on assumptions. It may be that these appointments to the board were made without the necessary official permission. If this is the case, I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to see that the gentlemen concerned resign from this board immediately. I find it hard, however, to believe that this is the case. The officials concerned are all very senior officials and they are well aware of the conditions of their appointment. Therefore one must assume that the necessary permission to take up these directorships was granted; and if that is the case, I would ask the hon. the Minister to use his position as the minsterial head of the Public Service to see that permission is withdrawn at the earliest possible moment. We believe that it is quite wrong for senior public servants to be associated with profit-making organizations, particularly with public companies where they become servants of and accountable to the public as shareholders, and more particularly when they are directors of a company which can stand to profit by a business association between that company and the State or the province or local authorities.

Now I want to quote two short paragraphs from this pre-listing statement to reinforce what I have just said. The first one is this—

Then there is a strange statement for a prelisting statement—

I should like to say a few things to the hon. member for Green Point. This afternoon the hon. member for Green Point made a very immature speech here and was digressing from the point all the time. He reminded me of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). It was very obvious, and the hon. member for Green Point and the other members may scurry away from this as much as they please, that the whole attitude adopted by the United Party in respect of our machinery of state as a whole was once again highlighted here this afternoon. These people do not only want, as a start, eight representatives of the Bantu in our Parliament, but are in addition gradually beginning to pave the way for non-Whites to be integrated with the Public Service. Any student of politics will appreciate that the Public Service constitutes one of the fundamental pillars on which the Western democracy is based. It is very obvious to me that the Opposition gradually wants to introduce non-Whites into our machinery of state. My personal view is that many people in our country—and I shall have to omit the Opposition here-—do not always realize fully what our public servants are doing. I think that sufficient appreciation for our public servants is not always being evinced. In contrast to this common attitude, I want to say that the National Party, together with its members of the House of Assembly and its leaders, have always made it very clear that the Public Service and public servants are very near to our hearts. I want to quote an example taken from a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd at the Loskopdam in September, 1965, in which the theme he dealt with was whether the Whites in South Africa were capable of holding their own. Then, logical as he always was, he dealt with the second point and said (translation)—

This is an example of the attitude adopted by the National Party in respect of the public servants and the Public Service, and as a junior member of this House it is also very clear to me now why especially in Pretoria the United Party did so poorly that we have now reached the stage where they do not have a single representative there; and as far as I can see, even if I were to look through a pair of binoculars, the future does not hold any prospect of any member of the United Party ever again being elected there to represent a large section of the officialdom. [Interjection.] The hon. member is welcome to make a speech in Rissik, and we shall see whether he will get much further with those arguments of his. In looking at the Public Service to-day, we must readily admit that the Public Service is labouring under a shortage of trained staff, in some spheres more so than in others, but this phenomenon is not confined to the Public Service only. The rapid development which is taking place in virtually every sphere of our society is the cause of this shortage, the reason why sufficient staff is simply not available to either the Public Service or the private sector outside.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to read his speech?

That merely proves that the hon. member has no arguments. This shortage is proof of our development and our sound planning rather than being proof of there being rigidity or inefficiency in our society or in the Public Service. However, what is important, is the fact that in spite of these staff shortages the Public Service has always succeeded and is still succeeding in rendering most efficient service to our country. In that respect the United Party has shamefully miscalculated their responsibility to-day by failing to rise and extending a word of thanks to our Public Service. That this does in fact happen, is no mean achievement and we may justly be proud of it, i.e. of what our public servants are doing. The Public Service is increasingly becoming a training field for the private sector outside and I think that the private sector should in their turn show much more gratitude and appreciation for the job of training these people which is done by the Public Service Commission. That greater appreciation on their part is something we ought to hear. It reflects the quality of the employee trained by the Public Service, and the fact that it is done in such a manner that it is truly purposeful and effective. In spite of the shortages which may exist, and in spite of the pessimism of the Opposition—because you know, Sir, the Opposition reminds me of the definition of a pessimist: he is a person who wears a pair of braces as well as a belt— about these shortages, it is possible for us to say here to-day, without any fear of contradiction, that there are no essential services which up to now have had to be suspended owing to this shortage, or that there are essential services which have in any way been affected adversely. To illustrate what is being done in the sphere of training one has merely to take note of the following, i.e. training on the present basis gained its final form as far back as 1953, and since 1963 more and various kinds of projects have gradually been developed; whereas over the past few years training has been concentrated to a greater extent on newcomers and on supervisors in the lower grades and on specific diploma courses for technical and clerical groups, those in executive posts are now also receiving training in business administration by means of intensive courses, seminars and symposiums. More than 1,600 senior officials have already been provided with administrative training. During 1967-’68 symposiums were held on physical, economic and social planning, whereas at a later stage they were repeated and supplemented so as to include additional aspects such as public finances, the computer as a managerial instrument, communication in the Public Service and leadership, which proves that attention is not only being paid to matriculants or those people who have just left university in order that they may be integrated with our machinery of state, but also that the Public Service Commission pays particular attention to enabling those persons which have been working in the Public Service for 10, or 20 or 30 years, to keep pace with the most modern developments which we find in our society. As a result one finds that our senior officials are conversant with the developments that have taken place in the rest of the world, i.e. in respect of improvements in our machinery of state. [Time expired.]

Sir, it is an old phenomenon here that, when members on the Government side have nothing to say, they trot out he spectre of integration. Our attitude is very clear as regards this matter, i.e. that in the long run it is impossible for 3½ million people to provide all the services for a population of 18½ million, and that is why, whether or not we wish to know it, the future will simply make it compulsory for more attention to be devoted to the training of non-Whites for the public services. And now hon. members on that side have come along and called this integration. A moment ago we disposed of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Police, and where can one find a better example of a government department in which thousands of Bantu and Indians and Coloureds are being employed along with Whites, than is the case in the Department of Police? Tributes were paid here, by both sides of this House, to the fact that Bantu and white police officers were now fighting side by side for South Africa on the borders of our country. Is that not integration? Bring me an example of one single police station in South Africa which is in a position to render proper services without non-white policemen being employed side by side with white policemen. The same applies in the South African Defence Force; is that not integration? No, what I find unacceptable is that hon. members opposite are always applying a double criterion. What they do is not integration, but as soon as it comes from us, it is integration all of a sudden. If the police service is not a department in which there is integration in the public Service, then J should like to know what integration is. Sir, I am merely saying this in passing.

Hon. members opposite have accused us of being inconsistent in a certain respect; they said that certain speakers on this side had allegedly said at one stage that the Public Service had too many vacancies and that we were now saying that it was too large. Sir, they are missing the whole point. This side has always adopted the attitude that there is a plethora of centralization by the Government—an absurd plethora of centralization. Powers are continually being taken out of the hands of local bodies and centralized in Pretoria, so much so that high officials in Pretoria have to decide in certain cases who may attend a football match or a concert. This is absurd. Centralization is an expensive and wasteful process. We are not pleading for people to be deprived of their jobs, but there is a plethora of centralizaton in respect of matters which ought to be dealt with by the local bodies and not on a central level, and that is why we say that there are wasteful services in our Public Service at the moment, at the expense of what is essential.

I have a few matters which I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister. I had hoped that in the course of this Session we would have been given an indication of legislation or plans for future general and provincial council elections to be held simultaneously. That step has been advocated here by members on both sides of this House, and I should very much like to hear how the hon. the Minister feels about the principle that elections for the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council ought to take place simultaneously, and that steps should be taken in order to make this possible. I want to concede that every matter has its pros and cons, but I am convinced that such a step would imply many more advantages than disadvantages for South Africa, and that it would be a forward step, and that is why I am also asking the hon. the Minister, no matter what his own views on the matter may be, whether he would not consider appointing at the start of the next Session a parliamentary committee to give thorough consideration to and to submit a report on this matter.

Sir, passport control is a matter which falls under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that I think it is very unfair for people to have to wait months before receiving replies to applications for passports. Cases where people, usually non-Whites, have to wait months for a reply are continually being brought to our notice. There are cases where people who wish to go abroad, have had to wait up to three months for a reply; and a fortnight before they are due to depart, they have still not been given any indication as to whether or not they can obtain a passport. Something is definitely wrong somewhere. We realize that the hon. the Minister has to check certain things, but I think that machinery ought to be provided for more justice to be done to that section of our population.

