Mr. Speaker, I move—

Like the University of Port Elizabeth, the Rand Afrikaans University was established as an autonomous institution from the start, with the power to confer its own degrees. In the establishment of, new universities in Britain and Europe during the past decade, the old tradition in terms of which they had to function for a certain period as dependent university colleges which trained students for diplomas and degrees of an established university, was abandoned. This pattern was also followed by this Parliament in the establishment of our two most recent universities for Whites. However, in order to ensure that the standard of work, the planning of curricula, academic appointments and examinations at new universities would from the start conform to the accepted standards of the university community in South Africa, the relevant Acts provided that the two new universities should have experienced academics from certain older universities in their councils and senate. Section 9 of Act No. 51 of 1966, the Rand Afrikaans University Act, provides in subsection (1), paragraphs (d) and (e), that the council of the University of Pretoria and the council of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir C.H.O. shall each appoint one person to the council of the new university. In practice, these two persons were the principals of the universities concerned. Section 10 of the Rand Afrikaans University Act provides in subsection (1), paragraph (e), that the Minister shall appoint as members of the senate of the new university persons in respect of each faculty of the University, who shall be professors in a corresponding faculty of the University of Pretoria or the “Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys”. The co-operation and advice of these experienced academics on the council and senate of the R.A.U. has ensured that during the first three years thorough planning was undertaken and the standards expected by the university community in South Africa were fully taken into account. Earlier this year the Minister of National Education was officially informed by the principals of the University of Pretoria and the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir C.H.O. that, in the light of the experience of their representatives on the council and the senate of the R.A.U. their universities were convinced that the R.A.U. had reached the stage at which it had sufficient experience and a strong enough staff in order to continue its activities completely satisfactorily without the collaboration of representatives of other universities on the council and the senate. The senate of the R.A.U. has been functioning for three full years already, i.e. since September, 1967, with the assistance and collaboration of its “external members of the senate” appointed by the Minister, and since the first meeting in December, 1966, the council has enjoyed the benefit of the membership of the principals of the said universities.

At its first two graduation ceremonies, on 1969 and 1970, the R.A.U. awarded post-graduate degrees to 78 students. The reports of external examiners on the standard of this work were favourable throughout. Furthermore, the university is making constant use of external examiners from outside the university in all courses in which it does not yet have enough senior lecturers to control one another’s examination work. In addition, the requirement in section 17 of the Act that in the examinations of all final courses, i.e. at the end of the final semester in a major subject, external examiners must be appointed from outside the university, is being maintained. What is more, in terms of the policy of the council and the senate, at least one external examiner must be appointed from outside the university in respect of all post-graduate examinations, and in the case of an examination for a doctorate, at least two examiners. In this way it is ensured that the academic standards of the R.A.U. will be maintained on the desired level.

The University of Port Elizabeth Act (No. 1 of 1964) was also amended last year, by Act No. 66 of 1969, in order to terminate the representation of the University of Stellenbosch and of Rhodes University on that council and senate, as it had been found that the executive bodies of the University of Port Elizabeth were already well established and sufficiently experienced. The same step is now being proposed in respect of the R.A.U. Clauses 1 and 2 of this amending Bill therefore make provision for the termination of the representation of the University of Pretoria and the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir C.H.O. on the council and senate of the R.A.U. On this occasion the university wants to express its deep appreciation for the valuable help and advice which these representatives have rendered in the past three years. In the establishment of a new university, it has been a privilege not only to attract to the university staff new lecturers from far and wide who brought with them stimulating new ideas and plans, but also to have been able to rely on and learn from the experience and the expert knowledge of academics from the two established Afrikaans universities in the Transvaal.

The second important amendment is contained in clause 4 of the Bill. This proposes the insertion of a provision in the principal Act in terms of which the university may cancel the registration of a student for the second semester of any year of study if his academic achievement at the end of the first semester is such that he will at the end of that year not be able to retain credit for that year’s work in terms of the credit requirements determined by the senate. In terms of the credit requirements of the senate, a student cannot start building up credits for a degree unless he has passed in two consecutive semesters in at least two one-year courses or four semester courses, of which two must be in the same subject. In cases where a student’s curriculum consists of semester courses, his achievement in the examination at the end of the first semester may be so weak that he cannot satisfy the requirements mentioned, even if he should fare better in the examinations at the end of the second semester. Since such a student can in any case no longer earn credit for the year’s work, it is not in the interests of discipline and good order to allow him to remain on the campus for the remaining months.

In view of the large contribution made by the State to the study costs per student, it would amount to a State-subsidized holiday if such a student were allowed to remain on the campus. In practice the faculty concerned pays careful attention to the case of each individual student and his achievement throughout the first semester together with the mark obtained in the semester examination are taken into account when a final decision is taken. Students who are dismissed in the middle of a year in terms of this provision, are, however, allowed to reapply for admission to the university at the beginning of the following year. Such applications are favourably considered, unless a student has already studied for two years without success, in which case the principal has the power to refuse the student readmission at the beginning of the following year. Furthermore, when students are dismissed in the middle of the year, the information service of the university provides them with advice in respect of the replanning of their future studies, whether with a view to future return to the university or with a view to further study at another tertiary educational institution. Experience over the past two years has also shown that a considerable number of students who were dismissed in the middle of a year, tackled their studies with much greater earnestness, dedication and consequently with considerably more success when they were readmitted the following year. It was medicine that had had a good effect. Sir, I may just mention too that this particular point was also referred to the university advisory committee in order to provide the Minister with further advice in connection with this particular matter.

Furthermore, the Bill envisages a number of minor amendments to the principal Act. In the first place, subsection 1 (n) of section 9 of the principal Act will now give the full name of the society which may elect one person to the council, i.e. the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteitsvereniging. Secondly, in subsection 1 (d) of section 10 of the principal Act a clearer definition is being proposed of the chief officers of the university who are members of the senate ex officio namely the Registrar (Administration), the Registrar (Finance and Business Administration), and the Chief Librarian. This does not change the exis.ing practice. Thirdly, it is being provided in the new subsection 1 (e) of section 10 of the principal Act that a director or head of an institute, bureau or section of the University designated by the council on the recommendation of the senate, shall also be a member of the senate. This amendment envisages the incorporation of heads of research institutes, and possibly of a section such as an information service, in the highest academic executive body. Fourthly, in section 3 of this Bill an amendment is being made to section 17 of the principal Act in order to make it possible to appoint as external examiners not only lecturers of other universities, but also other experts who are not necessarily attached to universities. Furthermore, the power to appoint examiners is being vested in the senate instead of the council, on the recommendation of the senate. The council and the senate are of the opinion that the senate should have the power to decide finally about the appointment of examiners.

The Opposition has no objection to this Bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Langlaagte. We are strong believers in the autonomy of our universities, and on that basis the Rand Afrikaans University should have as much right to decide upon its administrative and academic affairs as any other university.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a very simple one. Clause 1 merely eliminates the representation of Potchefstroom and Pretoria from the council and the senate. The principle here is not new. As the hon. member for Langlaagte said, three years after its establishment in 1964, the new Port Elizabeth University eliminated the representation of Stellenbosch and Rhodes from its council and senate, and this was simply an indication that the new university had found its own feet, as is the case with the Rand Afrikaans University in this Bill.

Clause 2 is purely administrative and deals with the representation on the senate by officers of the university. Clause 3 is quite straightforward also and we have no objection to it. It stipulates that the council no longer has the right to recommend external examiners to the senate for appointment. The powers of appointment will now rest solely with the senate, and there can be no objection to that. Neither do we take exception to the new proviso that the university’s senate will now be free to appoint as external examiners any one they wish to “who is an expert” on any subject. Such persons will no longer necessarily have to be a professor or lecturer of the Rand Afrikaans University itself, nor even a “professor or lecturer of any other university established by Act of Parliament”. In other words, outside experts can be appointed and we have no objection to that. In fact, it may be a wise move.

As the hon. member said, clause 4 does contain one new proviso. That is to enable the university on the recommendation of the senate, to refuse to register a student at the end of his first term in any year if his work is considered unsatisfactory, that is, if he has not obtained the necessary credits to ensure that he will pass his end of the year examinations. I know this proviso is permissive only, but it could nevertheless prove a great discouragement to certain young people from continuing their academic studies once they had been interrupted. However, as I said before, believing as we do in the inherent right of the universities to decide these matters for themselves, we are confident that the senate of the Rand Afrikaans University will exercise these powers with a proper thoughtfulness and discretion where a student’s whole future career is concerned.

Therefore it gives us pleasure, from this side of the House, to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

In moving this motion, I should like to point out to the Committee that this petition was before the Committee on a previous occasion for consideration. I refer in the first place to the petition itself, and I quote from paragraph 11, in which the petitioner stated—

This means, in other words, that as far back as 1953 the constable was informed that in terms of the legal position his pension could only apply as from that date and could not be combined. Now the Committee has to take another matter into consideration. That is that there is a disciplinary understanding that officals in the Public Service can apply for a transfer to the Railways, and vice versa. The transfer is agreed to if both these Departments give their approval. However, if officials do not get permission to be transferred, they are sometimes inclined to resign from the one Department and then to apply for an appointment to the other Department. If one allowed this Pension to be combined, one would be undermining the disciplinary code in regard to this agreement between the Departments. Because this is so I want, in the first place, to accent immediately that the Select Committee as well as the hon. members on this side have taken all these aspects of the matter into consideration, but my submission is that they not taken these two factors into account. I therefore move that this petition be referred to the Government.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking an unreasonable attitude in asking that this particular recommendation be referred back to the Government for consideration.

During the 1969 session the Select Committee on Pensions dealt with a similar petition and considered all the factors involved and came to the unanimous decision that they would recommend that this man be given an opportunity of linking his service, which was carried out before he attested for war service, and that it be counted as pensionable service in terms of the Act. On that occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister also asked for the matter to be referred back to the Government which in effect meant the rejection of this petition.

The position is that Mr. Moolman, the petitioner, has submitted a further petition and also brought to light new and additional factors which were not brought to light when he petitioned in 1969. In considering these new factors and the petition, an entirely new Committee that was appointed by this House in 1970 to consider this petition, also came to the unanimous decision that in this particular case the petitioner’s request should be granted. I submit that the petitioner has a very strong case indeed. In view of the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned the letter written to him in 1953, advising him of the position. one must take into account that this man suffered injury on duty in 1958. Five years after the writing of that letter, he suffered an injury which he then realized could mean the termination of his service. Indeed, his condition so deteriorated that in January of this year, this man was discharged from the service as medically unfit. This now means that his petition has the additional factor that he has now been prematurely retired from the service. The fact that he received a letter in 1953 only means that it was prior to him suffering an injury which necessitated his early retirement from the service.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentions the question of the disciplinary action that must be taken where a person resigns from the service to transfer from another department so as to obtain immediate financial benefits. In this particular case the petitioner did not do so on those grounds. I would like to give to the House a brief outline of the facts relating to this petitioner. The facts are that at the age of 19 years he joined the Special Service Battalion at Roberts Heights, on the 25th January. 1934. On the 11th August he enlisted in the Permanent Force as a gunner in the South African Field Artillery and was stationed at the present Voortrekkerhoogte. Since that date in 1934 this man has been in service to the State either in the Defence Department or in the Railway Administration as a constable in the Railway Police. Later he actually rose to the rank of Detective Sergeant in the Railway Police. If one looks at these facts one sees that he attested for war service in 1939 at the outbreak of the war for service anywhere in Africa. He was then posted to various positions. I now want to quote from his petition because I think it is of paramount importance. In clause 9 of his petition the following is stated:

The next paragraph of this petition is where the important factor lies which strengthens the case of the petitioner. In clause 10 it is stated:

From this petition one can therefore see that this person left the service of the Permanent Force on the 1st January, 1946, and that on the very next day, namely the 2nd January, 1946. he commenced his duties as a constable in the Railway Police. The petitioner stated in his letter on the 27th August, 1945, that he gave notice that he did not desire to remain and continue in the service of the South African Permanent Force, and a month afterwards, on the 25th September. 1945, he applied for service in the Railway Administration as a railway constable, commencing duties on the 2nd January, 1946. If this petitioner had written his letter the other way round—there is only a difference of a month—he would have been able to take into account this pensionable service. Because he in fact said during August that he wanted to terminate his service in the Permanent Force, he is now being penalized by not being able to link his war service and his other service to his pensionable service, as far as the Railway Superannuation Fund is concerned. I submit that this particular petitioner falls outside the scope of the disciplinary type of action that the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to take against Railway employees who resign from the Railway Service so as to obtain immediate pension benefits. This man was in the Permanent Force, and the very next day commenced duties in the Railway Police.

This petitioner then referred to the injury which he sustained on duty in 1958 and which necessitated his retirement. These are factors which were not previously before the selected Commtittee during the 1969 session and before this House when this House accepted the motion of the Deputy Minister to refer this matter back to the Administration.

If this case meant any loss in revenue to the Superannuation Fund. one could perhaps understand the Deputy Minister’s attitude. But if one looks at the petition and what has been recommended by the Select Committee on Pensions, this will not result in any loss at all to the Superannuation Fund. Indeed, Sir, the recommendation of the Select Committee lays down that it will be required of him to pay to the fund. I quote:

This is not going to cost the Railways Superannuation Fund one single cent. But it will mean otherwise, that an employee who has rendered service continuously to the State from 1934 until 1970. will only be allowed to claim a pensionable service as from the date which the hon. the Minister has indicated, the 2nd January, 1946. I submit that this is a reasonable petition. It is a petition that has been considered by two Select Committees, the 1969 Select Committee on Pensions as well as the 1970 Select Committee on Pensions. In both instances the Select Committee found, after hearing evidence from the Railways Administration’s officials, that this man had a justifiable case to bring before this House for sympathetic consideration. We believe that the recommendation of the Select Committee should be accepted by this House. It is one which is fair and just as far the petitioner is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not proceed with the proposal which he has placed before the House. As the hon. member for Umbilo has indicated, this man is not seeking any grant or gratuity. He is merely seeking recognition of continuous service to the State. The facts are clear. What happened was that this petitioner at the end of the war applied for his discharge from the Permanent Force. While still serving in the Permanent Force, he made application to join the Railway Police. Both these requests were acceded to. His discharge from the Permanent Force was approved and his application to join the Railway Police was accepted. He transferred himself from the one to the other on the same day. He terminated his service in the Permanent Force on the 31st December. 1945. and commenced his service with the Railway Police on the 1st January, 1946.

I wish to refer, if I may, to certain other aspects of this matter which I think warrant the acceptance by this Committee of the recommendations of the Select Committee. This man did not submit this petition seeking some charitable grant or gratuity from the State. This particular person afer having been involved in this accident on duty and thus having sustained this injury while on duty, took steps to see what could be done and how he could perhaps rectify the position and obviate the losses which he would sustain by reason of the non-recognition of this period of service as continuous service. The petitioner in fact went to his staff association and dealt with them long before coming to seek assistance by way of a petition to this House. I want to read a reply which I received on the 17th December, 1968, from the General Manager’s Office when I first raised this question and quoted a precedent to the General Manager of a similar type of case. As was said by the hon. member for Umbilo, unfortunately, the wrong letter was posted first. They should have been posted in the other order. However, the reply of the General Manager reads as follows—

Sir, that is contrary to the facts because while this person was s ill serving in the Defence Force, while he was still on full-time duty, before the end of 1945, he had already applied for enlistment in the Railway Police. The reply of the General Manager further reads as follows—

The General Manager contradicts himself in this letter. He acknowledges, although he says that there was no record that this person had applied for transfer to the Railway Police before his discharge, that in fact this is what this man did, He had applied for his discharge. Before that discharge became operative, that is, on the 31st December, 1945, he applied for enlistment in the South African Railway Police and was accepted in that intervening period.

I do not want to mention names across the floor of the House, but there is a precedent of a similar case which was referred to in that same letter of the General Manager where the circumstances were very much the same, I will refer to the person involved in this case merely as Col. M. The petition number is No. 10 of 1967. In this instance we have the same position where a gentleman joined the Railway Police and this recognition was given as is requested by this particular petitioner. To the extent that it may become necessary to regard the other merits of the matter and to satisfy the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is not a case of a man resigning to get a benefit and then seeking re-employment, of a man merely resigning to get cash, I would like to refer to a letter by the “Waarnemende Kommissaris van die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiemag” which was addressed to this man in 1964. This is the time when he had been awarded the medal for service in the Police. The letter reads as follows—

This then is a man who has shown the value of his service to the Railway Police in a very short time. To complete the picture, I should like to read to the hon. the Minister the letter which was addressed to him in January of this year when his services were terminated because of the injury he sustained on service. The letter is from “Die Waarnemende Kommissaris, Brigadier van die Kantoor van die Kommissaris van die S.A. Spoorwegpolisie op 5 Januarie 1970”. The letter reads—

Now Sir, the “30 jaar” takes you right to the period before 1946. As far as his commanding officers were concerned, he had been in the service of the Railway Police and service to the State for a period in excess of 30 years. He has been prematurely retired because of his injuries. I was informed, while making inquiries, that in fact he was off duty already for the injuries he had sustained when we in this House considered his petition last year. Unfortunately that information was not before us at the time. In the letter of the 9th July this year, the Commissioner of the Railway Police said: “In reply to your letter of the 29th of June, 1970, I have to inform you that Mr. T. D. du Preez Moolman was absent from duty due to hyper-tension and cervical disc as from the 27th February, 1969, and on the recommendation of a medical board, it was decided to dispense with his services due to his being incapable to perform his normal duties as a result of severe bodily injury in respect of which Workmen’s Compensation is payable to him. Due to the injuries sustained by Mr. Moolman, he was transferred …” and so on, that has happened in the meantime. This man is suffering. He has received the Workmen’s Compensation gratuity or benefit for the additional 15 to 25 per cent. The sum,

I believe—I am speaking from memory and subject to correction—was an amount of R375. He is not an old man. He has served his country continuously from a very young age. In the course of his duties as a detective sergeant he sustained that injury. In addition he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal. As far as his discharge papers are concerned, which have already been sent to him, they show no blemish whatsoever.

It seems unfortunate that the hon. the Deputy Minister pursues this request of his and the motion of his that this matter be referred to the Government. I said at the beginning, and I want to repeat that this man is not asking for charity, but he is asking for an opportunity to pay into the fund every penny that he should pay in for the period of service for which he asks to be covered by this petition. A Select Committee of this House on two occasions have been unanimous in recommending that this be granted. On those occasions, as the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware, the members of the Select Committee had the full facts before them including the contentions which the hon. the Minister has raised to-day. [Time expired.]

I should very much like to give the strongest support to my two colleagues in their plea to the hon. the Minister to withdraw his motion. The Minister has told us what the position is in regard to the law and the regulations. We are all aware of that, but it is precisely for such cases that the Select Committee is appointed. As we are well aware, numerous similar cases come before the Select Committee from time to time. The Select Committee investigates these cases very thoroughly. The petitioner’s evidence is investigated and the departmental reports and recommendations are taken into account. The Select Committee, in its approach to cases referred to it, asks itself the question, what service has the petitioner rendered to the State? Sir, I can think of no better service which one could render to the State than that rendered by this person. Apart from the fact that he was honourably discharged and was awarded a medal for long service, it appears that this man wrote his matriculation examination after the war, when he was already in the Police Service. This is just the sort of person one wants to encourage to work for the State.

We have had other similar cases. There have been cases where a person went from one department to another, or from a department to a provincial administration, or from a department to a university. All the particulars concerning a case are investigated and then a recommendation is made. That is also what happened here.

I have been on the Select Committee on Pensions for 11 years and I cannot remember other departments ever objecting to a similar recommendation of the Committee. In other words, the Departments have every confidence in the investigations and recommendations of the Select Committee. But for a number of years now we have come up against this attitude on the part of the S.A. Railways Administration, I do not think it is good enough. One asks oneself if the Railways Administration does not have the necessary confidence in the investigation made by the Select Committee. If not, why is the Committee instructed to investigate cases such as these? Another question which occurs to one is whether the Railways Administration is really sufficiently sympathetic to its officials. Is it at all times prepared to meet people, such as this person, who have rendered good service?

Other hon. members, colleagues of mine, have already pointed out that the fund would suffer no damage. The person concerned here left the Defence Force on one day and joined the Railways the following day. This is therefore not a case of someone leaving the service to enable him to receive his pension moneys, thereby giving rise to all sorts of difficulties. Here we have an isolated case. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision, and thereby show their people that they are really sympathetic to them and that they will be assisted when they find themselves in this sort of position not through their having made a mistake, but through one or other administrative factor having gone awry. This person gave notice that he would resign from the Defence Force at the end of the year, and before he resigned, he had already applied to join the Railways. His application was approved. Therefore I plead again with the hon. the Minister to accent the recommendation of the Select Committee.

I should like to give hon. members here, as well as the Select Committee on Pensions, the assurance that we have every sympathy with Mr. Moolman.

You have a funny way of showing it though!

However, there is a principle at stake here. [Interjections.]

You have done it every year.

It will be of no avail to the hon. member for Durban (Point) to kick up such a fuss about this. There are other ways of accommodating people who resign from the railway service or who have been injured on duty—all kinds of ways. However, I am dealing with a principle here, and that is where my problem lies.

†To the hon. member for Umbilo I should like to say that it is not a question here so much of whether or not the fund will lose or not. It implies a diversion from policy which may create a dangerous precedent. There my problem lies. Let us look at the facts of this case. Whilst on active service, petitioner signed a voluntary declaration on the 22nd August, 1945, that he did not desire to continue to serve in the Permanent Force after the war and that he desired his discharge as soon as possible. He never at that time considered joining the S.A. Railway Police.

He did so one month later.

He applied for employment in the S.A. Railways during September, 1945, and commenced duty as a constable on the 2nd January, 1946—a day after his release from the Armed Forces. There is no record whatsoever of Mr. Moolman having applied before his discharge for a transfer to the S.A. Railway Police, nor is there any indication whatsoever of any such intention on his part.

When did he apply? Was he not in the forces when he applied?

Leave it to the hon. member for Umbilo; he understands it better than you.

I want to come to the question of the injury. The disabilities which petitioner sustained in the accident on the 28th August, 1958, and for which he was awarded R528 as compensation based on a 15 per cent permanent disablement were in the light of further medical evidence submitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner reassessed at 25 per cent and petitioner was awarded a further amount of R352—representing the compensation for the increase in permanent disablement of 10 per cent. Therefore, he was paid for his disablement. As I have said, we have every sympathy with this case but we cannot create a precedent. Hence I ask this Committee to refer this recommendation of the Select Committee to the Government.

Is the Select Committee on Pensions not appointed specifically for these isolated cases whereby no precedent will be created?

I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. Last year the Select Committee recommended that a certain Mr. J. M. Kindinger should receive a pension. However, that recommendation was referred to the Government. But now the Select Committee has unanimously rejected the original recommendation.

Because there was additional evidence.

I am merely quoting this to prove that the select Committee has not always viewed the facts in their correct perspective or has not always had all the facts before it. In this case of Moolman there are no new facts. The only new fact is the fact that his health has deteriorated even further, and for that he has received this additional compensation. For that reason I ask the Committee to refer the matter back to the Government.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite wrong in his assumption as to the function of the Select Committee on Pensions. Surely the whole object of the Select Committee on Pensions is to consider cases which cannot be dealt with administratively in the normal manner. Obviously any petition which comes before this House and is referred to the Select Committee, is considered according to the merits of the case and on the basis of the circumstances involved. In this particular case the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the question of creating a precedent. Sir, this is a matter which is fully discussed by the Select Committee before it makes any recommendation. Surely where a petition is referred by this House to the Committee and the Select Committee then makes a recommendation, that recommendation should be considered purely on the merits. Here we have a case which the Select Committee dealt with purely on its merits. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent, but I doubt very much indeed whether he can tell us approximately how many other cases of this nature, where the circumstances are identical, could come before the Select Committee? I submit that the circumstances in this case are exceptional circumstances. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that this man while on active service in August, 1945 requested his discharge from the Permanent Force. Sir, this information, which is contained in the petition, was before the Select Committee, and when I spoke earlier I read out this particular section of the petition. The very following paragraph of the petition indicates that on the 25th September. 1945. one month afterwards, while still serving in the Permanent Force, this man applied for employment in the South African Railway Police.

But not a transfer.

There was a break of not a single day from the time he left the Permanent Force until he started in the Railway Police. He started the very next day. He was discharged from the S.A. Permanent Force on the 1st January, 1946, and he commenced duty with the Railway Police on the 2nd January, 1946. Surely, Sir, this is an exceptional case. It is not a case of a person resigning from the Railway Administration or from some other department and then going to the private sector for a while or not working at all. This man had continuous service. He left the Permanent Force on the 1st January, 1946, and assumed duty with the Railway Police on the 2nd January, 1946. Sir, I submit that this is a case which must be dealt with on its merits. It is not a question, as suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister, of creating a dangerous precedent. I doubt whether there would be a large number of persons whose circumstances are identically the same as this petitioner’s. But if there are such cases they would also be dealt with on their merits by the Select Committee. The Select Committee is not bound at all by any previous decision.

Actually the hon. the Deputy Minister contradicted himself because he went on to quote the case of petitioner Kindinger and said that the Select Committee on this occasion had rejected that petition. Of course they did; it was a different Select Committee. The members of the Select Committee of 1969 were not the same as the members of the 1970 Select Committee; they are two different Committees consisting of different members. As far as that particular case is concerned, the position is that when the Select Committee in 1969 considered the petition of petitioner Kindinger, there was certain other evidence which had not been disclosed at that stage and which was disclosed when the petition was re-submitted in 1970. That is why this particular petition was rejected by he Select Committee. In the case of that petition there was additional evidence and the Committee, consisting of different members, rejected that petition. In this case, the petitioner’s case is very much stronger. In the first place this is a different Committee to a certain extent as far as its members are concerned. This is a new Committee, and this new Committee came to exactly the same decision as the 1969 Select Committee. Surely therefore the Committee of this House must agree that this man has a particularly strong case. It is a case on which the 1970 Select Committee. also judging it on merits, came to a similar decision to the 1969 Select Committee. We hope that the hon. the Minister will acknowledge the fact that there certainly has been a change in the circumstances of this man since he submitted his petition in 1969. During 1969 he was still in the service of the Railway Administration. He was suffering from an injury which had been assessed at 15 per cent. He was then subsequently re-examined and found to be 25 per cent disabled, which meant that he had to terminate his services in the Railway Police and he was discharged. The difference between this petition and the 1969 petition is that the man is no longer in the service of the Railway Administration because he has now been discharged on medical grounds. All this petitioner asks is to have the opportunity to pay the amount that is set out here in the petition that is now before this Committee; it is for him to find the necessary funds, so that he might be able to link up this service of 12 years’ previous continuous service to the State. That is all this petitioner is asking. It is a question of additional information which the Select Committee had and which we believe strengthens the case of the petitioner and does not weaken it. Therefore it can be dealt with on a different basis. Similarly, the Deputy Minister objected to this recommendation in 1969 but, because of the changed circumstances and the fact that the Select Committee of 1970 unanimously agreed that this man has a case and has made a recommendation which is now before the Committee, he too can reconsider his position, and in the light of these circumstances accept the recommendation of the Select Committee.

I want to correct the hon. the Deputy Minister on one point which he raised. He read from a statement or letter, the same letter I read from, to say that there was no evidence that this person had applied for a transfer before his discharge from the Permanent Force. I think I am correct in saying that the Deputy Minister said that there was no record of Mr. Moolman having applied before his discharge from the Permanent Force for a transfer to the Police. In his petition the petitioner stated that he was discharged from the S.A. Permanent Force on 1st January, 1946. I have in my hand the official discharge certificate signed by the Director-General of the Air Force, in which it is recorded that the petitioner was discharged from the Armed Forces on 1st January, 1946. Before that discharge he addressed a letter to the Railway Police applying for enlistment.