Sir, our passport, as it looks at the moment, is a fine, convenient and neat document which can easily be carried on one’s person. The only aspect which I find awkward and unnecessary as regards our passport, is the endorsement on page 5, which states that the passport “is valid for all countries, excluding …” and then the names of certain countries are printed in very large, clear lettering. Previously the position as regards passports was that a list was printed of all the countries which could be visited. I concede that this was cumbrous, but it was at least positive. To-day one has a negative endorsement which is printed in large, clear lettering on one of the very first pages of one’s passport, which is offensive. As it is printed here, it is to my mind very much in the form of a boycott on the part of South Africa. I want to make a serious request to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. The majority of the countries mentioned are communist countries, but in addition there are certain communist countries which have not been included. Yugoslavia has not been included; there is only one African country— Ghana. Tanzania has not even been included here. It does, therefore, not include all communist states and excludes only one African state. I want to tell the hon. the Minister what my experience has been. We know—and I do not wish to make a fuss about this—that generally speaking South Africans are already in a difficult position abroad. My experience has been that wherever one goes with this passport, this negative position on the front page attracts attention, and that is awkward. It is possible to-day to visit East Berlin from West Berlin. There are touring parties which make it possible to visit East Berlin. Anybody who goes from West Berlin to East Berlin and sees the contrast, will immediately be impressed by the West and not by the East. But now one finds oneself in this awkward position, namely that East Germany has been included in the list of countries on page 5. It is in fact possible to make an endorsement which changes this position, but it attracts unfavourable attention and I find that the South African always finds himself at the back of the queue, so to speak, while his passport is being studied. I saw in the paper that Mr. Reg Honey and two other gentlemen had now departed for Poland in order to plead that South Africa may remain a member of the Olympic Games Committee. Now he has to arrive there with a clear stamp on one of the first pages of his passport to the effect that if one is a South African, one cannot visit Poland. I cannot see what the actual good of this negative approach is. I do not think that there are other countries whose passports look like ours, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider giving a clean passport to South Africans. After all, people who are not permitted to travel, know in any case that they will not receive a passport. If a person is a listed communist, he does not receive a passport at all, and therefore this will not be applicable to him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to furnishing South Africans, if necessary, with a separate official document indicating that, if they want to visit certain countries, they will not enjoy the protection of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said, except to say that he is aware that a great deal is being done towards training non-Whites so that they may fill positions in their own areas, where they may then serve their own people. For instance, in this manner many non-white nurses are being trained to take the place of white nurses who previously nursed non-Whites. A great deal is being done in this respect, but we must also make it very clear that in view of the composition of our population we in South Africa cannot permit white posts to be filled by non-Whites.

Nobody is asking that.

I am glad to hear that. There should be no misunderstanding in that regard; we shall not permit white posts in the Public Service to be filled by non-Whites.

That goes without saying.

Sir, the tremendous economic development we have had in South Africa over the past number of years has in actual fact presented us with major problems as well. Whereas on the one hand economic development has its advantages, it also has, on the other hand, disadvantages in so far as it has been the cause of a manpower shortage in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister—I want to do so in a very calm manner—that we appreciate everything that is being done for the Public Service. We are appreciative of all those side benefits of which mention has already been made here to-day. However, the hard facts of the case are that we are not succeeding in attracting the flower of our youth to the Public Service. Owing to the sometimes extravagant salaries which the private sector outside is paying to young people, they are enabling such persons, with their higher salaries, to force up the prices of articles beyond their real value. This results in public servants, especially young public servants, having to compete with the people in the private sector. They simply cannot do so on their salaries, including the side benefits they receive. I am rising to tell the hon. the Minister that all of us are aware of that, but my plea is that we should appoint a commission of inquiry to work out a proper, sound basis on which we may build up better salary ratios between the Public Service on the one hand and the private sector on the other hand. There is actually no point in adjusting the salaries of public servants if immediately afterwards the private sector comes along and offers higher salaries. The private sector is in a position to do so in view of the fact that it can simply increase the prices of its commodities. This is a practical problem with which we have to contend. Sir, if a person says to-day that public servants are earning too little, one does not appreciate what is meant, but if he were to say that the public servants are earning too little as compared to the earnings of a person in the private sector who has similar qualifications, then one does in fact appreciate it. A public servant cannot compete with that person in the private sector. That is why I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to appoint a commission to see whether it is not possible for us to work out a basis on which we might try to effect a sounder ratio between the private sector and the Public Service as regards salaries for the same kind of service. Sir, I want to add this—and hon. members are welcome to interpret this as they please: If the public of South Africa, if the happy inhabitants of South Africa, want the services of this fine Public Service of ours, they should also be prepared to pay for those services. We are not afraid of saying this to our people. Our people are telling us every day, “We want to feel secure, and that is why we are prepared to pay taxes; for that reason we want you to give us a Defence Force which will make us feel secure; give us a Public Service which is in a position to provide the necessary services in the interests of the inhabitants of South Africa”. The taxpayers of South Africa must therefore be prepared to pay for those services. But then, in the same breath, we also want to make an appeal to the Public Service and to every servant in the Public Service to increase productivity wherever it is at all possible. If there is to be higher remuneration, there is also to be higher productivity. I also want to appeal to the private sector to refrain from luring away from the Public Service the cream of the crop by offering benefits which are so much better than those offered by the Public Service. The private sector should also bear in mind that it is only when we have a strong and sound Public Service which is capable of taking care of the administration that it is possible for us to have economic development.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad must excuse me if I do not follow him, because I have other matters to raise. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to raise the question of Nusas this afternoon because I understood the hon. the Minister was still considering certain requests which had been made to him by this organization. However, I should not like to feel that the hon. the Minister has been deprived of the opportunity to attack me for what he called my “irresponsible part” in student unrest. Therefore, I am raising this matter purely to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of saying what he wanted to say. Let me assure him that I have nothing whatever to hide. All the meetings I have are public meetings and the hon. the Minister is welcome to come to any of them; also to any private discussions which I may have. I have no doubt that some of these are attended by his henchmen. I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would adopt a less vindictive attitude towards Nusas than his predecessor; I hoped he would be a little more adult towards this organization. As a matter of fact, my hopes were raised by the sensible interview which the students had with the Minister at the beginning of the year. It all went off very well but suddenly the Minister revealed himself in his true colours. I do not know whether it was on account of the Newcastle by-election or the “verkrampte-verligte-verkrimpte” goings on, or Newcastle disease if you like. In any event, this suddenly manifested itself and it was necessary for Minister after Minister Io trumpet forth about calling in the army, calling in the police—in fact calling in just about anybody they could think of. This hon. Minister had to add his little contribution to that as well. Then I think he told us that everything was due to communist agitators. These get blamed for everything in this country, even the mini-skirt I notice! In any event, I raise the question of Nusas so as not to deprive the hon. the Minister of a golden opportunity of taking me to task.

Another matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the policy he has apparently adopted as regards the admission of non-white tourists in South Africa. It seems that a statement was issued by his Department to a certain tourist organization to the effect that non-white tourists will be allowed into South Africa under certain conditions only. Apparently they have to come by ship because then they can go back to the ship every night and sleep on board. That is to obviate difficulties about accommodation. They have got to travel as a group, not leave the group—literally be herded around in one group. Otherwise he is not prepared to let them come in. The official journal of the tourist industry in this country, the Travel and Trade News Pictorial, points out that anything like this is going to destroy completely any prospect of the tourist industry attracting large numbers of tourists to this country because of the implied insult to non-white people and the fact that massed tourism is now the order of the day. In other words, tourists come as groups; they usually travel on one joint visa. In many of the countries from where they come it is illegal to have to state the race of the person concerned on official documents. In America, for instance, it is against constitutional law. This is going to put “paid” to any effort of South Africa to attract any great number of this enormous industry. This journal points out that this industry is already worth R100 million to South Africa. To the world as a whole it is worth R10,000 million. In other words, it is one of the great industries of the modern world. With the development of Jumbo Jet travel, package tours and all the rest of the modem paraphernalia that goes with travel, I think it is absolutely absurd, apart from my objections in principle to this sort of thing, that South Africa should adopt this extremely narrow-minded attitude about admitting non-white tourists. What on earth hon. members think we are doing in this day and age, laying down this sort of policy, is quite beyond me. We are going to have to realize sooner or later that some two-thirds of the world consists of non-white people. We cannot live in a little isolated, insulated white pocket on the southern tip of the continent of Africa, which in itself is a black continent, having over 200 million non-white inhabitants. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he really considers it necessary to give this sort of directive to agencies that are attempting to attract tourists to South Africa, and to fear that a policy such as this, as enunciated and set out in this statement, is going to make it quite impossible for South Africa to get her fair share of the tourist industry, which is developing so rapidly, not only here, but, of course, also in every country in the world.

The other matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is, of course, again the question of the refusal of passports to Coloured people who wish to emigrate, and the apparently overall policy now that they may go on exit permits only. This is why, I understand, it is only with the greatest difficulty that Coloured people are able to get passports now. This means they have to cut the links completely with their homeland and their relatives who remain behind. I would say that one of the features of a democratic country is to allow its citizens to travel and to emigrate freely, without binding themselves never to come back. It seems to me a very hard condition indeed. I know the idea is to stop the brain drain of teachers, and so on, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is, of course, to improve their conditions of service and make them feel that they will be happy here.

Finally, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would say something to us about this Gazette which I have seen of the 23rd May, which sets out the constituencies for the new Coloured Representative Council, based, of course, on a delimitation commission which sat. Well, there has been a lot of talk about “One man, one vote” for the Coloured voters. But I want to point out that the delimitation is so extraordinary because of the tremendous number of people who live in the Cape Province and the few Coloureds who live elsewhere. The disproportion is enormous between the number of votes allowed for the heavily populated area of the Cape and that allowed for the very sparsely populated areas of the Free State and the province of Natal. The position is that the quota for the Cape of Good Hope is 16,116 voters per constituency. The quote for the province of the Free State is 2,615, which is an extraordinary difference. Therefore, this whole claim of “One man, one vote” as far as the Coloured people of the Cape are concerned, is nonsense. I know that we have differences in the white constituencies as well. I think these days my own constituency is one of the most heavily populated in the country. There are something like 15,000 or 16,000 voters, as against something like 6,000 or 7,000 voters in some of the more sparsely populated areas in the Free State. But this seems to me quite ridiculous. I hope the hon. the Minister will discuss with his colleagues the possibility of somehow or other increasing the number of seats allowed in the Cape of Good Hope, because this is really a very skew delimitation indeed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has once again, as is her wont, tried to drag tourism—i.e. non-white tourism to South Africa—into this debate in order to make political capital out of it for herself. She pretends to know South Africa and the South African community. Can the hon. member for Houghton picture to herself for one moment what the situation would be in South Africa, with its established dividing lines between the various colour groups, if thousands of non-white tourists were to come to South Africa and insist here on the same treatment they receive in their own countries? In other words, our restaurants and all other doors would have to be thrown open to them. The only end she has in view in doing that, is to create embarrassment for the Government, and to try to disparage separate development in South Africa. We know that in her political motives this is the very object she seeks to achieve. In discussing these matters in South Africa and in this House, she should know that as far as we on this side are concerned, her arguments are falling on deaf ears. But she is not speaking in the interests of South Africa; she is speaking for the purpose of disparaging existing orders in South Africa. That is something she will not succeed in doing in this country in her lifetime, nor in the most distant future one could imagine. She simply tried to drag politics into this situation. Nor can I see the problems as regards what has been reported in Travel and Trade. I have also read it. In fact, I did not become as excited about it as the hon. member for Houghton did. We know that South Africa does not rely on non-white tourist traffic, but in fact on the white tourist traffic from the Western countries of the world. That holds a sufficient number of possibilities. If the South African tourists organization were to concentrate on the Whites of the world, it would be possible for them to bring to South Africa every year many thousands more than is the case at present.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about the Coloureds who left South Africa on exit permits and subsequently wanted to return. In this regard the hon. the Minister has already said in the Senate that he would consider such cases on merit and that he foresaw that, in cases where it was administratively possible, it would be possible to bring them back. Surely, she knew that. If that is the case, why did she raise it here again?

Then the hon. member once again started her speech by speaking on her favourite topic, her protégé, Nusas, which has now received a hanger-on in the person of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). As far as Nusas is concerned, we, especially those of us who are sitting in this part of the back benches of the House, still have a vivid recollection and fresh memories as regards that organization. Nusas’s reputation is pursuing it and will continue to do so. I want to say that I do not think that Nusas has had a change of heart since the time when it was affiliated with the International Union of Students, which had its headquarters in Prague or one of the communist countries and received its instructions from Moscow. Outwardly it has apparently changed colour, but we do not think that it has had a change of heart. The hon. the Minister may rest assured that, as far as the electorate of South Africa and hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, he can rely on us as long as he holds a tight rein over Nusas. The members of Nusas do not know what their place is in the South African set-up. They might as well be slapped back into their place time and again. We agree with the hon. the Minister in that regard. Nusas is, in the first instance, a student organization, and comprises students who also receive financial assistance from the Government and from the taxpayers in this country. In the first instance, these students are there to equip themselves for the future, and not to poke their noses into affairs of which they do not have the faintest notion in any case. By that I do not wish to say that students should not show their interest in affairs of state in a responsible manner. But when they waste their evenings in an irresponsible manner by standing here on the steps of the Cathedral, dressed in black and holding flaming torches, they are going too far. We are supporting the hon. the Minister of the Interior in the action he has taken against Nusas. We are also telling him that he need not become alarmed about the hon. member being so excited about the downward trend in and the danger to the tourist traffic to South Africa. To my mind this is in any case a matter which should not have been raised under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by asking the hon. the Minister a question about sub head F of Vote 43—Deportation Expenses. It is very interesting to note that the amount voted last year towards deportation expenses amounted to R15.000. This year the amount has doubled. Now it is R30,000. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whom he has in mind for deportation under these circumstances?

It is intended for Albert and his friends.

It is significant that the figure has actually doubled. That is the only financial implication I wish to refer to this afternoon.

I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of third party appeals under the Population Registration Act. As the hon. the Minister knows, a large number of people have appealed to me for help over the years. I must say that the Government’s record in this regard is not a good one. The hon. the Minister told me in reply to a question in this House on 6th May that there were still 140 of these cases outstanding in the Republic. I have referred a number of cases to him. The hon. the Minister finally wrote to me also on Oth May, 1969 and said that I should no longer refer any of these cases to him or his department but to the Chairman of the Appeal Board direct. In this connection he said that he could not prescribe to the board how it should function but that he had referred all cases to them and asked that I should do the same in future and deal with the Chairman of the Board. The hon. the Minister then went on and said in this letter to me—

I must say that is a masterly understatement.

… and in the chronological order in which they are received.

For the hon. the Minister to suggest as his forebears, I mean his predecessors did … [Laughter.] I know nothing about the hon. the Minister’s forebears. We can always ask to have them investigated. No, I think we had better not investigate his forebears. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor in fact told us the same thing, namely that these cases were sent in chronological order to the board. I must confess that I find this very difficult to accept, because there is every indication that cases have not been submitted to the board in the order in which they were received. Chronological order means what it says, namely in order of receipt. For years the most extraordinary and inexplicable delays in certain cases have come to light. The hon. the Minister knows about them. The hon. the Minister says to me in defence of his department, which I can appreciate, that they are all being forwarded to the board in chronological order. To give one example, the hon. the Minister, knows of a case I forwarded to him in respect of a person who lodged an objection. The hon. the Minister wrote to me in January about this case. The third party objection in this case was lodged with the department on 1st July, 1966. It was officially acknowledged by a letter from the department to the effect that it would be referred to a board on 25th July, 1966. As far as we know no interim investigations were involved at all. Nothing whatever was heard of that case until I wrote to the hon. the Minister at the request of the man concerned on 18th November, 1968. That is 2½ years afterwards. On 14th January the hon. the Minister took action at once and wrote to me and said that this person’s attorneys had been informed in November that the objection had been referred to the Race Classification Board. In other words, it took 21 years for this to happen. Finally the case was heard and a decision given in the applicant’s favour on 20th February, 1969. I submit that this is not good enough. As a result of the hon. the Minister’s directive to me to forward all known cases in my possession to the Chairman of the Board I sent him a list of 38 cases on 22nd May, 1969. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that one of those cases involved a three-year delay; 11 involved a delay of over 2½ years; two cases involved a 2½ years delay exactly; while 16 of them involved a two year delay. Now, it is only fair to the department to admit that the department was prevented from referring any third party objection cases to a board from 19th May, 1967, when the 1967 Act was promulgated, to the date of the judgment given in the Appeal Court in the Bell case on 14th March, 1968. There was an inevitable delay during which time the department could do nothing. But I think it is worth noting that from the time of their establishment under the Act these Appeal Boards have always had a backlog. No steps seem to have been taken by the hon. the Minister or his department to suggest that they might hurry up affairs for the poor people who were concerned. In March, 1957, it was reported in this House that 1,375 objections of all kinds had been made, of which 968 were outstanding. In February, 1960, 2,623 objections had been made of which 1,353 were pending. By February, 1967, the backlog had been reduced to 300. I must say to this hon. Minister’s credit that by 7th February it stood at 162 and by 31st March, at 140. It is no doubt lower today. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the actions of the hon. the Minister, his predecessors and that of the department over this matter. The Minister of the Interior told us in this House in 1967 that among the persons classified in South Africa a number of them could only be classified after long-term investigations. In Hansard of 22nd March, 1967, the hon. the Minister said: These are persons whose classifications were open to a measure of doubt. He then proceeded to give a list of 48,000 Whites, 179,000 Coloureds, 14,000 Malays, 27 Indians, 14 Chinese and 26,500 Bantu, making a total of 267,541. That means over a quarter of a million people whose classifications were in some doubt. The hon. the Minister must have known that these types of doubtful cases were nothing new to the department. It seems to me that the people who have been kept waiting over these third party appeals have had a very raw deal indeed during all this time, when their jobs were involved, their childrens’ schooling where they lived and other circumstances which surrounded these cases. The hon. the Minister knows that judgment was given against the department by Mr. Justice Beyers and Mr. Justice Watermeyer in the Cape Supreme Court on 12th March, 1969. In terms of this judgment the department was obliged to forward 13 third party objections to the Race Classification Appeal Board in the Western Cape immediately. Two of these objections were lodged in 1966, seven in the first half of 1967, three in the latter part of 1968, and one in January, 1969. The real truth of the matter is, and I think the hon. the Minister will be honest enough to admit it, that the department has been stalling for years on forwarding these cases to the board, an appeal to which the people concerned were very clearly entitled.