Now, what is the great fault that this man has committed? What is the heinous fault that he committed? While he was in the Army he did not say that he applied to join the Police; he did not apply for a transfer. He made an application to join the Railway Police and he did not make an application to transfer from the Army to the Railway Police. Sir, he wrote to the Railway Police while he was still in the Army, obviously with an Army address, because he was still serving full-time. That was in September, 1945, and he was then still serving in the Army and had not yet been discharged. He was accepted into the Railway Police while he was still serving in the Army. Now, what more is required to constitute, so far as the Railway Police are concerned, a transfer from the Army to the Police?

This matter has been referred to the Government before, and let me say the decision on the last reference by this Committee and this House to the Government was a very speedy job. The House last year on 11th June adopted a resolution that the petition of last year should be referred to the Government, and by 1st July this man had been told that the Government had turned down his application and had not acceded to the recommendation of the Select Committee. One wonders what further consideration was given by the department to the recommendaion of the Select Committee; because if the Minister asks for something to be referred to the Government, surely it has to be referred to the Government for consideration and for re-assessment. I take it that its being referred to the Government means that it is referred to the Cabinet. I want to ask the Minister this question. Did this matter come before the Cabinet at all, and did the Cabinet meet between 11th June last year and 1st July last year? Because when I wrote to the Minister of Transport and referred to these facts and said I wanted to bring them to his attention because I was somewhat perturbed that this petition was not acceded to by the department, the Minister’s reply to me was that this was a matter which had been decided upon by the Government and the Administration therefore could take no further action. It was a decision by the Government.

Now, this is a fresh matter and I want to say to the hon. the Minister, and I say it with all respect, that I have no confidence that this matter will be considered independently of the recommendations which have already been placed before the Select Committee and which have been rejected by the Select Committee. I would also say to the hon. the Minister that if there is to be confidence amongst the people in South Africa who are employed in the Public Service, including the Railways Administration., they must know that there is a body such as the Select Committee in this House that can be approached to deal with matters of this kind.

Here, instead of an application for a transfer there was an application for employment. It was written by a man serving in the Army. Then he joined the Police Force, which he joined the day after he left the Army. Then the hon. Minister says it is not a transfer. Before I sit down, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should realize that on the facts this is a case in regard to which he should withdraw his recommendation and accept the reinforced second recommendation of a select committee of this House.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Green Point who asked me whether this matter has been considered by the Cabinet, I want to tell him that he knows that the Cabinet is jointly and severally responsible for Government decisions. This matter was considered by the Minister of Transport personally. As it was considered by him personally, the Cabinet is jointly responsible for this decision. The hon. member said that he has no confidence in the Cabinet or in the Minister. We have all sympathy with Mr. Moolman. I personally have all confidence in the Select Committee. I know that they have made a proper study, but I am faced with a problem. The problem is that Mr. Moolman resigned voluntarily from another State Department …

But that is a technical point.

The petition cannot be supported as it would create an undesirable precedent and would place the Administration in an embarrassing position as petitions of this nature, which have been unsuccessful in the past, would have to be supported if new petitions were to be submitted, as would all future petitions of this nature if we were to accept this recommendation. Servants who have been refused in the past permission to transfer to other services and who then resign in order to take up a position in another service, could then submit petitions to Parliament in the knowledge that rejection of that petition will be most difficult. That is my problem. That being so, I move that this matter be referred to the Government and then I will personally see to it that the Government takes cognisance of the pleas which have been made by the hon. members and the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has only one problem and that problem is the arrogance of red tape and bureaucratic obstinacy. This is a simple issue of merit, but the Railway Administration is determined that the Select Committee on Pensions will not cut across any decisions which they make. This is not the only one. Every time the Pensions Select Committee cuts across a decision of the Railway Administration, the Railway Administration has to oppose it.

Where are your examples?

It happened last year, it happened the year before and it happens every year. There were no less than three last year. The issue is that the Minister of Transport is determined to be the dictator of his Department. He is not prepared to show any compassion or any departure at all from the strict letter of the law. This is pure hairsplitting and playing with words. Because the rule lays it down, the Department is determined to stick to the strict meaning of the law and the strict technical position and they are not prepared to treat this as a human case. They are not prepared to regard this man as a person justifying compassion in the approach to his problem.

The hon. the Deputy Minister would not be opposing it if he had the slightest intention of reconsidering this matter afterwards. If the hon. the Deputy Minister was prepared to reconsider this case departmentally, he would not oppose it now. How can he stand up in this Committee and say that he has full confidence in the Select Committee on Pensions and then oppose their recommendation? The hon. the Deputy Minister says he has confidence in the Select Committee. This Select Committee had all the facts before them and they have made a recommendation to this Committee. Government as well as Opposition members made a recommendation that was unanimous. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he has confidence in them and if he has, he must show it. Why is he opposing this petition if he is going to consider it afterwards?

I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has no intention of considering this matter afterwards. The minute it is turned down by this Committee this afternoon, it will go through the administrative channels, it will be signed and sealed; and it will be rejected. I say that the hon. Deputy Minister knows that that will be the position. If it was not the position he would not oppose it here. What further consideration can he give when his mind is made up? His mind is made up and he says: “Please do not confuse me with facts, I have made up my mind. I know what I am going to do.”

You are overlooking the facts; that is your problem.

There is no problem which the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot overcome. There is no problem he cannot overcome other than the obstinacy of his own Department and their determination not to have any decision they have taken upset. This is the simple issue. They do not want any decision they ever take to be upset. They say: “We are the almighty. We are going to decide and Parliament is not going to interfere.” That is their approach. But this Parliament is the highest body and not the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Transport. I appeal to hon. members on the Government side, whose colleagues sat on the Select Committee, who weighed the facts and who unanimously recommended this matter as a Select Committee to the whole of Parliament, to act as Parliament and not as rubber stamps. They must not act as “yes men” for a Minister who says that he is not going to accept that recommendation. I appeal to the members of the Select Committee on Pensions to stand up and to act as Members of Parliament and not rubber stamps. Let Parliament take the decision and not be dictated to by a departmental Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the stage in this discussion on this particular petition where the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has one problem, and evidently one problem only, as to why he cannot accept the recommendation of the Select Committee that is now before this Committee. His one problem is that it is going to create an undesirable precedent. In the second breath he said that he would give this matter further consideration. But once the Deputy Minister said that this is going to create an undesirable precedent, the hon. member for Durban (Point) is quite correct that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made up his mind definitely and finally that he is not prepared to accept this recommendation of the Select Committee.

However, I wish to submit to this Committee that the hon. the Deputy Minister really does not have that problem. He states that the problem that will confront him will be that if this petition is granted an undesirable precedent will be created. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the fact that a Select Committee on Pensions is not bound in any way by any previous decisions that might have been taken by previous Select Committees. It is a cardinal point in considering every single petition that comes before the Select Committee on Pensions that it is dealt with on its merits and that it is no use stating that it is creating a precedent; because the Select Committee itself decides on the merits of the case as to whether it should make a recommendation as far as the petition is concerned or not. Therefore, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s main complaint is that he has this one problem, and one problem only, that it is creating an undesirable precedent. I submit that that is not a problem, in view of the fact that the Select Committee is not bound by any such precedent.

The hon. member has raised that argument already. It is repetition.

Yes, Sir, but I am replying to the point that was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is the only problem he has as to why he cannot accept the petition that is now before us. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept this recommendation of the Select Committee. It is based on merit. They had the opportunity of hearing evidence from officials of the Railway Administration. They have taken into account all these factors and come to a decision that this is a particular case which on its merits deserves the sympathetic consideration of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, he stated that the recommendation of the Select Committee last year went to the Minister of Transport for disposal, but not the Cabinet. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “yes”. I want to ask him why he does not inform himself properly before he comes to this House. I now want to read to him the reply I received from the Minister of Transport. I asked the Minister to look into this matter and to review his decision. I wrote to him, in order not to take up the time of the House, after the last session when the petition was turned down. I will read to the Deputy Minister the letter from the administrative secretary of the Ministry of Transport. It is dated the 19th January, 1970. I quote:

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister tell this Committee that it was a decision of the Minister and not a decision of the Cabinet? I believe it was a decision of the Minister of Transport, because I do not believe for one moment that the Cabinet sat between the 11th of June last year and the 1st July, to consider this matter, which was referred to the Government. If that is the type of information that is given to us when we seek to elucidate what happens to these petitions, and if that is the scant respect that the Ministry of Transport shows to the recommendations of standing Select Committee of this House, I think it is about time that the procedure within the Ministry of Transport be reformed so as to give proper respect to the decisions of a Select Committee.

I want to go further and say that this matter will be divided upon this afternoon. I trust that the Government members of the Select Committee will show with us their dissatisfaction at the attitude of the Administration towards recommendations on petitions of this nature concerning employees in the Railway Service who are entitled to some consideration, according to the Select Committee.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is closely associated with the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964. As hon. members of this House are aware, the Coloured Persons Representative Council came into being last year. A general election was held on 24th September, 1969, in order to elect 40 members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council in accordance with section 1 (1) (a) of the abovementioned Act. As announced in Government Notice No. 3729 of 14th November, 1969, the remaining 20 members were nominated by the State President. The first session of the Coloured Persons Representative Council was held on 20th and 21st November, 1969.

Section 26 of the Act concerned provides that the Minister may make regulations in regard to certain specified matters. Furthermore, section 16 (1) provides that the Council may from time to time adopt standing rules and orders not inconsistent with the above-mentioned Act. for the regulation and conduct of its proceedings and the dispatch of business. When the regulations, which were promulgated by Government Notice No. R3540 of 17th October, 1968, and the Standing Rules and Orders were formulated, it was found, however, that the existing provision contained in the Act was inadequate in certain respects.

As in the case of any legislative body, it is essential in the case of the Coloured Persons Representative Council as well that statutory provision should exist for, inter alia, the protection of persons who participate in the proceedings in the council, and also for existing provisions in regard to sessions of the council, whether laid down by law or by regulation, to be enforced. Where persons are guilty of offences in this regard, it must also be possible to apply sanctions to them. In other words, Sir, the privileges, immunities and powers of the council and of a member thereof must be placed beyond any doubt. Although in terms of section 16 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, members of the council enjoy limited immunity, for example, in respect of what they say in the council, those who are concerned with publishing it enjoy no protection at all. Under the circumstances it is essential that legislation in accordance with the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963 (Act No. 91 of 1963), and the Powers and Privileges of Provincial Councils Act, 1948 (Act No. 16 of 1948), should be passed. I may mention that the wording of the two Acts to which I have just referred has been used wherever possible in the Bill under discussion.

Although this Bill is to a large extent self-explanatory, it is perhaps desirable that I explain a few of the clauses more closely.

In the drafting of clause 1, which deals with definitions, the pattern of section 1 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act was followed. This particular definition of “officer of the council” is, however, due to the fact that the council, unlike Parliament, does not have its own officers. The persons serving the council are officers and employees whom the Minister makes available from time to time in terms of section 20 (6) of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act in order to assist the council in its work. In this respect this council therefore differs from this Parliament for the foreseeable future and this particular definition corresponds more closely with that of an officer of a provincial council, where such officers, as in the case of this council, are also officers and employees in the Public Service.

Clause 16 deals with general offences and penalties. Naturally, the power and jurisdiction to sit as a court in respect of matters which have been declared an offence by this Bill, cannot be granted to the Coloured Persons Representative Council and prosecution will therefore have to take place in a competent court, as could happen in theory in the extreme case in respect of contempt of provincial councils. Here I want to refer you to section 13 of Act No. 16 of 1948. Although in practice such action is, however, only necessary by way of very rare exception, and contempt by members during sessions is normally dealt with only by means of the suspension of a member and the forfeiting of his allowance in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders, it is nevertheless felt that, other than in the case of provincial councils, but as in the case of Parliament, specific statutory provision should exist in respect of contempt of the Coloured Persons Representative Council in order to cover contingencies which cannot be disposed of by a resolution of the council and offences by persons who are not members of the council. Since the Standing Rules and Orders of the Coloured Persons Representative Council correspond almost completely with those of the House of Assembly, the same penalty, i.e. a fine of R200, as stipulated in Standing Order No. 210 of the House of Assembly, is applied here as well, with the difference that it is not expressly provided that a fine shall be imposed for each offence, as is stated in the said Standing Order No. 210. The reason for this is that in the case of the Coloured Persons Representative Council the trial of offences is left to the courts of law and in this connection express provision already exists in our criminal law in respect of the trial of major offences.

Furthermore, the provisions of clause 18 are aimed at preventing a member himself, or a legal practitioner under his direction, from trying to influence the course of events in the council for any compensation, reward or gift. This is a serious offence and the penalty proposed is the same as in the case of Parliament and provincial councils, namely a fine not exceeding R2,000. I may just mention that in the case of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly imprisonment has even been added. A fine not exceeding R1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years applies there.

The last clause which I want to explain is clause 21. This deals with the office of the chairman after the dissolution of the council. Since at this stage statutory provision does not yet exist in terms of which the State President may in his discretion dissolve the council for a shorter period, “dissolution” in this clause refers to the reconstitution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council every five years. Since the election and nomination of members do not normally apply with effect from the same date, and it will not always be possible to convene the first session of a new council immediately after such constitution, it is deemed desirable that the office of chairman of the council should be left intact for the purposes of this Act, as provided in this clause.

Mr. Speaker, this measure is merely aimed at promoting the smoother functioning of the business of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and therefore it is a pleasure for me to submit this Bill for adoption.

The hon. Deputy Minister, referring to the steps which have been taken to convene and constitute this council, made a valiant attempt to present a façade behind which to hide the restrictions and limitations Which are inherent in the constitution of this council. Perhaps he was even more anxious to conceal the 20 nominated candidates, most of whom were defeated in the election.