The hon. the Minister told us in reply to a question in this House this year, that there were two existing appeal boards only, consisting of seven individuals in all, three from the Cape, three from the Transvaal and one from Natal. They form two boards for the whole country. Let us take the Cape Board, where the majority of cases have to be heard. This is a statutory body I know, but parliament is the only place where we can raise this matter. What is the record of the hearings of this board? In 1965 they heard three cases in 12 months. In 1966 they heard 79 cases, in other words, between seven and eight cases per month. In 1967 they heard 80 cases. In 1968 they heard 72 cases, an average of six per month. In 1969, up to the 25th February, they had heard exactly 12 cases. At this rate, of course, it would take two years to hear the 100 cases which are still outstanding. That is why I have raised this matter. The hon. the Minister said in a letter to me that he had no power over these boards because they are statutory bodies. He said that he could do nothing about it. But, Sir, he can surely appoint more boards? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why he is not prepared either to appoint more boards or to appoint younger people, if these people presently serving on these boards, with due respect to them, are too old to hear more than six cases per month. They are all retired people. Why could he not appoint younger, more active, members? You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister has allowed only two boards to function. I want to ask him whether it is his intention that all these outstanding third-party appeals are to be heard before the promulgation of the Bill which is at present before the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I really resent the hon. member’s attitude, as well as ‘the tone in which she discussed the Race Classification Board. She made no bones about wanting to cast very serious reflections on the work of these boards. She tried to get at the Department and at everybody dealing with race classification. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister that the hon. member should rather confine herself to matters she knows something about. She is gaining for herself the reputation of being a political vulture. She wants to rake up every single matter of this nature. She has advertisements published in the United Party newspapers that everybody who knows of “heartbreak” cases should come to her. She makes herself the receptacle for all the dirty washing for matters of this nature. What she did to-day, was to complain about delays as regards the hearing of these cases. What I want to tell the hon. member, is that this is not such a simple matter as she tried to make out before the House. We are dealing with statutory boards and courts. These bodies do not allow themselves to be hurried up or to be dictated to by the Minister as to the number of cases they should deal with on one day. It is childish for the hon. member for Wynberg to say that younger people should be appointed if the old men who are serving on these boards are doing nothing at all. People with the highest measure of integrity are serving on these boards. I can tell you their names, Sir.

I know who they are.

Well, the hon. member should not make such childish and petty remarks then. However, I want to teach the hon. member a lesson now. I want to tell her to use a little more common sense, if she has any. If she has any knowledge of this Act ait all—and it is clear to me that the hon. member has no idea how these matters are being dealt with— she will understand that people have certain privileges in terms of the Act. It is not simply a matter of days, but possibly years if people decide to avail themselves of those privileges. The fact is that every person has the right to lodge a complaint within 30 days after he has been notified of his race classification. But within one year after having been notified, he may apply to the Minister for extension for the purposes of lodging a late appeal, and usually such a request is granted provided sound reasons exist. Sir, I now want to tell you that the hon. member for Wynberg tried to do what the hon. member for Green Point had tried to do in this House on a previous occasion. She tried to create the impression that because these boards were waiting for the Act of which notice had been given, they now sought to pooh-pooh these matters and would not deal with them finally. I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg how this position came about. In 1967 we passed an Act in this House. The hon. member must not think that she can dissociate herself from that, because she was one of us who argued that Parliament was abolishing third-party objections. As a result of the promise made by the Minister at that time, he referred all the outstanding third-party cases to the Race Classification Board. That happened in 1967. The Race Classification Board then simply referred all those objections back to the Department. The Board stated that, according to the Act of Parliament and according to their interpretation of the Act, third party objections had been abolished by Parliament and that the Board could not give further consideration to the objections. The matter was left at that. No further third-party applications were considered by the Board. Then, towards the end of 1967, we had the Bell case. In that case the courts told us what their interpretation of the Act was we had passed in this House. The courts stated that they did not agree with the Race Classification Board and that third-party cases could, in fact, be heard. Of course, the Department did what it was supposed to do, and referred all the cases which were still outstanding at that time back to the Race Classification Board towards the end of 1967. But this took up a great deal of time. We nevertheless find that, according to the reply furnished to a question put to the Minister by the hon. member for Green Point, that no fewer than 70 of these third-party cases were finally dealt with between the period 1st March, 1968, and 28th February of this year. In spite of this the hon. member said that these old people were doing nothing at all. No fewer than 70 cases were finally dealt with in the course of one year. Surely, it is quite evident that this hon. member wants to present this Board in an unfavourable light. After all, it is quite evident that this hon. member, knowing full well what she is doing, is creating a false impression in this House.

Sir, the cases before this Board at the moment include some of the most difficult nature. These are not oases which the Board and the courts can deal with haphazardly, as that hon. member and the hon. member for Green Point want them to do. I want to give the hon. member an example of the type of case which has been referred to the courts. A report on this type of case appeared in Die Burger of 15th May of this year. It concerns the case of a Coloured woman. The report reads, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

Do you know when that happened, Sir? It happened when she had an illegitimate child from a white man. Then she decided to become a white person. That was sufficient reason to encourage her to become a white person. This is the type of case the court is dealing with at present. Here are the facts. Now the hon. member says that the court and the board should deal with these cases in a haphazard manner. She does not know what is going on. She must please confine herself to matters she knows something about. She should not make herself the receptacle for all the dirty washing and rake up and present in this House all kinds of complaints and sob stories the Cape Times has dug up for het.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am very surprised at the hon. member for Parow. What has the member for Wynberg done here to-day? She stood up in this House and made a very sincere plea for the speeding up of hearings which affects the lives of human beings in South Africa.

They are not human beings to them. [Interjections.]

She said that hearings were held at the rate of six per month. She suggested that if the members of the Board were too old to deal with these matters at a faster rate, they should be replaced. As far as I am concerned, these are very constructive suggestions, bearing in mind that we are dealing with people’s lives. I want to say to the hon. member for Parow, that when it comes to a knowledge of this particular subject, I believe that the hon. member for Wynberg certainly stands far ahead of him.

I leave the matter there, Sir, because I want to raise a specific matter with the hon. the Minister. I want to assure you, Sir, that the matter I am going to raise is one I hoped I would not have to raise in this House.

My reason for raising the matter is twofold. Firstly, I hope that after I have raised the matter here to-day, the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to review a certain case about which he knows everything. Secondly, I believe that hon. members in this House should be reminded from time to time of the havoc that race classification can play and does play in the lives of ordinary good hardworking citizens of South Africa. I appreciate of course that the case I am raising here can be duplicated in many cases. I speak with particular feeling on this particular case, because it is one that I have investigated myself. I honestly believe that if ever a case deserved special attention, this one did. The case was brought to my notice when a man living in my constituency phoned me and said that he wanted to speak to me on a matter which was of very urgent importance to him. An appointment was duly arranged and I found myself speaking to a young intelligent presentable man of 39. In appearance this man was obviously white and as white as any person sitting in this hon. House. I found that this man was married to a woman who was classified as white; that they had three very charming well brought up children and that they were living in a good middle-class suburb in the northern areas of Johannesburg. They were living in their own house. During our interview the man told me that he came to see me in desperation, because he felt that the break up of his home life was imminent. This would happen, because while his wife was classified white, he has been classified as a Coloured. It is necessary for me to say that this particular man had worked himself up from the position of an apprentice compositor in the printing trade, which is a trade reserved for Whites, to an executive position. He felt that he could not take the matter to court, because the moment he went to court the publicity would see to it that he lost his job immediately and his home life was affected.

I went to a great deal of trouble to investigate this case myself. I visited this family at home, sat at their table, ate with them and found neighbours coming in to meet them. I made my own discreet canvass of the neighbours in the area and the other people with whom they mixed in that particular community. I found that without any doubt this family was completely accepted as equals and as white people by the other neighbours. I found for instance that the man himself served on the parent-teachers association of the white school which his children attended. I found that in his spare time he coached the children in cricket and football. I found that his son who was in standard 5 was a leader in that school both academically and socially. In fact, he was serving there as a prefect.

This then very briefly is the background of a family who now stand before the agonizing choice of either leaving their own country, a country which they love, a country which they do not want to leave, or uprooting themselves and living in a Coloured residential area. Quite obviously, if this happens, the man will lose his job. He will have to move from this particular suburb into a Coloured area. His wife who is a white woman will have to go with him. His children will have to leave the white school, and might I add that the children have never mixed at any stage with Coloured people. Therefore, we can see that unless something is done on compassionate grounds, the life of this particular family, a family who I say are an asset not only to the City of Johannesburg, but to South Africa, will be completely disrupted. I want to say in fairness to the hon. the Minister that he was quite in order when he wrote to me. He told me on what grounds he could not agree to review this particular case. I say that a grave doubt exists in this case. The hon. the Minister should review it again. This is the history.

The Minister told me that apparently both the man’s parents were classified as Coloureds. This is not exactly correct. The woman quite rightly, is married to a Coloured man. 30 or 40 years ago, quite obviously, if she married a Coloured she became a Coloured herself. But this man has evidence that an old lady who cared for his mother—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—came to him with a photograph of his real father who is in fact a white soldier.

These are the facts brought to my notice. I believe that it is only human when a doubt exists, that that man should be given the benefit of the doubt. If this man was an obvious Coloured-looking person it still would be bad, but not so bad. However, I have said earlier that in appearance he is absolutely white. His wife has been classified as white, his children are white and only mix with white people. I believe if the hon. the Minister does not do something in this case, this will be a real tragedy for this particular family.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg delivered here what was a purely personal and individual plea. In my opinion he could have delivered that plea to much greater effect and with greater success to the hon. the Minister in his office. I shall leave the matter at that.

He has already done so.

In the short time I have at my disposal, I should like to congratulate the new Chairman of the Publications Board, Mr. Kruger, on his appointment as chairman of that important Board. I want to congratulate him because apparently he is conducting the affairs of the Publications Board so successfully that the Official Opposition and the unofficial Opposition to-day steer clear altogether of the actions of that Board which usually occupied a great deal of time in the debate on this Vote. Therefore one must accept that there is no criticism on the work of the Publications Board. We know that Mr. Kruger is a very talented and artistic man to whom this very important work may definitely be entrusted with every confidence. We want to wish him a long and fruitful term of office in this position as well.

The Publications Board is the watchdog over the moral values of our nation. In this respect it performs a very important task, although, of course, it is also a very unenviable one in many respects. We are very grateful for the fact that this task is being performed by very efficient people in a very efficient, mature and balanced way. Unless one refuses to see or hear or goes to live in isolation on a island, one cannot but notice with bewilderment the enormous wave of pornography which is breaking over us. In the cinema, in the theatre, in the newspaper, in the magazine as well as in the paper-back, one is struck by the large-scale display of risque suggestiveness and the discarding of standards which have been regarded up to now as decent and as viable for our nation. Particularly since the beginning of this year nudity and sex have been taken from the bedroom by rough hands, have been dolled up to some extent, and have been presented to shocked audiences in cinemas and theatres. Advertising agencies join in merrily. Whether a motor car or perfume or stockings have to be advertised, semi-nude female figures are always brought into the advertisements. Foreign magazines are being imported on a large scale, particularly from Western Germany. Here those magazines are sold to people who cannot read a single word of German and who buy those magazines merely for the sake of the semi-nude sexually stimulating photos of attractive women these magazines contain. An advertising agent in London recently said the following—

Therefore things are going from bad to worse. Thanks to this Government that is guarding over the interests, also over the moral values, of our nation and thanks to a Publications and Entertainments Act, which hon. members opposite regard as reprehensible legislation, and thanks to the noble task of the Publications Board, we in South Africa have been saved many of these things. In other countries matters are much worse. Only this week-end we read that there was no longer any control whatsoever in Sweden and that nudity, sex and bedroom scenes were being shown freely in cinemas, theatres and magazines. Also in America, the country that is the leader of the Western nations, homage is being paid to this god of permissiveness. In an article written by Dr. Max Rafferty in the Los Angeles Times, he briefly describes the position as follows—

This, according to Dr. Max Rafferty, is the position. This is the position in the world in which we are living to-day. It is true that thinking people to-day are concerned that the Western civilization is on the decline. If one believes that history repeats itself, one cannot help but be concerned. We know that great civilizations fell because of moral decline and deterioration. The journalist James Eisenberg summed up the position as follows—

He proceeds and concludes with these words—

This is the condition of the world in which we are living, and therefore one is probably not surprised to read that a number of children between the ages of 4 and 11 recently held an impressive protest march in front of the White House in America protesting against sadism, sex, violence and perversion in modern films. What does surprise one is when people get up in this House and try to make the difficult task of the Publications Board even more difficult by expressing criticism and by discrediting its work in a negative way. Then one is surprised that there are people who want to present this pornography and this blatant nudity cult as art; that there are people who want to reject every form of control and censorship and who regard control and censorship as old-fashioned and as verkramp; that there are people and newspapers who believe that the people of South Africa are being deprived of a right they are entitled to if censorship is applied.

Are you in favour of the mini-skirt or not?

I do not have time for silliness. Then one is surprised that there are people and newspapers who maintain that it has not been proved as yet that nudity and pornography cause moral decay in mankind. [Time expired.]

I have been listening with great attention to the hon. member for Algoa, as I always listen to someone, who has involved verkrampte ideas and certain obsessions. It is not my intention to discuss the Publications Control Board this afternoon; I actually want to discuss another matter, but I think I should at least say the following in connection with to speech of the hon. member. He referred to sex crimes and offences, but I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that crimes of this nature probably come to a greater percentage in South Africa than they do in most of the Western countries, partly as a result of the legislation we have and partly as a result of a possibly very antiquated attitude towards such crimes. Can he explain to me why it is so that in the Scandinavian countries the percentage of sex crimes is of the lowest in the world to-day, while these countries have the fewest restrictions.

What I actually want to discuss is a matter on which the hon. member for Green Point also touched and that is the population register and the future plans of the Government in this connection. I wonder whether hon. members realize that a Minister of the Cabinet staked virtually his entire political career and his political reputation on the future of this population register? I refer to the predecessor of the present Minister, who is the hon. member for Oudtshoorn to-day, Mr. P. M. K. le Roux. In order to give an indication of how strongly his predecessor felt about any change in the population register, I want to quote from Hansard of 6th May when the then Minister of the Interior said the following—

These are indeed words of wisdom. He continued—

Quite correct, but then he went on—

I am quoting this in order to illustrate how urgent and serious the Minister regarded the matter of renewing the population register and of introducing something new in its place. The Minister’s predecessor also said the following—

The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the ordinary member for Oudtshoorn to-day, said it was his greatest ambition to do something about this population register. He said—

And then he got the red light.

What happened then? Was there an amber light? Was there a red light? But I do not really want to talk about lights, because then I have to talk about the enlightened and the verkramptes. Here is an important point. Apparently a very strong plan was afoot to change and reform the old population register which had been a total failure. It was a matter which went as far as the Cabinet, and the predecessor of the hon. the Minister said, “They can kick me out about this, but I am waiting for that green light”. I think the country is entitled to know exactly what happened. The predecessor of the Minister was very serious as regards this matter. He promised that legislation would be introduced.

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating himself now. He is simply repeating the same sentence.

I then come to the next point. The predecessor of the Minister promised legislation which would be laid upon the Table before being introduced in this House by him, and the predecessor of the Minister then made the following statement—

A start had already been made, Sir, with this organization—

Hon. members will recall that the caucuses were addressed about this matter—

I think it is important for us to know, as the hon. member for Green Point asked, precisely what is being envisaged now with regard to a new population register, a new book of life, a new central register in which all the particulars of all the citizens of South Africa will be recorded. Is it the intention of the Government to continue with this plan or have they rejected that plan? Has the green light changed to red? What are the plans of the Government in connection with this matter? As the hon. member for Green Point asked, what is the time-table if this project is going to be undertaken? When can we expect this new population register to be introduced? Will this mean that new staff will have to be appointed in the Public Service to deal with this enormous task, because it is going to be an enormous task, judging from what we have been told? All the certificates which have a bearing on the life of an ordinary citizen will probably have to appear in that book; one’s birth certificate, one’s marriage certificate, one’s vaccination certificate against some disease or other, one’s driver’s licence. We have been given to understand that all these things were likely to be included in this new population register, and I think the country is entitled to know exactly what has happened now as far as this matter is concerned. Why has an absolute silence been maintained over the past year as regards the plans of the Government? Has there been a sudden volte-face? I regret that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is not present here this afternoon. He could possibly have thrown a great deal of light on this matter. He ought to have been present here. The ranks of the opposite side seem to be divided. [Time expired.]