Sir, we will support this Bill subject to certain comments. When in 1968 there were some certain amendments to the relevant Act to give this council more effectiveness, we on this side of the House were prepared to support the principle of reconstituting and enlarging that council. The amendments then were directed towards creating an elected element in the council. There are many other aspects of the constitution and powers of the council which require attention but you, Sir, will rule me out of order because I will be offending the rules of the House if I deal with shortcomings not covered by the Bill before us. The council as constituted can never be an adequate substitute for representation of the Coloured people in this Parliament. Therefore, for reasons which are before us, we support a measure which endeavours to create more power and a greater standing for this council. There is one question in particular I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. That arises from the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill before us. These clauses prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with the holding of inquiries, the constituting of committees by the council and the procurement of the attendance of witnesses in order to deal with investigations and inquiries.

These inquiries will undoubtedly require the attendance of witnesses and occasion will undoubtedly arise where such witnesses may not necessarily be Coloured persons. It is a practical problem. One can conceive of many cases when a select committee of the Coloured Council would welcome, require and want evidence of persons other than Coloured persons. Sir, the Bill before us restricts a select committee of this Coloured Council to receiving evidence from Coloured persons as witnesses and it restricts subpoenaes or notices to appear before the committee to Coloured persons only. I believe that that is a quite unrealistic approach. It is one of the problems which arise when one attempts to create this concept of a State within a State because of the type of powers which are intended to be given to this Coloured Council without representation of the Coloured people in this House. Sir, for that reason we will in the Committee Stage move amendments so as to be able to ensure that when this Bill is passed through this House and becomes operative, the functioning of this Coloured Council will not be so restricted and circumscribed that the council will never have the benefit of witness other than Coloured persons appearing before select committees which may be convened. Sir, subject to these amendments which I have mentioned and certain other comments which can be dealt with more appropriately in the Committee Stage, I do not propose to take this matter any further at this stage.

Sir, I have no intention of opposing this Bill in principle. As the hon. member for Green Point has already pointed out, the powers which are being conferred by this Bill do not really go very far, but in any case the constitution of the Council is such and its powers are so limited that an amending Bill of this kind would have to change the entire constitution to make any real difference. I have one or two objections to certain provisions such as the limitation which is place on the calling of witnesses. This is again an attempt to separate completely the Coloured people from the rest of the community in South Africa, which I do not believe is practical in any event, Sir, in principle, since this is simply a Bill governing the internal conduct of the Coloured Representative Council, already set up by law and with very circumscribed powers which cannot be altered here, I will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Although I am grateful that the Opposition did not conduct an unnecessarily long debate on the Second Reading, I nevertheless regret that the opportunity was once again used to drag into this debate matters of principle and the constitution of the council as it was set up last year.

Who did that?

I did not raise the constitution of the council as a political point.

I looked behind the façade.

When the hon. member talks about a façade, he means camouflage, and by this he implies that I am trying to cover up something which is in fact uglier than it appears to be. [Interjections.] Yes, in this case I can understand very clearly what the hon. member meant and I would be stupid if I did not react to it, and I am not stupid. I just want to say that more than one aspect had to be taken into account in constituting this council, and one of those aspects was the retention of the political power in the hands of the people who want to make this council a workable one. I do not intend saying anything more about that, otherwise I may call forth a debate, about which the Opposition will be sorry.

Sir, I think there are certain aspects which we can debate in the Committee State. For example, there is the question that we were obliged to provide that when the council wants to investigate matters relating to the delegated functions of the council, it may only call Coloured persons as witnesses. This does not mean that it cannot invite persons to give evidence, nor that the Commissioner of Coloured Affairs cannot request even Whites to give evidence. But I want to say that the matters which they themselves may investigate are of a limited nature and are concerned with their internal working and with tasks which have been delegated to them more than anything else. As far as I am concerned, therefore, it is largely hypothetical to raise those cases where Whites or members of other races will be needed. Therefore I think that hon. members are again seeing spectres here to a certain extent, and I do not think we should start splitting hairs once again because there is a basic difference, and seize upon every possible word or phrase in a clause in order to initiate an argument on matters of principle. In any case, I am grateful to hon. members and I want to suffice with this.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill deals with the proposed amalgamation of the National War Fund (1939 to 1954) and the Governor-General's Fund (1914 to 1918). Notwithstanding the fact that the two funds are administered separately, a common purpose is served by both in respect of a specific war. The object of the National War Fund is, in the first place, only to render assistance to South African soldiers who participated in the 1939-’45 war and to their dependants. Essentially, the broad objective of the Governor-General's Fund is at present only to render assistance to South African soldiers who fought in the 1914-T8 war and to their dependants.

The object of the amalgamation is simplification and saving. The beneficiaries of the 1914-'18 Fund are few and of advanced age compared to the, beneficiaries of the Second World War Fund, and the assistance to be provided to them should, compared to that of the younger group, be seen as a short-term obligation. The feasibility of amalgamation is, therefore, obvious.

After the relevant committees of the said funds had mutually agreed to it, the State President, as trustee of both funds, approved of the principle that the two funds should be amalgamated under the name of the National War Fund. None of the funds is being controlled statutorily at present, and it was decided that the new fund should be administered in terms of the existing trust deed and constitution of the National War Fund (1939-’45). Such a step requires legislation and the proposed Bill, to which both committees have agreed, will make the necessary provision for that.

Now I should just mention that when I took the Second Reading in the Other Place, a question was put to me by the hon. Senator Horak, who read to me the following letter written by the local Cape Town office in connection with the amalgamation. His objection was the following—

This is the standpoint they stated there. I undertook to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to rectify it here. I just want to report now that I have investigated the matter and that the law advisors said it was not necessary to add such a clause. I want to give hon. members the assurance that if anything should crop up, Parliament will rectify the matter. I just want to add that I have also received a letter from the National Secretary of the Fund in Johannesburg, which reads as follows—

We originally intended to insert it there—

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House we wish to thank the hon. the Minister for introducing this Bill. We wholeheartedly support this Bill which has been requested by the persons concerned, who feel it will be to their advantage to have an amalgamation of the Governor-General’s fund which is applicable mainly to the dependants of the 1914-18 War, with the National War Fund which makes provision for the Second World War as far as dependants are concerned. The hon. the Minister, has also indicated that he has investigated a point which was raised in the Other Place concerning the indemnity as far as committee members and members of the executive of the Funds which are now to be amalgamated are concerned, We on this side of the House believe that this is an opportune moment for a fund such as the Governor-General's War Fund to be amalgamated with the National War Fund, particularly in view of the fact that the number of veterans from the 1914-T8 War is diminishing, as are the dependants of those who fell in the 1914-T8 War. We on this side of the House also realize that there is a history behind the Governor-General's War Fund as well as the National War Fund. These two war funds have done magnificent work in assisting people in time of need and we therefore believe it is important that this measure should be an agreed measure in this House. Therefore, we support the Second Reading of this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Sneaker, I think it is appropriate that we should look on this occasion into some of the apsects of these two funds and see what is exactly being done in. the amalgamation which is now taking place. I believe that the history of the establishment and of what led to the consolidation of these two funds, and the utilization of the financial resources available, is a saga of what I might term man’s humanity to man in South Africa and is a credit to the history of this country.

I propose to deal with some salient aspects of these two funds which are now to be amalgamated. I want to refer to the fact that shortly after the outbreak of the War in September. 1939, the mayors of the principal towns in South Africa, inspired by the idea of creating a fund, started what was then called the S.A. Mayors’ National War Fund. It was in 1940 that the then Prime Minister, General Smuts, decided that the fund should be established on a wider and more national basis than merely a mayors’ fund. It was then he sought and attained the approval of his Excellency, the then Governor-General, for the fund to be inaugurated under the presidency of the Governor-General. That National Committee of the South Africa Mayors’ National War Fund then handed over its operations and its functions to the Committee which was constituted. It was Sir Patrick Duncan who on the 15th July, 1940, announced the termination of the Mayors’ Fund and the simultaneous launching of the Governor-General’s Fund for collection of these moneys. The Governor-General, Sir Patrick Duncan, requested the Executive Committee of the Mayors Fund, as it existed at the 15th July, 1940, to function as the Committee of the now Governor-General’s War Fund. The Committee commenced its functions under a very distinguished South African, namely the hon. Richard Feetham who had a distinguished career as a judge in South Africa. When in the early months of 1940 the claims commenced to come in to the Fund, attempts were made to formulate a policy and a fund-raising campaign took place, which historically, I think, would be of interest to hon. members of this House. On the 30th September, 1940, 2½ months after it had commenced, figures showed that contributions to the National Fund had amounted to just on £¼ million and the Mayor’s fund had a sum of £388,000, giving a total of £617,000 which had been contributed to the fund in a matter of 2½ months. Fund-raising committees were established and the first nation wide fund raising drive was launched in November, 1940, which was supported by a comprehensive publicity programme. A regular stream of contributions came into the fund and it was in 1943 that the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that the Government thought the time had arrived to ask Parliament to give concrete expression to the moral support that the fund had enjoyed, and which we are also giving to-day in dealing with this legislation. He then proposed, and Parliament approved, to a grant ot subsidey on the basis of a pound for a pound in respect of all contributions received by the fund in that financial year. The subsidy was continued in successive years until the end of hostilities in January, 1946, in fulfilment of promises made. The fund’s final 30-day Victory Thanksgiving Appeal was then launched. It is interesting to note just to what extent the people of South Africa have in the past have responded, and I am sure will in the future, to calls on generosity in circumstances should they unfortunately arise as the arose before. The Victory Thanksgiving Appeal was launched on Friday, the 11th May, 1945, by His Excellency, the Officer Administering the Government, the Right Hon. N. J. de Wet and had the phenomenal result that it raised in one month the sum of £1,123,000. Contributions by the public of South Africa came in at the rate of R70,000 per day. It did show the fantastic generosity on the part of the people of South Africa. The fund received from the public the sum of £7,767,000, a Government subsidy of £3,532,000 and interest on investments amounting to £2,192,000, giving a total of £13,501,000 at the end of hostilities. During the period 1940 to 1955, the fund had expended a total of £10 million. It is interesting to note that those grants were directed in various directions by way of grants to both European and non-European soldiers and their dependants of £5½ million. Children’s homes were established to provide for the children from broken homes as a result of war activities and in this regard an amount of £466,000 was spent. There were also grants to organizations and institutions serving ex-volunteers and dependants, amounting to £334,000. Bantu soldiers and their dependants received an amount of £567,000 and the Bantu mission hospitals an amount of £261,000 In addition to that considerable sums were spent to provide for housing. The Johannesburg suburb of Sandringham arose from this particular source. There were also various other housing endeavours for non-Whites.

Parliament is now requested to agree to the amalgamation of the funds and on the 30th June, 1969, we find that the National War Fund had had a total income of R31,724,000, of which R30,154,000 had been disbursed. Of those disbursements there has been recovered the amount of R4,682,000 which was advanced by way of housing and other loans. The question which is now frequently raised by the public is whether it is necessary to conserve so large an amount as the R6 million which will now remain in the combined fund. I think that we must remind ourselves that one of the funds, namely the 1914-T8 fund is, still dealing, some 50 years after the cessation of hostilities, with claims and that claims are still received. Because of the demobilization by 1946 of 218,334 volunteers we can also anticipate that the Fund will have to deal with claims 50 years after the cessation of the last war. I mention these facts, because I believe that we should realize that this is a large sum of money which is held and being administered. I want to say in conclusion that the State President, as hon. members are aware, is the president of the fund, which will be a combined one. He is assisted by committees throughout the country. But I believe it is unfortunate that the general public is not sufficiently aware of the purposes for which this fund exists. I believe that too many of the old soldiers are allowed, as the old expression goes, to fade away, without people being conscious that there is a fund of this nature available to help those persons who have served in the Armed Forces during the two world wars, over difficulties in the latter years of their lives. This fund is not there as a handout to work-shy people. But it is unfortunate in life that it is the persons who needs assistance but is too reticent to ask for it who loses the assistance that is available. The hon. the Minister will know that that happens so often in social welfare undertakings. I believe that the fund would welcome more attention by the general public and would welcome it if cases that possibly need assistance, are referred to the secretary of the fund for attention. They would certainly consider them with due attention and for possible assistance wherever it can be given.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank these two hon. members for their support of this Bill. I am thankful to the hon. member for Green Point for the facts he gave. I think it is very good to have it for the record especially on this notable occasion. To add to what they have said, I just want, also for the record, to give the following figures.

First of all, as regards the Governor-General’s Fund, the 1914-'18 fund, the position was as follows on the 30th November, 1969. The capital in the fund at that stage was R42,025. The number of beneficiaries were only 63. As regards the 1939-’45 fund, the National War Fund, the position on the 30th June, 1969, was as follows: The capital was R7,389,687 and the number of beneficiaries 2,437. I am just giving these figures for the record and I want to thank hon. members for supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset and with your leave, Sir, I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to he chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Prinshof, and to the other members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House for the time and energies they devoted to examining the Bill which is before the House at the moment. I am particularly glad that the Committee was unanimous in its decisions regarding the amendments which have been effected.

I do not intend making a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted to the Committee. The records are accessible to hon. members who wish to know more about the subject. In the field of procedural law this measure ought to be welcomed by legal practitioners in particular, as it introduces certainty and uniformity where we have until now had to deal with a variety of provisions in ordinances on the subject concerned here. Admittedly, there are also Acts of Parliament which contain various provisions which prescribe periods for the institution of proceedings. However, my Department is investigating the possibility of introducing uniformity in this regard as well, but on account of the diverse nature of the various provisions it will probably take quite some time before this task is completed. As hon. members know, Sir, provincial councils had the power, before the passing of the Prescription Act, 1943, and apparently in terms of their implied powers, to prescribe periods within which any action had to be instituted against a provincial administration or local authority. Such periods were in fact prescribed in various ordinances before and after the passing of that Act.

There is however some doubt whether, since the passing of the Prescription Act, 1943, provincial councils still have the power to prescribe such periods, on account of its being in conflict with the Prescription Act. The administrations of the provinces accordingly requested that they be expressly granted legislative authority to presdribe periods of this nature in cases where they deem it essential in the exercise of their legislative powers. For constitutional reasons, however, it was decided that the matter should be regulated by Act of Parliament, which would at the same time introduce uniform provisions in lieu of the large number of diverse provisions at present occurring in ordinances.

The reasons for provisions to the effect that certain legal proceedings against provincial administrations, local authorities or State Departments have to be instituted wihin a cerain period after certain requirements have been complied with, are evident from court decisions over a very long period. In the main they amount to this, that the institutions concerned, on account of the nature and extent of their activities and the rapid turnover of their employees, should be placed in a position to know in good time of any proceedings in order to enable them to investigate the matter as soon as possible before any evidence is lost. If too much time elapses, circumstances change, with the result that it may not be possible to check whether the claimant’s assertions are correct.

The provisions of the Bill are self-explanatory and therefore I need not say much about them. Clause 1 contains the customary definitions. The definition of the term “debt” in particular is of importance here, because this is one of the fundamental provisions of the Bill. Although the definition appears to be wide, the cases to which the provisions of the Bill will be applied are limited by the provisions of clause 3.

Clause 2, of course, contains the central provision of the Bill. The periods of 30 days and 12 months which appeared in clause 2 (1) (a) and (b) in the earlier Bill have been replaced by 90 days and 24 months, respectively, by the Select Committee. An amendment was also effected in connection with the particulars of the debt to be set out in the notice, as referred to in clause 2 (1) (a). The earlier Bill required particulars to be furnished of the debt and the factual circumstances from which the debt arose. The Select Committee amended the requirement in connection with the debt in such a way that only such particulars of the debt are to be furnished as are within the knowledge of the creditor at the moment when he gives notice of the proceedings. This will allow a creditor, where the full extent of the amount of his claim is not known at that moment, to amend this amount subsequently where circumstances compel him to do so. However, full particulars must be furnished of the factual circumstances from which the debt arose. As far as the periods in clause 2(1) are concerned, I may mention that the various ordinances prescribe different periods for the serving of notice and the institution of proceedings. The periods mentioned in the Bill differ from those at present occurring in ordinances, but in the light of the currently applicable periods and the evidence given before the Select Committee appear to be the most equitable for the State on the one hand and the public on the other. The provisions of clause 2 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond substantially with those of sections 4 (1) and 15 (1), 12 (2) 12 (3) and 14 (2), respectively, of the Prescription Act, 1969.

Clause 3, as I have said, limits the cases to which the Bill applies. The exclusion of claims under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942. which is provided for in clause 3 (1) (c) and which occurred in the earlier Bill as well, is made in the light of court decisions and is, moreover, supported by evidence submitted before the Committee. The insertion by the Select Committee of paragraph (d) in clause 3 (1) is also an appropriate amendment, in the light of the statutory provision concerned. The exceptions in clause 3 (2) are necessary as compliance with the requirement regarding notification would otherwise be impossible.

Clause 4 makes provision for the granting of leave to serve the notice contemplated in clause 2 (1) (a) after the lapse of the period prescribed. This provision corresponds in the main with existing statutory provisions.

Clause 5 corresponds in the main with section 17 of the Prescription Act, 1969, and leaves room to a provincial administration or local authority, by not invoking the provisions of the Bill, to allow a creditor to enforce his claim in any case.

Because a local authority is bound by the provisions of the Bill when it wants to take action against an administration, it is fair that the reverse should apply as well. Hence the provision in clause 6.

Clause 8 provides for the necessary transitional provisions in respect of a debt which arose before the commencement of the Act.

Clause 10 provides that the Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President. This provision is necessary in view of the provisions of section 11 (d) of the Prescription Act, 1969, in order to make it possible for the two Acts to come into operation simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has of course the wholehearted support of this side of the House. It is, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, a Bill which was sent to a Select Committee. The Select Committee has altered it in certain material and important respects. One does not traditionally thank Ministers, and I do not want to thank the hon. the Minister, but I do want to say to him that we appreciate the fact that he has accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee in toto. This is something the hon. the Minister could well discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport in view of his attitude earlier to-day.

The virtue of this Bill is, I think, that it was referred to a Select Committee. It would otherwise have been a contraversial bill in many respects. It has emerged from consideration by the Select Committee as a unanimous measure, with a large number of extremely good points. As members of the Select Committee, we applied our minds to all the questions which might have arisen as to whether one should in fact have any sort of prescription in respect of actions against local and provincial authorities, and decided that this was in fact necessary for various reasons. This being so, there is a great virtue in having one Act, as this Bill will become, which tells you exactly where you stand in respect of the limitation of legal action in regard to all local and provincial authorities. At the moment every province has different provisions in respect of different local authorities. In some cases there are different provisions for different provincial Departments. The legislation is therefore desirable.

The important changes made by the Select Committee are in the first place designed to provide that one has to give notice with in 90 days instead of within 30 days, as was the case in the Bill presented. I think we all agreed that a period of 30 days was a little short. A further provision is that one also has to give notice of the facts from which the debt arose. The other change made by the Select Committee is the one requiring a creditor only to give those particulars of damages suffered which are within his knowledge. This is also reasonable and proper, otherwise one would not have been able to issue summons without applying to court for permission to serve another notice. Thirdly, as the hon. Minister mentioned, the period of 12 months up to prescription has now been changed to 4 months. The fourth amendment affected by the Select Committee is that claims in terms of section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are excluded.

The greatest virtue I think of this Bill was that which was in it before it went to the Select Committee, i.e. clause 4. This provides that even if you fail to comply with any of these provisions relating to notice you will not necessarily be debarred from claiming damages against local authorities or provincial administrations, provided you can show the court one of two things—that the local authority or provincial administration concerned was not prejudiced by the failure to give notice or that there were special circumstances why it could not be reasonably expected that notice should have been served. This is a great step forward, a great improvement on the existing law.

Before I sit down, may I refer to the fact that the hon. the Minister did make reference to the evidence before the Select Committee? That evidence has not yet been printed and is therefore not available. Normally one would not like to have a debate of this nature without having the full report of the Select Committee, but in view of the fact that we are unanimous about this Bill, and also that the Bill as it emerged from the Select Committee contains improvements, improvements which have been accepted by the Minister, we do not intend making any fuss about the evidence not being available. However, we should like to place on record that we do not want this occasion to be regarded as a precedent. Otherwise we give this Bill our full support.

My sole purpose in rising is to convey the thanks of the Select Committee to the staff which acted as secretariat to the Committee, and also to Mr. Par* sons, of the Department of Justice, for the profound study he had made of this matter and who was consequently of particular assistance to us. As chairman of the Select Committee, I want to express my appreciation to the other members of the Committee for the way in which they dealt with this Bill. Throughout, our principle was one of fairness towards provincial administrations and local authorities on the one hand, and twoards claimants on the other hand. I think we have succeeded in this in the few amendments which we made.

This Bill is an important step forward in the law of prescription. As the Minister will know, prescription is a sphere of law which often gives legal practitioners problems because of the different provisions relating to different bodies and to different circumstances. This Bill seeks to put the law of prescription relating to delicts on the same basis for all local authorities and provincial administrations. One now knows what these provisions are by referring only to this legislation. The Minister also mentioned that the Deparment was looking into ways of prescribing the same provisions relating to prescription in respect of other bodies and in respect of matters other than delicts. We are pleased to hear that, because we believe it is very necessary. I would urge upon the Minister to investigate the possibility of introducing as soon as possible one Act relating to prescription in all its forms—whether under delict, or contract, or whatever it may be, and in respect of all persons and bodies, so that one can find in one Act the periods of prescription applying to every type of action. That would not only help legal practitioners but also the general public. If it is impossible to provide the same period of prescription for different bodies in respect of the same type of action—-for example, relating to contracts involving Government Departments—I suggest that it would help if one were to have in one Act all the various prescriptive provisions, even if they may not be the same, for all the various bodies. The Bill now before us does in fact provide one period of prescription and the same limitations for every provincial administration and local authority in so far as delicts are concerned. Here then it has been found possible to do that. If the various differences that there are in the periods of prescription and in regard to what notices are to be given, cannot be streamlined so that the same period and the same steps apply in all instances, at least it would greatly help the public and practitioners if all periods of prescription could be dealt with in one Act. One would then be able to go to that Act to find what period of prescription applies and what steps one must take in all actions, whether they be delictual actions or contractual actions and whether they be against the Railways or against the Police or against private individuals. I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this proposition and to introduce legislation along these lines at an early date.

I just want to say that I am very grateful for the unanimity prevailing among members in regard to this Bill. It is the position that the Bill drawn up by the Select Committee is an improvement on the one which was referred to it. If this were not the case, I would not have accepted the amendments made by the Select Committee. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that we are in fact deviating slightly here from the normal procedure. The normal procedure is to wait until the full report of the Select Committee has been published, so that the Bill may be considered in this House on the basis of that evidence. But this Bill is coming up very late in the session and, besides, we should like to implement the Prescription Act of last year and we are obliged to do that together with this measure. This procedure need not create a precedent. The suggestions made by the hon. member for Musgrave have been noted by the Department. To what extent his suggestions are practicable, I cannot say at this stage. However, the Department is paying attention to them and I hope and trust that we shall be able to do something because it is confusing that different periods are prescribed in different statutes. As the hon. member rightly said, it is something which requires attention, and the Department is attending to the matter. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I think hon. members will be as unanimous on this Bill as on the previous one, but I nevertheless want to explain a few of the provisions.

As hon. members know, section 11 of the Bantu Beer Act, 1962, authorizes licensed liquor traders to sell Bantu beer acquired from a local authority on the premises on which liquor may be sold by him. Now, complaints and representations are continually being received in regard to Bantu congregating at bottle stores to purchase Bantu beer, and attendant upon that public places are continually being littered with empty beer containers. Consideration was given to the question of whether the Bantu Beer Act should not be amended to confer a power similar to that contained in section 100quin of the Liquor Act, 1928 in order to prohibit the sale of Bantu beer in certain areas or by certain licence-holders referred to in that section. Since this will result in divided control over bottle stores, an amendment of the Liquor Act. 1928, appears to be more suitable. With a view to the definition of “liquor” in the Liquor Act, it is necessary however, for the purposes of section 100quin, to include Bantu beer in the term “liquor”, and this is being done in clause 1.

In clause 2 the maximum number of members of the board of the Land and Agricultural Bank is being increased from eight to 10. This amendment has become necessary because the need for Land Bank financing has in course of time expanded to so many branches of the farming industry that territorial representation of the industry on the board will, owing to practical considerations, be served to better effect by increasing the number of members on the board.

In clause 3 provision is being made for the appointment of a third Deputy-Governor to the board of management of the Reserve Bank. This amendment is necessitated by the increasing burden on the Governor and Deputy-Governors of the Bank. For organizational reasons it is necessary to appoint one Deputy-Governor as Senior Deputy-Governor. The number of directors on the board remains unchanged, however, in that the number of other directors appointed by the State President is being decreased from three to two.

The amendment in clause 4, Sir, is necessary to eliminate an apparent deficiency in section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955. It has become evident from maintenance cases submitted to the Supreme Court for automatic revision that husbands sometimes allege that maintenance payable in terms of a maintenance order was paid directly to the wife. Because spouses as a rule are not competent witnesses in regard to each other, and do not fall under the exceptional cases mentioned in section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the wife cannot be called as witness against the husband to testify as to whether or not payment was in fact made. The amendment in clause 4 will now make the one spouse a competent State witness against the other spouse as far as a contravention of section 11 of the Maintenance Act, 1963, is concerned. Since the Criminal Procedure Act. 1955, is not applicable in the Territory of South-West Africa, it is necessary to effect a corresponding amendment to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, 1963, of the Territory. This is being done by means of clause 14.

As a result of the delegation of some of its powers to officers in Departments, in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1957, it is expected that the Public Service Commission will be able to conduct its business with a smaller commission. Provision is therefore being made in clause 5 that the Commission, instead of consisting of five members, shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members. The idea is, if it is deemed advisable, not to fill any vacancies which may arise. This amendment also necessitates an amendment of the provisions in regard to a quorum of the members of the commission. This is being done in clause 6.

Section 29 of the Police Act, 1958, provides that no licence moneys, tax duty or fee shall be payable by any person under any law or by-law in respect of a certified canteen, as referred to in that section. “Canteen” also includes any mess or South African Police institution or any premises temporarily or permanently used for providing recreation, refreshments or articles of necessity solely—I emphasize “solely”—for members or pensioners of the South African Police or for civilian employees or for civilians employed in any work in any such Police institutions.

Now, it is sometimes necessary, Sir, to receive eminent visitors, sportsmen and women and sports teams, and so on, in such Police institutions. As the section reads at present, this cannot be done without placing those places beyond the provisions of the section. In addition there are Police institutions which already have recreation halls, living accommodation and other facilities, and section 29 (3) does not allow the managers of such institutions to make those places available to members of the public on occasion when they are not required for use by members of the Police Force. To enable the managers of these various institutions to surmount the restrictions of this section, the amendment in clause 7 is being effected.