I do not want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove. In his usual unpleasant way he said some unpleasant things in the absence of an hon. member who is not very well, and therefore we leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the sob story which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) told here in the House to-day. I think, in view of the fact that an election will be held in the not too distant future, that the United Party should tell us whether it is in favour of maintaining a colour bar in South Africa, and whether it is in favour of having some form of race classification, and whether it is in favour of the continued existence of white civilization, and consequently also in favour of the necessity of race classification and a colour bar in South Africa. If they reply in the affirmative to-day, I want to tell them that they should stop coming to Parliament with sob stories and spreading such stories. [Interjection.] I shall come to the hon. member for Wynberg in a moment; she should just be patient. I want to say that I had experience before I came to this House of the way in which the Board and our courts deal with race classification appeals, and that I have experience of the sympathy with which the Department of the Interior deals with these cases. And the United Party members are not the only ones in this House who have hearts. We also have pity, but a line must be drawn somewhere. We have Acts in South Africa which must be implemented, otherwise the legislature is made to look ridiculous. I dealt with a certain case. When the case reached me it was already five years old and the period of 30 days in which to raise objections had expired a long time ago. A pile of telegrams and correspondence in connection with the case which came from “Mrs. Catherine Taylor, M.P.,” was handed to me. In that pile of telegrams and correspondence she stated: “I have written another letter to the Department”, and “I have written another letter to the Department”, and “I have written another letter to the Department”. The family consisted of the father, the mother and three children. If she had gone to the Department and lodged an appeal when the case first came to her attention, the objection would have been raised within the period of 30 days and no problems would have arisen. But when that case reached me it was already more than five years old and we then had to find a third party to object. We went to the Appeal Board and the objection was sustained, and that family of five was classified White. If “Mrs. Catherine Taylor, M.P.” had done that and had not sent telegrams and more telegrams and even more telegrams, there would have been no problem, and in that case all the outstanding cases with which she has concerned herself might possibly have been brought to finality a long time ago. But she does not follow procedure laid down by law; she sends telegrams and then she airs her problem cases here in this House. Mr. Chairman, the Population Registration Act was passed in South Africa in 1950. The people of South Africa have known for nearly 20 years that everyone has to have an identity card and that that identity card must be produced when two people want to marry, and the marriage officers know that they may not perform a marriage ceremony for persons who do not have identity cards. Sir, we have an Act in South Africa which prohibits mixed marriages, and people in South Africa who have different classifications know that in order to save future grief and sorrow for themselves and possibly for children as well, they must refrain from establishing relations which cut across those differences. If they do in fact establish relations which cut across those differences, they must not run to the Department afterwards with their sob story and ask the Department to put right what they have bungled. This legislation has been on the Statute Book for the past 20 years, and the provisions of this Act are known to everybody. Sir, is any member on that side able to say here to-night with his hand on his heart that there is one person of pure white descent in South Africa who has been classified as a non-White in terms of the Population Registration Act.

In conclusion I just want to say to the hon. the Minister, with reference to the remark of the hon. member for Houghton concerning Nusas, that through the medium of the Press we have taken cognizance of the fact that he conducted a series of interviews or one interview with the president of Nusas. It seems to me as though this Nusas official is trying to place all kinds of different interpretations on the interview he had with the hon. the Minister and as though he actually wants to cast a reflection on the hon. the Minister. As the hon. member for Houghton has raised this matter here, I want to ask whether the time has not perhaps arrived for the hon. the Minister to tell South Africa what he told that young man, and whether he should not at the same time expose that young man as a representative of Nusas who, as we know, never approaches one openly with anything, but always acts with pre-meditation.

I think the time has come for me to make a few remarks about the debate we have had so far. Right at the start I should just like to make a few general remarks. Mr. Chairman, you are of course aware that this is the first time I am rising here to reply to the discussions on this Vote in my capacity as Minister of the Interior. I realize that there are heavy responsibilities resting upon me in that capacity, especially as the Department of the Interior is to such a large extent bound up with our daily life in South Africa itself. I am aware of the fact that the Department of the Interior has ticklish problems to deal with, not only because the whole of our Public Service falls under the Minister of the Interior via the Public Service Commission, but also because the Department of the Interior is to such a large extent concerned with our people and every movement of our people.

I think, for example, of the Race Classification Act which is administered by the Department of the Interior. Sir, I have no misgivings about the Act. It is one of the foundation stones of the National Party Government, and I am afraid that if the Opposition wants to implement its policy, as it is held up to us by that side, it will also have to have a Race Classification Act.

Never!

I have no doubt about that. I am aware—and hon. members will agree with me—that it is not a pleasant Act to administer, because in the administration of that Act one so often has to act contrary to the wishes of so many people, and because the lives of so many people are affected by it. Consequently I feel that hon. members should in fact have a measure of sympathy with me in that I have to handle so many difficult matters in the administration of this portfolio. In addition to these there are many other difficult matters such as passports, visas and many other matters which affect the lives and movements of people. I should like to undertake here, as I have done before, that in respect of all these matters, whether in regard to visas or passports or race classification, I will in ail cases try to act with the greatest sympathy and humanity towards the citizens of South Africa; this is my task, and I undertake to fulfil it.

On the other hand, I as Minister am also responsible for the Public Service, and it is also my task to see to it that we have a happy and efficient Public Service. I welcome the discussion we have had about the Public Service to-day. I think it is uncommon to have such a long discussion on the Public Service, but I welcome it, because it gives one ideas which one may perhaps be able to apply in the future in order to achieve these two objectives, i.e. a happy Public Service and an efficient Public Service. I am afraid I have to agree with the thoughts that have been expressed here to the effect that we cannot simply improve salaries and create better conditions of service, but that we must also have efficiency in the Public Service, and this depends to a large extent on the public servants themselves. If they are happy, I think we shall probably get this greater efficiency from them. Sir, while discussing the Public Service Commission, I should like to mention that Dr. Steyn, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, will retire in January next year. As this is the last occasion before his retirement on which we shall be discussing the Public Service Commission Vote, I want to take this opportunity to thank him and to express our appreciation for the valuable services he has rendered, and to wish him a very pleasant period of retirement. As regards his successor, a decision will be taken in due course as to who will take over the chairmanship of the Public Service Commission from Dr. Steyn. The announcement will be made in due course. The decision has in fact not yet been taken.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply at this stage to all the various points that have been raised here. In any case I think that hon. members on the Government side have reacted to most of them. I want to thank those hon. members for their contributions, because ‘they have saved me the trouble of replying to many of these arguments and points. But there are nevertheless a few points to which I have to reply, and I should like to begin with the introducer of the discussion, the hon. member for Green Point.

The hon. member started off by speaking about the 1820 Settlers’ Monument, with which I have no fault to find at all, and then he proceeded to discuss the efficiency of the Public Service. I then made a note here, “efficiency of the Public Service”, and next to that I wrote “Cabinet Committee re greater efficiency”. Now I should like to proceed to deal With the hon. member for Durban (Point). Long before he spoke, I had made the note on my book here to which I referred a moment ago, because I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that for the sake of promoting efficiency in the Public Service we have gone so far as to appoint a Cabinet Committee to conduct an investigation at Cabinet level to see to what extent we can improve efficiency in the Public Service.

When was this?

This committee was appointed at the end of last year. What did the hon. member for Durban (Point) do now? Sir, I said here yesterday that we were not playing a “sissy” game, but the hon. member really did something here to-day which cannot be described as a man’s game, but which can only be described as a blow below the belt. Because his colleague the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) had made the statement here, a statement which he could not prove, that I had allegedly given an incorrect reply to a question, he suggested to the Committee that I had given incorrect replies to his questions. Sir, I do not want to elaborate on this, but I appoint you as judge to decide whether I could in any way have inferred from his question that he was referring to the Cabinet Committee which I wanted to mention here this afternoon. The hon. member’s question was—

Note what he links it up with—

This is the question he asked me, and to day he creates the impression here that I gave him an incorrect re-ply because I should have inferred from that question that it referred to this Cabinet Committee. In the second place the hon. member referred to an investigation here. A Cabinet Committee does not carry out an investigation; it discusses and considers matters that are submitted to it in reports and memoranda. The fact of the matter is that the work of this Cabinet Committee has not yet been completed. In other words, if the hon. member had told me that he was referring to the Cabinet Committee, my reply would still have been “no”, because this investigation had not been carried out. I must say quite frankly that I take the hon. member’s attitude amiss of him. He is a man who still plays cricket. I understand that he is no longer as quick to get to the ball as he used to be, but nonetheless he is still playing cricket; however, the game he played here to-day, was not cricket.

Is this not an investigation? Are their terms of reference not to investigate the problems?

The hon. member comes along here and with much ado reads a document to the Committee, in spite of the fact that it is marked “secret”. He does this in spite of ‘the fact ‘that he knows it to be a secret document. In saying this I do not mean that the hon. member is not entitled to know what that document contains, but there are many other people who we thought should not know what that document contains.

Such as?

I am not prepared to mention names here. It would only embarrass the hon. member and me if I did so, but there are other people who in our opinion should not know what that document contains. Despite the fact that the document is marked “secret”—and he even read out the word “secret” to the Committee—he read out the document here. Fortunately this is not a top-secret document, but—and this is the second thing I take amiss of him—if one obtains a document which is marked “secret” from a Government Department, from a Minister’s office, I think it is one’s duty in all fairness to discuss it with the Minister first before reading it out here. If the hon. member gets another opportunity to speak, I hope he will do me the favour of telling me where he got that document. [Interjections.]

I do not have sufficient time to-night to deal with all the various matters that have been raised. The hon. member for Parktown has informed me that he will not be here tomorrow, and I therefore hope that hon. members will not take it amiss of me if I first deal with the matter he raised here this afternoon. The hon. member raised the question of the various directors of the Bank of the Orange Free State. I do not want to elaborate on that. I just want to refer briefly to the various persons whose names he mentioned here. In the first place he referred to a certain member of the Executive Committee, i.e. Mr. Aucamp. The hon. member said he did not know whether Mr. Aucamp was a full-time or a part-time member of the Executive Committee. I just want to point out that Mr. Aucamp was only recently appointed as a full-time member of the Executive Committee. I want to tell the hon. member and the Committee that it is the Government’s policy that fulltime members of the Executive Committees should not serve on directorates, just as is the case with members of the Cabinet. I have been informed that Mr. Aucamp has already resigned. I do not know whether that is correct, but I understand that Mr. Aucamp has already resigned and that that document was drawn up when he was still a part-time member of the Executive Committee.