As far as clause 8 is concerned, section 94 (1) (b) bis of the Prisons Act, 1959, provides that regulations can be made in regard to the establishment, management and control of funds to provide for medical, dental and hospital treatment of members of the Prisons Service who retired or retire on pension on or after the 1st day of January, 1964, and their families and of the families of members of the Prisons Service who died or die, on or after that date, and so on. Similar provisions also occur in the Defence Act, 1957, and the Police Act, 1958. Now members who retired before the 1st day of January, 1964, have addressed representations to the effect that they should also be taken into consideration for benefits. The amendment in this clause will make it possible to promulgate regulations to establish a fund to make provisions for these ex-members as well. Similar amendments have been effected in regard to the other service Departments in the appropriate Acts.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, the magisterial district of Westonaria has been established with effect from 1st October, 1966, as a separate district and comprises an area which was formerly included in the magisterial districts of Randfontein, Roodepoort and Vanderbijlpark. The magisterial districts of Randfontein and Roodepoort fall within the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court. In a recent divorce case before that Division it appeared that the Witwatersrand Local Division did not have jurisdiction in regard to the magisterial district of Westonaria. Because Westonaria principally comprises part of the magisterial district of Randfontein and Roodepoort, which do fall under the area of jurisdiction of that local division, representations were made by the Association of Advocates (Witwatersrand Division) and the Incorporated Law Society of the Transvaal to the effect that the Supreme Court Act should be amended in order to have Westonaria incorporated with the Witwatersrand Local Division. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal indicated that Westonaria should also be incorporated in that Division for criminal purposes. The amendment in clause 9 will therefore include Westonaria in the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division for civil as well as criminal matters. The amendment is being made with retrospective effect as from the date of the establishment of Westonaria as a separate district in order to give force of law to legal proceedings which have been instituted in that Division subsequent to that date.

Clause 10 is self-explanatory. As hon. members know, adjustments have from time to time been made during the past few years to Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act in regard to the pensions payable to Judges, the non-taxable allowance payable to Judges, and so on, but the basic salaries of Judges were last increased in 1963. The amendment the First Schedule in 1964 was simply a decimalization of the amount payable as salaries. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that the time has come to review the basic salaries payable to Judges as well. But apart from this it has also struck me that advocates are these days being appointed to the Bench at a relatively early age and they are thus not being afforded an opportunity of achieving material welfare on the Bar. For that reason nobody will dispute that it is no more than right that our Judges should be placed in the position where they can at all times be completely independent financially. That is why it has been thought fit to grant the substantial increases for which provision is being made in this clause.

Section 89 of the Children’s Act, 1960, relates to financial support to certain persons and bodies from public funds. At present, however financial support can only be given up to the end of the year in which a child reaches the age of 18 years. Deserving cases occur where this limit has a restricting effect, for example, children who write their matriculation examination during the year in which they reach the age of 19 years. It is therefore being found necessary to expand the power granted the Minister in terms of section 89 of the Children’s Act, as is being done in clause 11.

The amendment in clause 12 will confer upon the Coloured Development Corporation a power in accordance with the power the Bantu Investment Corporation has in terms of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, 1968. As employer the Coloured Development Corporation must compete in the labour market with other private undertakings and bodies offering these additional benefits as conditions of service, and in order to enable the Corporation to recruit suitable staff, and retain their services, it is being deemed necessary to confer this power upon the Corporation.

In terms of section 31 (3) of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, the Education Council for Coloured Persons must submit an annual report on its activities during the immediately preceding financial year to the Minister of Coloured Affairs before 31st December of every year. Copies of the report must then be laid upon the Table in both the Senate and the House of Assembly. In view of the fact that the education of Coloured persons has been entrusted to the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, provision is now being made in clause 13 for copies of the report to be laid upon the Table in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in future.

This brings me in conclusion to clause 15. As hon. members know, the permission or approval of a local authority, or an officer in its employ, is. as a rule, required for the holding or organizing inter alia of processions in a public place under his control, and that such permission or approval can be refused if the local authority or officer concerned has reason to believe that the procession, if it is to be held, could give rise to public disturbances or riots, disruption of traffic, and so on. The body in question apparently grants its permission for the holding or organization of the envisaged procession on the strength of information which it has at its disposal at that moment. Surely it cannot be disputed that when it concerns the maintenance of law and order, the Central Government is much better informed than the local authority. It follows logically that it will be in a better position to decide wheher or not there is any danger of disorder. Because processions, protests, demonstrations, and so on, always affect considerable numbers of people, it is in the best interest of all that there should be no confusion or uncertainty as to whether they may or may not take place. It is therefore undesirable that the authorities should at one level say “yes” and at another level “no”.

What the Government wants to prevent is that a procession should first be authorized by the local authority, only to be subsequently prohibited by the Central Government. Such a state of affairs only creates dissatisfaction, and should be avoided. The magistrate represents the Central Government and can make all the investigation necessary in order to decide whether or not permission to hold a specific procession should be granted. There is in this way no interferance with the powers of the local authority in this connection. The local authority still decides in its own right whether it should grant permission or not. Should it refuse permission, that is the end of the matter. Should it grant permission, it does so in its own right as well, and normally there will be no problems in getting the permission of the magistrate. But when the maintenance of law and order is endangered, it follows that nobody can be blamed if the magistrate refuses to give permission for holding a procession which could have this result.

I do not in the least want to intimate that what we are doing here now will in all imaginable circumstances prevent a procession for which permission has in the first instance been granted by the magistrate, from subsequently having to be disallowed. This will of course only be done if new information, which was not previously available, comes to light, but it ought to be in only the most exceptional cases that this happens, if it happens at all. Clause 15 (3) makes it possible to apply the provisions of section 15 (1) in specified areas only. In terms of this, consideration can be given to limiting the scope of the provisions of subsection (1) to those areas where, owing to the density of the population, the maintenance of law and order is more difficult than in other areas. For that reason it is also being provided in subsection (4) that the Act shall come into operation on a date to be specified by proclamation. I think that I have now explained all the clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like most General Law Amendment Bills, this is a Committee Stage Bill in the sense that it deals with so many matters that it is difficult to say exactly what the principle is. The matters this Bill is concerned with should be dealt with in the Committee Stage, especially as some of them concern other Ministers.

I think there are only two clauses in this Bill which at this stage require any discussion at all. They are clauses 10 and 15. Clause 10 deals with the question of the increase of the salaries of Judges. They have indeed been given a hardsome increase of 40 per cent of their basic salary. But, Sir, if I may say so, he basic salary is very inadequate considering the responsibility and the status of our Judges. So, while it is a handsome increase, it is by no means in the result a salary which we consider to be altogether adequate. It is especially so when one consider that to-day, as the hon. the Minister will agree, Judges are being appointed at a very much younger age than they were in the years gone by. They have families, which in the years gone by. when Judges’ salaries were fixed, they normally did not have to support or deal with. In addition, as a result of what is in fact a duty so far as they are concerned, they suffer, in taking an appointment to the Bench, a fantastic drop in income. So we obviously welcome this provision, but we feel that it is, in fact, not going far enough. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to the question of Judges’ pensions as well, a matter which I unfortunately cannot discuss under this Bill. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could give his attention, administratively speaking, to the whole question of the status of he Judges so far as travelling allowances are concerned. I may say however that this is a welcome step in that a reasonable bite has been taken off the cherry in this regard for a change.

Then we come to the only other clause which I think is worth dealing with at the Second Reading. That is clause 15, which provides for the new procedure in respect of processions. Where the law provides that one cannot have a procession in a local authority area without the permission of that local authority, the permission of a magistrate is now required as well. The position is that, if the local authority refuses permission to have a procession, it is the end of it. If they give permission, it is not valid unless one has the permission of a magistrate as well. It applies only to processions. It does not apply to protests in general. All the other forms of protests may still be granted with the permission of the local authorities and without that of the magistrate. It will in effect mean that in each district it will be the chief magistrate who will have to bring his mind to bear on the subject. He may refuse only upon certain specified grounds which are set out in subsection (2), which reads—

He may do so on that ground, and that ground alone. We feel that this is a reasonable provision, because the person who has to decide, is a judicial officer. He is a person who is trained in the process of weighing up the evidence, deciding what is what. It is not, in addition, an arbitrary decision which is given by him. He must apply his mind to the very important question as to whether or not the organizing of the procession may endanger the maintenance of law and order. Ore is encouraged to find that the chief magistrate of Johannesburg has already indicated in a Press interview that in deciding these matters (if this law is passed) he will consult the interested parties before he applies the proposed legislation. He went on to say that before he made a decision on whether or not to allow a march, he would call for information from relevant bodies such as the municipality and the police and groups applying for permission to march could make representations. He added—

It will not be arbitrary. In making a decision he said he would not consult the Attorney-General. As magistrate for the area concerned, he would be in a better position to decide than the Attorney-General.

We feel that this is a great improvement on the existing situation. For various reasons, obviously magisrates and particularly chief magistrates, are people who are not only experienced, but they are, if one may call them that, the only public servants whom the Minister of the Department concerned cannot tell what to do. They have their discretion. They act every day exercising their discretion. No one may tell them what to do and no one would attempt to tell them what to do, especially the hon. the Minister of Justice. A magistrate then stand here as a person with that training, dealing with the evidence of both sides and deciding in the interests of law and order whether that procession should take place.

If one considers what the alternative is and has been, I think it demonstrates the wisdom of bringing the chief magistrate into the picture in order to decide. We had this unfortunate episode in Johannesburg earlier this year. I say it was unfortunate, because the local authority gave its permission and then the Minister felt constrained to employ the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act in order to stop the procession. The Riotous Assemblies Act provides that whenever a magistrate has reason to apprehend that the public peace would be seriously endangered by the assembly of a particular public gathering in any public place, he may, if authorized thereto by the Minister, prohibit the assembly of that public gathering in any public street in the district.

He initiates it.

Yes, he initiates it, but he can only do it if the Minister says he can. The fact that the Minister comes into the picture, has, I believe, an unfortunate effect because the Minister is, although he is acting as the Minister, a prominent member of a political party. That is a factor which is put into the scales and which produces in the minds of some people the thought that this is being prevented because of politics rather than because of the maintenance of law and order. The penalty in respect of this procedure under the Riotous Assemblies Act is, on the first offence, one year. If a person is convicted on a subsequent offence, he may be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. With this provision as it is at the moment, any one who offends against it, will be liable only to the penalties prescribed for an offence under a by-law.

In all these circumstances and of all these various provisions, these, as I say, are the only two that we feel at this stage are worth mentioning. We offer no objection whatsoever to this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am unconvinced by the arguments which have been offered by the hon. member for Durban (North). He did not sound very convinced himself if I may say so. I want to say that it is of course true that a General Law Amendment Bill contains a large number of amending clauses to different Acts. It is interesting that the particular clause over which there is some controversy this afternoon does not amend any Act at all. That is of course clause 15. It is a substantive clause. It amends no Act whatever. It stands all by itself. I am not sure what it is doing in a General Law Amendment Bill at all. It is interesting to note that of the 16 clauses in this Bill there are only two, according to the hon. member, that require any discussion at all. That is the clause which provides for the increase in Judges’ salaries and clause 15 which, as I say, is a substantive clause. Personally I find nothing objectionable in any of the clauses except clause 15. I certainly agree with clause 10. I think that it is time Judges’ salaries were increased, for obvious reasons. I have nothing against the clauses amending the Children’s Act, and so on. I take the line I have always taken when General Law Amendment Bills have come before this House. We all know that they contain a large number of clauses, but if a General Law Amendment Bill contains a clause which I consider to be very objectionable, I am unable to vote for its second reading in principle, even though I may agree with many of the other clauses contained in the Bill. This is, after all, the case with every Bill. Every Bill this House considers has a number of clauses which are unobjectionable. Then there are one or two which are very objectionable.

We do not interpret it that way.

Yes, I know that the hon. the Minister will not interpret it in that way, but it is very interesting, on political platforms, how one’s opposition interprets it differently. If one happens to oppose a Bill which contains certain objectionable clauses, they say that one is in principle also not in favour of other clauses in the same Bill.

You mean in the same way as you say similar things which are not correct?

No, I have never said that. That is where the hon. member is quite wrong. I have never said anything except to describe the actual actions of the Opposition. They voted in principle for the second reading of a Bill and opposed a clause in the Committee Stage. I have never ever said anything else.

Anyway, Sir, I am not going to be sidetracked into an argument. I have a great deal of other matters to discuss. I want to give an example in this regard. Last year a General Law Amendment Bill, which was generally known as the B.O.S.S. Bill, was introduced into this House. It was known all over the country as the B.O.S.S. Bill. That General Law Amendment Bill contained 30 clauses. Of the 30 I found three objectionable. The Opposition found two clauses objectionable. I found clauses 10, 23, and 29 objectionable. Clause 29 was the actual B.O.S.S. clause and clause 10 also dealt indirectly with security measures. The other clause I found objectionable, namely clause 23, was the one which disfranchised for life anybody who has served one day in gaol under the Suppression of Communism Act. That clause the Opposition did not find objectionable. The did, however, find clause 10, which dealt with State security, and clause 29 objectionable. I in fact moved an amendment that the Bill be read “this day six months” at the Second Reading because of my very strong objections to those three clauses and in particular to clause 29. This is, of course, a fact which is always conveniently forgotten by the hon. member for Durban (North) when he tells everybody that I did not speak at the Committee Stage of the B.O.S.S. Bill and I only voted against the clause. He forgets that I moved an amendment that the Bill be read “this day six months” at the Second Reading. The opposition voted against the Second Reading of the General Law Amendment Bill last year because it contained two clauses they found highly objectionable. I am not very interested in the line that the Opposition is taking to-day. I am interested only in my own actions. I intend to be consistent. I find one clause objectionable in this Bill. The Opposition does not find that clause objectionable. I am voting against the Second Reading of this Bill because I object strongly to clause 15. I want to place on record that I am not against the increase of Judges’ salaries. I am not against the proposed changes to the Children’s Act. I am not against any of the other …

You are voting against the Bill.

Yes, I am voting against the Bill because of clause 15. To me it is an objectionable clause and I am voting against the Bill for that reason, just as the Opposition last year voted against the General Law Amendment Bill because it contained two out of 30 clauses which they found objectionable. I have in the past voted against other General Law Amendment Bills because they contained one clause I have objected to. That was the famous Sobukwe clause, which fortunately no longer appears in General Law Amendment Bills because the hon. the Minister has suspended it. Sir, I want to tell you why I object to clause 15. First of all, as I say, it is a substantive clause; it is not amending any existing Act at all. But I consider it to be objectionable.