What about newspaper companies?

The hon. member knows that newspaper companies are excluded. The second person I want to refer to is Professor Samuels. Professor Samuels is not a public servant, and accordingly he does not fall under my jurisdiction. I would therefore prefer not to deal with the case of Professor Samuels. In all probability the Minister of Defence, who appointed him to that post, can give the hon. member the information if he would like to have it.

Is he not being paid by the State?

Yes, but he is not a public servant. I deal only with the public servants; they are the only ones who fall under my jurisdiction. Professor Samuels was appointed to a specific post as a contract official, and I have nothing to do with that. I do not know what the conditions of his appointment are, neither do I have any other information. In any case, it is not my task to reply to this question.

The other two gentlemen whose names have been mentioned here are Dr. De Beer and Mr. Marx. Both these gentlemen are officers of the Provincial Administration. I want to thank the hon. member for coming to me beforehand and telling me that he was going to raise this matter in the House, so that I could have an opportunity of making inquiries. I appreciate this. I made inquiries and the fact of the matter is that legally there is nothing to prohibit a public servant from serving on a directorate. There is no Act or anything else which provides that a public servant may not serve on a directorate. But the position nevertheless has to be considered. Although it appears that a public servant may serve on a directorate, the Government’s standpoint has always been that there are certain conditions attached to that. In the first place a public servant who serves on a directorate may not be remunerated for that. If he is remunerated and he accepts that remuneration, he has to get permission to serve on that directorate. In the second place the company on whose directorate he serves must not be in conflict with the Government. In the third place the activities of the company concerned must be of such a nature that they will not embarrass the Government or the provincial administration the officer is working for. These are the circumstances. I do not know what the merits of this matter are, but as regards these two officers, I should like to give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall give further attention to the matter personally.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton.

I see you have a whole dossier on me.

The hon. member for Houghton said that she would like to give me an opportunity of speaking about Nusas, and at the same time a little about her too. I welcome the opportunity, but while listening to the debate this afternoon, especially to the hon. member for Houghton and to the Opposition in general, I was reminded of a little poem which reads as follows—

Unfortunately that is your sad task.

Very well, the responsibilities entrusted to us are ours by our own choice. I admit that. Nevertheless one does realize that a little more responsibility could be displayed now and then.

The hon. member for Houghton and also the hon. member for Waterkloof referred to Nusas and asked me what precisely had happened in regard to Nusas. I should like to inform this Committee to-day. Evidently this is something in which the country as a whole is very much interested. Students in other countries of the world have caused a very serious degree of chaos and disorder, and we in South Africa would like to avoid this. I am convinced that the people outside—and if I say 90 per cent I am putting it at a low figure — support the Government when it comes to ensuring that students in South Africa do not overstep the mark.

They have been very responsible so far.

You must listen now to what the hon. member for Houghton says. She says, “They have been very responsible so far”. The hon. member should rather wait until I have finished speaking, and then judge. The hon. member said in her speech this afternoon that these fine, innocent boys went to see the Minister, whereupon the Minister showed his true colours. He again proved to be that old …

Forceful (“kragdadig”).

No, that is too splendid a word. I was looking for a different word. The hon. member suggested that the Minister turned out to be the unreasonable person she expected him to be. Now I should like to give hon. members a glimpse of Nusas so that they will be in a better position to judge how reasonable or unreasonable I was. I should like to read out the letter that was written to me when they asked for an interview. The letter reads as follows—

This is a fine letter, is it not? It is stated in the letter, “to clarify any misunderstanding which may exist”. And now I just want to draw the attention of the Committee to one little thing. That same morning when the students came to me, a document was sent to me from the office of the Prime Minister. This document had come back from Lesotho. I have here the envelope in which the document was sent and with it a letter was included. The letter was addressed to “The Hon. Mr. B. Vorster, Prime Minister of South Africa”, and reads as follows—

I showed them this document during our interview. The letter I read to you a moment ago was dated 1st February. This is the same day on which the students approached me with those fine words and asked for an interview. The day before, however, they had sent this document out into the world. Here is the document, together with all its appendices. I just want to read out briefly under cover of what letter this document was sent out. This letter reads, inter alia, as follows—

Sir, I want you to bear in mind that these innocent creatures, who asked me for an interview in such fine terms on 1st February, and who stated their good intentions to me, are the same people who sent out this letter two days previously. The letter goes on to say—

I do not want to read any further, but this is the spirit in which they approach the Government as far as the rest of the world is concerned. During the interview I asked them, “Are you sincere when you say that you want to eliminate uncertainties existing between yourselves and the Government, as you put it in your letter, if you write to the rest of the world in this way”? All that Duncan Innes said was that he thought that the word “racist” was perhaps a little strong. I then asked him where these documents had been sent. He told me that they had been sent to all their affiliated bodies all over the world. The assistance of the whole world was being called in against this “racist” Government in South Africa. And then these wonderful little gods from the University of Cape Town and others come walking in here to achieve an “understanding” with the Government and the Minister of the Interior! This is the sort of people we have to deal with. I just want to read to you the last paragraph of the first document they sent out. In that they say—

This was while the “sit-in” was in progress—

This is how they carry on and try to incite the world against South Africa. Then the hon. member wants to tell us that they are responsible people and that they are acting in a responsible way.

On that occasion three matters in particular were discussed with me. One was the reconsideration of visas and passports which had been withdrawn; the other was Police action on the campuses; and the third was in connection with deportations of young students who come to South Africa as guests and do not behave themselves here. In the previous year I had decided that the facilities of a few students from Rhodesia to come to South Africa and to remain here without visas should be withdrawn, because they had forfeited their position as guests in South Africa. There was not the slightest doubt about these three points that they raised with me. On one of them they really went to town. That was the first matter, the reconsideration of visas. Duncan Innes asked me whether I would reconsider the provision to students of visas which I had withdrawn. I told him: “Of course, I refused to give you a passport recently, but you are free to reapply for a passport. I sincerely hope that you Will behave in such a way that I can give you a passport”. If anyone else asked me to reconsider the withdrawal of a passport or a visa, it is nothing but my work and my duty to reconsider such an application, even if it had been before me previously. They thought this was something wonderful. Apparently they went out and said that I had made all kinds of promises to them. They spread all kinds of stories, so that I was eventually obliged to correct these stories through the Press. Sir, I think we should realize that these young people do not really know much about the administration of a country yet. However, now they want to tell us how the country should be administered. If we do not want to administer the country in the way they tell us to, they want to protest and hold processions and want to disturb the peace in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton would admit that she could not face the consequences of the actions of these young students. This is where she is being irresponsible. I will show her Where she has been irresponsible. She cannot realize that action must be followed by reaction in the opposite direction. It is a law of nature. One cannot get any action in the world without having a reaction. If this kind of action takes place through the conduct of certain students in South Africa, she must expect a reaction to take place. She must expect us eventually to have disorder being initiated by these young students.

There is nothing unlawful about their actions.

I told them that it was my duty to ensure the security of South Africa. Where I consider it to be my duty to obtain information on the campuses, I shall continue to obtain that information in the interests of South Africa in order to obtain certainty about certain matters. I also told them that where it was in the interests of South Africa that action be taken against young students who are guests in South Africa and do not behave themselves, it would be done. One of these students, whose visa exemptions were withdrawn last year, studied here with a bursary which had been awarded to him in South Africa. What did he do? He is one of the great ringleaders trying to bring about unrest, disorder and chaos in South Africa. This is not the way for a guest to conduct himself in a foreign country. If a South African conducted himself in this way in another country where he had gone as a student, I would disapprove of it most strongly. These are not our standards. We as hosts cannot allow guests from other countries, young students who are receiving financial assistance from us apart from our universities being opened to them, to engage in activities here which, to put it at its mildest, are aimed at causing disruption in South Africa. But who is this so-called Nusas? I told those young students, “You have queer bedfellows”. They asked me whether I thought they were undermining and doing harm to South Africa. I told them they had strange friends in the world. In the pamphlet “Africans will defeat Vorster and Smith”, which was issued by the South African Communist Party at the beginning of the year, they choose Nusas as their friend. I did not tell Duncan Innes that he had chosen the communists for his friends, but I told him that they had chosen him for their friend.

He cannot be responsible for that. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that they would not choose me as their friend.

That is nonsense.

Nor do they choose the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as their friend, but they are prepared to choose Nusas as their friend. The following is stated in the pamphlet—

On that same occasion I received a pamphlet which had been issued in France by the Communist Party, in which a special article is devoted to Nusas in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are the “freedom fighters” of the Communist Party in South Africa. This is what they call them. In that pamphlet of the Communist Party which was issued in France and which deals with Nusas, Duncan Innes is mentioned by name.

That is not his fault. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If a crackpot organization like the John Birch Society of America chooses to put you forward as the great fighters for white supremacy, are you responsible for that?

I admit that people sometimes choose one as their friend. However, that just happens in passing. In the case of a great organization such as the Communist Party of the world, this is not something that is just done in passing. I just want to tell the hon. member that Duncan Innes is mentioned by name in this article. He is praised for the fact that, in spite of having become estranged from his parents as a result, he is supposedly continuing the fight in the interest of freedom in South Africa.

That is very unfair.

These are the words that are used by the Communist Party, namely “freedom in South Africa”. They are the fighters for freedom, and they are coupled to that.

The hon. member for Houghton plays an enormous part in this organization. She has appointed herself as the champion of Nusas and what they stand for, and she has again proved this repeatedly to-day. She addresses them on every possible occasion, and she addresses them in terms such as the following—

Of course.

The hon. member for Houghton will have another chance to speak.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to say everything I should have liked to say. The hon. member made it her task to encourage these students throughout South Africa to carry on with the activities they are engaged in, knowing full well that these activities of theirs will elicit a reaction, if they are not contraventions of the law in themselves, and that chaos can be brought about in South Africa in that way. She referred to the Johannesburg City Council’s “weak-need attitude in withdrawing permission for the student march if Mr. Vorster says so”.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order!

On another occasion an article appeared according to which she said, “The action of the Police is a disgrace”. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this in detail. However, this is the way the hon. member carried on. I come to the conclusion that this hon. member is encouraging these young students in an irresponsible way to try to create confusion in South Africa, as they did in other countries of the world.

These are the words of an agitator.

Order!

To sum up, I should like to tell the hon. member that this is what she is doing. She would like to see the day that there will be bloodshed in this country, especially by students, as recently occurred abroad.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member wants to take a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. Minister entitled to say that I want to see blood flowing in this country? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

That is a conclusion that I draw. It would not be the first time that blood flowed as a result of student riots.

That was a most irresponsible remark!

But it is true. If the hon. member is a responsible member she must picture for herself the consequences, what would happen, if the students did what she wants them to do.

She tells them to carry on.

Yes, she encourages them at every opportunity, and she addresses them. According to my information she addressed 2,000 students in Johannesburg. She told them that her message to them was that they should carry on protesting and demonstrating, whatever the consequences. I now want to finish dealing with that hon. member and tell her that this is what she would like to have because she wants the traditional South African way of life to be destroyed. That is why she would take delight in this. She addressed the students and told them they should pay no heed to the traditional way of life in South Africa. She said that they were the people who must protest and must show that a fight was still being waged against this Government in South Africa. In conclusion I therefore want to say to the hon. member that she, as a member of this House, who is supposed to be a responsible person, is reckless and irresponsible as regards the students, and especially as regards Nusas.

I said at the start that I would not reply in detail to the questions put by a few hon. members, but would rather reply to them tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, if ever I have heard a completely irresponsible speech, it is the one of the hon. the Minister to which I have just listened. He has made a lot of allegations, the vast majority of which are based on the fact that communist organizations have praised the students in articles Thereby he naturally draws the conclusion, completely unbiased as it is, that therefore the students must naturally be allied to the communist movement. One is not responsible for letters one receives claiming one as an ally. Everybody gets letters from people outside, of whom one has never heard. I get letters from overseas organizations which go straight into the wastepaper basket because I am not interested in whether people outside think that I am worthy of their praise or not. I do what I think is right, and I shall continue to do so! I want the hon. the Minister to know that I am not remotely intimidated by his remarks here this afternoon. I also want to tell him that if I am invited by students to speak at an academic freedom meeting, which supports the ideas which I sincerely believe in, and that is that academic freedom should be allowed in universities, that open universities should be continued, I will accept with pleasure. When I want to tell them to carry on with their attitude of protesting against Government actions of that sort and of other sorts, such as racial discrimination, separate amenities, removals from District Six, none of which is traditional, and all of which have been introduced by this Government, then I shall do so! When I am asked to speak on issues like those, I shall continue to do so and I could not care two-pence what the hon. the Minister thinks of me as a result. I say that this vendetta against Nusas has been carried on by the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Minister who has now succeeded him for one reason only. He has not done so because he thinks the presentday Nusas is subversive. Indeed the students halve asked for a judicial or a public inquiry into their activities over and over again, but no Minister has ever accepted this offer from Nusas. They come along here with insinuations of subversion, none of which can be proved. They do that for one reason only; and that is that they know that among the young people of South Africa, among the university students, there is a spirit of recognition of liberal traditions, and I use that in the best sense of the word. That is not only the case among the students of open universities, but also among students at Stellenbosch and Pretoria. They recognize liberal traditions which are followed by most of the civilized world, America, Europe and England to-day. These are the liberal traditions and our students fortunately cherish some of the ideals of democracy and liberalism. It is remarkable that they do so when one takes into account that there is a whole generation of young people which have been brought un under this Government, and have never known anything except a Nationalist authoritarian régime which has a Special Branch, which intimidates, which removes passports and which undertakes vindictive follow-ups of everything the students do. It is remarkable, and I honour these young people in that they continue to hold high the traditions of democracy and of liberalism. Our young people, fortunately for the future of this country, will not be intimidated by this Government, by the Special Branch, or by the informers who are planted on the campuses by the hon. the Minister and others to inform upon them. They will continue to uphold the traditions they believe in. Therefore, I am not interested in what the hon. the Minister says about my encouragement. Of course, I encourage these ideas wherever I possibly can. It is the only hope for this country.

I must say that the hon. the Minister’s talk about starting incidents which will have reaction is very amusing to me. It is the duty of the police to protect people who are acting lawfully. Last year when the students of the Witwatersrand University were protesting on the university grounds, they were doing so lawfully, but the police did nothing to stop hooligans from attacking them. This year, and this is why I called the police action disgraceful [Interjections.]

Order!

… they carried out a para-military manoeuvre against 30 students standing peacefully on an island in Jan Smuts Avenue. They brought out armoured cars and innumerable armed policemen for this action.

One policeman with one dog here in Cape Town saw that there were no disturbances whatever, which could have come, not from the side of the students, but from a gang of youngsters who came along with the express purpose of attacking them. There was only one policeman with one dog and there were no disturbances. But without asking these other students of the University of the Witwatersrand to move, this para-military manoeuvre was carried out and this is what I said was disgraceful. It was unnecessary and a show of force: it was bullying. It was nothing more or less than the bullying of young people who were carrying out what they believed their rightful duty, namely protesting against things they objected to. To say that that is provocation is to say that the young students in Czechoslovakia provoked Russia to send in those tanks against them. That is the sort of provocation the hon. the Minister is talking about. These students were doing what they considered to be right and they were protesting lawfully. I want to say that I take the strongest exception to the hon. the Minister’s personal remarks about me and against the insinuations he made without any justification whatsoever about the subversive activities of Nusas and the students at open universities.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one speech which each member of this House ought to appreciate, if there is one speech from which the conviction shines that there is someone in this country Who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that every citizen in the country may enjoy peace and order and may look to his own future with self-respect, that speech is the one which the hon. the Minister made here this afternoon. As a representative of a constituency in which there are a few thousand students, and as someone who himself has had to do with Nusas for many years and who has kept a close watch on what Nusas has been doing, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world, I want to say that the hon. the Minister placed his finger on a very sensitive spot here this evening. That sensitive spot is the Progressive Party with the hon. member for Houghton as its mouthpiece. When one goes through the student newspapers of the past few years, and especially those of the years 1959 and 1960, when South Africa was a focal point and when onslaughts were being made from all over the world on the good order which the Whites were maintaining here, not only for themselves, but also for the non-Whites, one notices that the Progressive Party and its friends succeeded to a large extent in penetrating the thinking of our young people, young people who were standing on the threshold of accepting responsibility, and in simply destroying in the most irresponsible way the early youth of many of our young people. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she still remembers the Botha’s Hill speech right at the beginning of the sixties? Can she remember what became of the leaders of Nusas? Can the hon. member get up here this evening and tell us what the records of Nusas presidents and also those of chief executive members of Nusas were during the past 10 years? Where do they find themselves to-day? In what circles are they moving internationally? Where are those people and who are their friends? The hon. member may investigate on the campuses of universities throughout the world who the friends of Nusas were. The hon. member may say many things of the National Party, and she did say a great deal about the hon. the Prime Minister, but if one man had ever brought peace and order to our country and had nipped these activities in the bud, that man is no other than our present Prime Minister. When he still was Minister of Justice he exposed these unholy activities of a youth organization. I can remember very well that Adv. Vorster, as Minister of Justice, did not deal with these young people at that time as though there were no future left to them. There were many occasions at that time on which Adv. Vorster had asked these young people to his office where he had polite and friendly discussions with them. He spoke to their parents on many occasions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.