It is about law and order.

Sir, lots of things are about law and order, but lots of things are also about basic liberties, basic freedoms and basic rights. Those also deserve a little consideration in a democracy. Law and order has a decided part to play but other things also have a decided part to play. I am sure that there is plenty of law and order behind the Iron Curtain—plenty of law and order—but there is also very little freedom behind the Iron Curtain. I have to consider both sides.

Clause 15 contains a radical departure from the present position. It overrides the local authority as far as the granting of permission for the holding of processions is concerned, because if the local authority says “yes” the magistrate can still say “no”. [Interjection.] The important point is the limitation, the removal, of the right of the local authority, not whether or not the magistrate is going to say “yes” when he is asked whether or not he is going to grant permission for the holding of a procession. As the law stands at the moment the magistrate can in any case forbid a procession even if permission is granted, under the Riotous Assemblies Act.

In extreme cases.

It happened quite recently in Johannesburg. It happened in June of this year, where students had been given permission to hold a procession, to march to John Vorster Square; permission was granted by the local authority and at the last moment that permission was removed by the Chief Magistrate, acting presumably on instructions from the hon. the Minister. He stated that he considered that the procession would endanger law and order in Johannesburg. In the event, a number of students decided to go ahead and hold the march. It was perfectly peaceful; law and order was not disrupted at all. The students were eventually arrested when they arrived at John Vorster Square and subsequently 30 of them were charged. They were originally charged with serious offences, but I am glad to say that eventually the two really serious charges, i.e. under the Riotous Assemblies Act and under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, were withdrawn, and the students paid pretty hefty fines for breaking a municipal by-law. But at least that was less stringent than the original charges.

Are you in favour of demonstrations?

Yes, of course, I am in favour of demonstrations. What a silly question to ask! In every democratic country this is accepted as the normal right of citizens.

Since when?

I will tell the hon. member since when if he wants to know: since the time of the war—let me go right back into history—since the time of Gen. De Wet’s objections to certain actions taken. In 1939 certain women objected to South Africa’s going to war and held demonstrations. Those were demonstrations against the then Government’s policy, and since then there have been many demonstrations against the present Government’s policy. I consider that all those things fall within the ambit of ordinary democratic licence. [Interjections.] As long as people demonstrate in favour of the attitude and philosophy of that hon. member it is all right, but when they demonstrate against that philosophy, then they are disrupting law and order.

Sir, the relevant point is whether law and order is going to be maintained, whether the police can maintain law and order, and I say that on many occaions it has been perfectly easy for the police to maintain law and order. We have had very few disruptive meetings in this country. Indeed on one occasion when the police should have interfered, it was not because the demonstrators were disrupting law and order but because hooligans were attacking peaceful demonstrators and bombarding them with oranges and eggs. On that occasion the police should have intervened but did not. That was in Johannesburg. Quite the opposite action was taken by the police in Cape Town, where they did intervene to stop people from attacking students who were standing on the steps of the Cathedral and demonstrating quite peacefully. In that instance the police acted very properly and stopped a gang of hooligans from attacking peaceful demonstrators. In Johannesburg, unfortunately, they stood by and did not stop the hooligans from attacking the demonstrators.

Sir, I want to quote something that was said by Prof. Strauss, who is a professor of law at the University of South Africa, as reported in The Star of the 3rd June. He said—

We have not reached the stage in South Africa where what I think is a normal democratic right, which has been accepted by the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, by the European Convention of Human Rights, as being a normal right, i.e. the right of peaceful assembly—and a procession is part of that normal right—is being restricted because it is feared that in some instances the police may not be able to control hotheads who are going to object to a peaceful procession, because the processions start off with the intention of being peaceful. Indeed, it was on those grounds that the City Council of Johannesburg granted the right to students to hold a procession. I may say that the right of assembly is recognized also by the American Bill of Rights. There it is also a normal, elementary right.

The Bill is not against that sort of thing.

Well, the Bill now puts powers in the hands of the magistrate whereby this right of assembly can be restricted. Sir, let us take the practical implications of this. What exactly is going to happen? Who is the magistrate of Johannesburg going to consult?

The police.

He is not going to consult the hon. member for Prinshof, who is full of democratic ideals.

He is going to consult the police of course.

The hon. member for Prinshof is dead right. The magistrate is going to consult the police. The police are simply going to decide that their task in maintaining law and order is going to be much more difficult if marchers are going to be molested by hooligans, so they are going to advise the magistrate that the procession should not be allowed. I am prepared to say that there are going to be very few anti-Government processions allowed in this country from now onwards.

Are you suggesting that magistrates are rubber stamps?

What I am suggesting is that magistrates are going to take the advice of the police, and I suggest that the police are going to act as they want to act and that is to stop processions, as, they have done in the past. Indeed, the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg has already stated that he would consult “relevant bodies like the police as a matter of course”. I think the hon. member for Durban (North) will concede that it is going to be a very brave magistrate who is going to allow a procession when the police have said in fact that they do not approve of such a procession taking place.

In terms of subsection (2) he has to examine the position and satisfy himself …

Sir, let us come to subsection (2), which is supposed to be a sort of protective measure against any arbitrary action by the magistrate. This provides—

Who is going to be able to prove in a court of law or anywhere else that the magistrate did not genuinely believe that the holding of a procession was going to endanger law and order? Sir, this is the old male fides argument. Every lawyer in this House will surely agree that it is almost impossible to prove male fides in a court of law. Surely the hon. member for Jeppes knows that. [Interjection.] Yes, but you can never prove mala fides.

Do not be so sure of that; I disagree with you.

I am sure of it. I would like the hon. member to quote me a case where mala fides can be proved when in the opinion of the magistrate the holding of a procession is going to cause a disruption of law and order. Of course, it is going to be impossible to prove anything of the kind.

I say we have had a succession of restrictive measures already in South Africa. In the years I have sat in this House we have had one measure after the other introduced by successive Ministers of Justice, which always place unrestricted powers in the hands of themselves or of police officers or of magistrates, in terms of which if, in the opinion of such a person it is unwise to do something or it is wise to do something, nothing further has to be proved. I think it is time that people in South Africa called a halt to all this. One is not asking for any extraordinary thing to happen. One is asking for the maintenance of a normal civil right which has obtained in this country since its origin. It is a right which has been used by citizens who have been against Governments throughout the history of South Africa. As I say, it has been used by citizens from the days of Gen. De Wet onwards.

There have been processions against certain things and they have been tolerated, and I see no reason why this prohibition should now be introduced. Why should students not hold processions if they want to? Why should this restrictive measure be brought in? I am quite against any further restriction of this nature. Everybody has forgotten those robust days when there used to be meetings on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg and on the Parade in Cape Town, and I cannot remember any tremendous disorder resulting from such meetings. It was decided by the authorities that the rights of citizens of free association, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should be limited, and those things have now disappeared. There are no more meetings held on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg or on the Parade in Cape Town. The local authority is not exactly what one might call one of the boldest bodies one can imagine; the City Council of Johannesburg is most cautious about granting any rights. But the City Councils of Johannesburg or Durban or Cape Town or any autonomous local authority are not to be allowed the right to decide whether or not its citizens shall enjoy the normal right of assembly which is implicit in the holding of a peaceful procession. From now onwards we must get a magistrate’s permission as well, and carrying that to its logical conclusion, we have got to get the permission of the police. I am against it. For this reason, and for no other reson, I am going to vote against the second reading of this Bill.

We have had an interesting example in the speech the hon. member for Houghton has just made of what she no doubt describes as her logic. The hon. member has just said that she is in favour of this clause and of that clause and of the other clause of the General Law Amendment Bill, but she is voting against it at the second reading. Although she votes against it at the second reading, we must understand that she is in favour of all the other clauses in the Bill. When the United Party takes the converse position and we make it clear that there are one or two clauses in the Bill of which we disapprove and that we will vote against them in the Committee Stage but that by and large there are important matters in the Bill which require our support and will get it, then we are being highly illogical according to the hon. member for Houghton and we are in favour, because we vote for the Bill at the second reading, of those clauses which we hotly dispute in the Committee Stage. It is perfectly all right for the hon. member for Houghton to do this, and it is consistent, logical and proper to do so, but if the United Party does precisely the same thing, we are in every way wrong; we are inconsistent and illogical and we are letting down the democratic point of view.

You will never live down the 90 days provision; I do not know why you try.

Let us come back to this particular General Law Bill. Like so many others, it does not have one, particular principle which has to be dealt with at the second reading. It has almost as many principles as there are clauses. Consistent with the attitude we have taken throughout on measures of this kind, we tried to assess whether the overall merit of the various principles outweighs the overall de-merits. As it is clearly the position in this case, as it has been with other General Laws Amendment Bills in the past, we will support this Bill at the Second Reading.

I should like to refer more particularly to clause 15, to which the hon. member for Houghton has devoted most of her speech. First of all she takes this point of view as regards the introduction of the amendment in clause 15, which requires the matter to come before the magistrate of the district, which in the case of the larger centres means the Chief Magistrate as he is called colloquially; he is in fact the magistrate as opposed to the assistant magistrate. She takes the view that necessarily in its working this will require police permission before the right of peaceful assembly, as she put it, can be exercized. There are two flaws in this argument. The first is, if it is correct that requesting the permission of the magistrate means getting the permission of the police …

In practice.

If it means that in practice, then of course it applies at the present time as well. So far as my information goes there is hardly a local authority in the country which, when asked to exercize this power of granting permission for a procession, does not ask the opinion of the police.

Nonsense.

Of course they do.

Many of the byelaws say that they are obliged to do that, and I cannot imagine any intelligent or responsible person or body, when asked to give permission for a public demonstration of some kind, not obtaining the opinion of the authority which maintains the law and order in our life, namely the police.

They consult them every time.

Precisely.

They do not have to.

If this argument of the hon. member for Houghton is correct in respect of the magistrate, it means that under the existing position the local authorities have handed over the authority to the police as to whether or not to grant the right of a public procession. Of course it is a wholly fallacious argument. I would go further and say that giving this power to a magistrate is an improvement because magistrates spend virtually the whole of their professional lives from time to time rejecting the evidence of policemen who are witnesses. That is an experience which is not common to a local authority. I think that a magistrate, who will necessarily be a senior magistrate and in the towns the most senior magistrates in the country, will be more likely to reject spurious representation from the Police, should they ever be made, and those are the types the hon. member for Houghton has complained about. They will be more likely than any other body to reject spurious evidence which is given against the holding of a procession of this kind.

The second point on which the hon. member for Houghton’s argument was fallacious, was that she said over and over again that this was an interference with the right of peaceful assembly, and that the right of peaceful assembly can be restricted. She dealt with the fact that there had been very few disruptive meetings. She dealt with peaceful demonstrations outside the Cathedral in Cape Town. She dealt with a certain group of demonstrators who stood on the side of the road in Johannesburg. None of these examples which have veen quoted by the hon. member for Houghton are affected by this provision. I say this, because not a single one of the hon. member’s examples were processions. This clause is specifically limited to processions, which means a kind of demonstration which involves the movement of people down a street or down a road. Meetings, therefore, are not affected. Demonstrations where people stand outside a building are not affected by this clause. The hon. member for Houghton cannot come here with a lot of generalities which have no bearing on the clause which we are discussing.

The hon. member for Houghton then dealt with the manner in which, in her view, the Chief Magistrate of a town like Johannesburg would deal with applications of this kind. Quite apart from any statements, which have been made, the wording of this clause, as I understand it, makes it virtually obligatory on a magistrate who is asked to exercise this particular discretion, which is a limited one, to receive information upon which he can make up his mind, as he is directed to do in this clause. Let us take the example if he consults nobody first. I would then say that one would have a very strong case for having his decision set aside as being an unreasonable one. If he cunsults only the police, he might still run that risk. Indeed, I believe he would. Unless he consults both the person who intends holding a procession and the authority for the maintenance of peace, namely the police, there is a fair chance of his decision being upset on review. Provided that in exercizing this discretion the magistrate does his job as required and hears the views of those who are concerned with holding the procession and of the police who are concerned with the maintenance of law and order and of the spokesman of the municipality, it seems to me that there is little chance of abuse creeping in to the exercize of this function.

It is important that one realizes the import of subsection (2), which provides that a magistrate shall refuse to grant permission “only if he has reason to believe that the holding or organizing of the procession may endanger the maintenance of law and order”. Only on that basis may he refuse, and on no other. The wording suggests too that while there is not exactly an onus on him to show that this is so, the wording could not have been more positive in favour of the person who seeks permission to hold a procession in terms of this particular clause.

The hon. member for Houghton dealt with the case of students in Johannesburg who, contrary to an order which the hon. the Minister had given, engaged in a march or a procession and ended up, as she said, at Vorster Square as a result of which they were charged under various laws because they had acted illegally in that regard. I would say that the position of people of that type, and I refer to the specific example which the hon. member quoted, is, if anything, made easier under the proposed clause 15. I say that for the following reason. The hon. member for Houghton said that that particular demonstration was perfectly peaceful and that there was no counter-demonstration of any kind. The hon. the Minister, as I understood him, said that he would hesitate to intervene with the exercise of the discretion by a magistrate in any instance in terms of this clause. I hope I understood him correctly.

Yes, I have faith in the magistrates.

What would happen in this particular instance that the hon. member for Houghton complained of? The circumstances which the hon. member for Houghton outlined, indicated a peaceful demonstration, both before it took place and in the event. In those circumstances there is every likelihood of a magistrate having granted permission for that particular procession. There would then not have been any charges laid against these young people which we know they had to face. The hon. member for Houghton can therefore not use that argument to justify opposing this patricular clause. I have little doubt that this is a reasonable provision and that anyone who believes in the maintenance of law and order should support it. As I have tried to outline at the beginning of my speech, I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member, particularly when one has regard to the criticisms which emanate against us from that quarter in opposing the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I really did not think that there would be any opposition to this measure. There was, however, one exception, which I expected.

But just before I come to that, I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban (North). He confined himself in particular to section 10, which provides for an increase in judges’ salaries. He stated that this was a very good improvement, but that he himself would have done more about the matter. I expected nothing else from an Opposition. If one is the member of the Opposition, one say things like that. But he made one other point, i.e. that he hoped that I would also give consideration to judges’ pensions. These pensions are taken into consideration automatically. By effecting these increases, one improves the pensions. After 15 years judges receive 60 per cent of their salary as pension. This is a considerable amount. The hon. member can work out for I himself what it amounts to. The salary improvement has therefore automatically resulted in the pensions also being improved.

The only other clause which was discussed, was clause 15. I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting this clause, because I honestly think it is a very reasonable one. After all, I have explained that the question of law and order is not necessarily the task of the local authority, but is in fact the task of the cantral government.

Have you never heard of the London policemen?

Yes, I have heard of the London bobies. But the maintenance of law and order is in the first instance the duty of the central government, and of course additionally that of the provincial and local authorities. That is why we are not depriving the local authorities of all say. The local authorities may refuse if they feel that there is going to be traffic congestion or a disturbance. Then the magistrate still sits back. But if the local authority were to agree, it is simply being provided that the magistrates permission must also be obtained. As the hon. member for Zululand correctly indicated, the magistrate is restricted. He cannot refuse arbitrarily simply because he does not like an organization which wants to hold a procession. He can only refuse, as is provided by the clause, if he is convinced that the maintenance of law and order can be endangered. Only then can he refuse. After all, we must remember that we are dealing here with responsible people. The standpoint adopted by the hon. member is in fact a reflection on our magistrates.

They will do what the Police tell them.

No. The Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg has already indicated what his modus operandi will be, and who all the people are to whom he will give a hearing. He does not only go to the Police. Surely, a person who makes this objection, is simply closing his eyes to the question of law and order and does not care what happens, like the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Houghton referred a moment ago to the procession held by the students. She said it was a peaceful one. Do hon. members now why it was peaceful? Because they caught the other people unawares. Yes, it was prohibited. The opposing forces which would have been set in motion, were completely caught by surprise. They thought that the procession would not take place, and were therefore caught unawares. Consequently these people were able to get as far as John Vorster Square. If that had not been the case, one wonders what would have happened in Johannesburg.

The Police should be able to control the few hooligans.

No, it is a question of more than just a few hooligans.

They are a lot of Suzmanites.

They break up meetings.

Order! no, we cannot conduct a debate in this manner.

The hon. member is saying that they are only able to consult the Police. Whom is the Johannesburg City Council consulting now? In this particular case they went to a lot of trouble. They consulted the Police and the Police said that according to information they had, there was going to be trouble. Despite this warning from the Police, the city council still gave permission. I shall now inform the hon. member as to what happened then. Various organizations went to the magistrate and told him that they were warning him that there was going to be trouble. As a result of that the magistrate, after he had taken sworn affidavits, approached me as Minister for the necessary permission to prohibit it in terms of the Riotous Aassemblies Act. That is what happened there. I must honestly say that one cannot state it in any fairer terms than it has been stated here. The person who is dissatisfied with that, does not stand for law and order. The person who is dissatisfied with that, has no confidence in our magistrates. I do not agree with that.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Expropriation Act, 1965, already contains a provision in terms of which compensation money can under specified circumstances be utilized in settlement of mortgage bond debts. Despite the fact that the payment of taxes and other moneys in insolvency or judicial sale of immovable property receives preference above the claim of a mortgagee and must also be paid by voluntary transfer of land before the transfer is registered in the Deeds Registry, the expropriation Act does not, however, provide that this can be paid out of compensation moneys.

Municipalities and other local authorities are experiencing problems in recovering the relevant land, water taxes and other moneys after the compensation money has been paid over to the person from whom the land has been expropriated. Representations were therefore received from the United Municipal Executive of South Africa to amend the Act in a suitable manner so that the Minister or administrator effecting the expropriation will be able to utilize portion of the compensation money for the payment of taxes.

It is no more than fair that these representations should be complied with since the transfer of land upon expropriation is compulsory and results in municipalities and other local authorities forfeiting the preferential right which they would otherwise have had in respect of the payment of taxes, and so on. It is therefore the purpose of the provision as contained in clause 4 of the Bill to empower the Minister to utilize, upon the expropriation of land, a portion of the compensation amount in order to pay on behalf of the owner, taxes and moneys which would normally have been payable upon transfer. Administrative arrangements will be made to determine in good time what amount is owing.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is necessary with a view to the application which was made by the municipal executives. I trust that hon. members will support it.

As the hon. the Minister has explained, local authorities sometimes experience problems with the collection of taxes or other moneys after land or property has been expropriated. The new section 11A now gives the hon. the minister the power to pay over such taxes to the authorities concerned out of the compensation moneys. The Bill does not affect the rights of the individual either. When land is expropriated, the money is paid by the State. Consequently it is no more than right that the State should keep back money to pay taxes owing to local authorities, and to pay out the balance to the owner. Such an arrangement ought to be accepted by land owners. I trust that, with this change, there will be no unnecessary delay in the payment of compensation moneys. If there is no delay, this Bill ought to be welcomed by the public. I assume that the hon. the Minister will see to it that there is no delay in paying out compensation moneys. Should there be any delay, we will have to criticize him under his Vote. I understand that this amendment was requested by the executive of the municipal associations. We on this side of the House have no objection to the amendments and therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his announcement in regard to the appointment of Press liaison officers, on his arrangement for the release of news reports and also in regard to the proposed Press conferences of the hon. the Prime Minister. I find it a pity that the hon. member for Von Brandis tried to give a misrepresentation of these matters here yesterday evening, alleging that in this sphere were 20 years behind the time, and alleging that South Africa had not in the past acted in a just manner towards foreign newspapermen. Sir, this was a misrepresentation because foreign newspapermen have always enjoyed greater privileges in South Africa than in many other civilized countries in the world, and if one takes into account with how much venomous rancour some of them have disparaged South Africa over the years, then I think that they are enjoying many privileges in regard to which our lenience and our patience could be accorded high praise. Nevertheless, the announcement by the hon. the Minister now places South Africa in the forefront as far as its relations with the communications media are concerned. This is a good thing, and we are grateful for it, because in the times in which we are now living it is essential that the correct facts, and all the correct facts, should be made available to our people here in South African and abroad. We have nothing whatsoever to hide. In fact, we are desirous that all the facts in regard to our policy should be made available and should be made available to all people, but we are sick and tired of distortions and half-truths.

Sir, I must, alas, also refer to the pathetic spectacle of monumental foolishness we had here yesterday evening from the hon. member for Orange Grove. If this speech by the hon. member had gone no further than the borders of our country, one could have ignored it because I think the people of this country have realized by now that they need not pay any heed to the hon. member for Orange Grove, but it is unfortunately a fact that our enemies abroad are eagerly sitting and waiting for something which they can use to attack South Africa, something which has the semblance of being authentic to South Africa, and which has originated here. Sir, that is why they try to snatch up any venomous disparagement of South Africa which takes place here in order to use it against us again. United Nations publications teem with quotations from the speeches of that hon. member. Unfortunately they do not know him; they regard him as a frontbencher of the official Opposition and as a man who can speak with authority. They think that he is an important man.

But he is.

He is their hero because he provides them with weapons to use against his own fatherland. Let us now glance at a few phrases uttered here yesterday evening by the hon. member which are going to be used by the enemies of South Africa. In the first instance he immediately disparaged the important announcement in regard to Press conferences of the Prime Minister by telling the untruth that only certain people would be invited to them. The hon. the Minister never said anything of the kind, yet the hon. member came forward here and stated specifically that only certain people would be invited to them. Secondly, he made the task of this Department infinitely more difficult by stating “that it is a political branch of a perilous and confused ideological line of policy”. Sir, this Department which must in these times do extremely difficult work for us, is being disparaged on this way by the main speaker on the United Party side, and the Department’s work is being neutralized in this manner. The hon. member spoke of brainwashing and of storm troops and a brigade of brainwashers. He stated that instead of facts, the Minister presented propaganda; that instead of technical assistance, he presented ideology “which was delved up from the pit of lunacy”. Sir, if there is lunacy anywhere, then it is to be seen in the speech made by that hon. member. Sir, you can imagine with what relish our enemies are going to graw on this marrowbone. You can imagine how efficiently they will utilize this speech precisely in order to neutralize and undo the difficult work which this hon. Minister and his Department must also do in the name of South Africa, in respect of overseas countries, and this is taking place in a time when South Africa has found itself in the front lines of the cold war, in a time when the communistic propagandists are busily engaged in trying to draw an ever-narrowing circle of hate around us in order to isolate us in every sphere of life. This takes place while the total strategy against us, initiated from Moscow and Peking, is taking clearer shape. For only the totally blind who do not want to see can still believe that the struggle against us is actually concern with praiseworthy objectives such as human rights, the freedom of the individual, and that sort of thing. No, we know and hon. members on that side of the House know, too, that this is not what the struggle is all about. The struggle against us is not in the first instance concerned with the rights of the Blacks. That is merely a pretence. It concerns the destruction of the Whites in South Africa and the destruction of law and order and stability. It concerns the creation of chaos so that the communists can strike. It concerns Africa. The communists have fixed their gaze on Africa and they want to destroy law and order here so that they can get Africa under their heel. That is what it is all about, communistic domination of Africa. And in such a time that hon. member makes a speech like that here and allows himself to be used as the tool of communism to attack and to destroy his own fatherland. This hon. Minister and his Department have an enormous and extremely difficult task in the face of this merciless onslaught. We also have a major task in our own continent of Africa in the fact of a communistic onslaughts, and I shall welcome the day when we will also be able to open an information office somewhere in Africa, because we may not stand by in silence and see the communists gain influence among the people of Africa. The true facts in regard to South Africa must be conveyed to the people of Africa. We must convey to them that we are not the suppressors and oppressors of the Blacks, but that we are in fact the friends of the Blacks. We must convey to them that we are not colonialists and that we are in fact the first people in Africa to have fought against colonialism and who have been opposing it for 300 years. [Time expired.]

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Algoa has had very little experience of the working of our information services. If he had known how these worked and what the reactions are to the programmes carried out, he would not have made some of the remarks he did. In the first place it is rot true that all our opponents abroad desire nothing but the destruction of South Africa, and if there are countries which desire that they are not the countries in which we maintain information services. Most countries desire only the best for South Africa; they criticize what happens in South Africa and those are the countries in which they admire, amongst other things, the fact that we have an effective Opposition here. It is clear that the hon. member for Algoa does not believe this, but I would advise him to go abroad and study the working of information services in countries which have close and friendly relationships with South Africa. He would find that there are few things they admire so much is an active Opposition and an active Opposition Press. These things are valued because they indicate that freedom still exists in South Africa. This is a very important thing. Thirdly, he claims that what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said will be used by our prermies and that the reports of U.N.O. are rife with quotations from the hon. member for Orange Grove. I am sure the hon. member for Orange Grove would be greatly surprised if he discovered how little, in fact, is published of his work or his ideas. It would be well if they published more, but I would challenge the hon. member for Algoa to prove that his statement is in fact true.

Now I should like to turn to another subject I wish to deal briefly with our overseas information services and the way in which they operate. I think that all of us who have had contact or dealings with our overseas information services will agree objectively that in relation to the amount of money and effort which go into them, the results are somewhat disappointing. I think it is true to say that a good deal of effort is put into them and also a good deal of money with the best of motives, but that these services are not as effective as they might be. When saying this I do not wish to make a wholesale condemnation of the service or the people who work for the service, because I am sure they work very hard and do their best and there are cases where in fact members of the information service have made notable contributions. But I think it is right to say that the service is not producing the results which we would hope on both sides of the House to see achieved, and it is right that we should examine why this is so.

Now, overseas information services are a fairly new institution in the world. In most countries, overseas information services have been developed only since the Second Word War. That means that they have been operating only for some 25 years, and in many of these countries investigations have in fact taken place through committees of inquiry and commissions to find out how foreign information services should work and how to put them right when they do not produce the results which are hoped for. I have looked at some of the reports of these inquiries and commissions and I find that most countries have found some common ground in this regard. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Department what it is that these countries agree in common should be done to improve the policy, the approach and the organization of overseas information services. My time is limited and therefore I cannot go into great detail, but I should like to define seven points which seem to be common ground between the various countries which run overseas information services.

The first point is that an overseas information service is an extension of the normal apparatus of diplomacy. This means that an information service is not an independent service disseminating general information. It is a service which sees itself as the extension of a diplomatic policy. It must therefore extend the diplomacy which is largely concerned with the governmental sector by carrying the effect of these actions to the public sector. It must coordinate very closely with diplomatic activity and concentrate primarily on those targets which are of concern to the diplomatic task.

This brings me to the second criterion, which is that an information service overseas must have a definite aim. It must not operate towards a general or diffused picture; it must have a predetermined political or economic end in view. It must define its targets and it must work towards those defined targets. It is quite obviously pointless to provide a service unless either a demand for a service exists or a demand for that service can be created; and if a demand exists or is created for a service. then it is still pointless to produce that service unless the provision of that service will produce a benefit. Whenever an information task is undertaken it is necessary to establish whether the service is required, what is the demand for service and if that demand is satisfied, will it in fact bring benefit to the country concerned, in our case South Africa.

Thirdly, it is a basic principle that an information service works through the influential few to the many. It is quite impossible for a country like South Africa, or even a much larger country, to put out an information service which covers the many millions of ordinary people in all the continents of the world. Quite obviously, one must concentrate on the influential few and through them, through the opinion makers, through the editors and through the political commentators we should try to reach a wider audience. This brings an important corollary, because in our information service in South Africa we have tended to concentrate very largely on appointing South African Press men who are very often junior ones, to go abroad and to act as information officers. It is quite impossible for a Press man operating in a foreign country to have his information and his articles, which he must write in a foreign language, published in foreign newspapers. It is complete fiction and it does not happen. What is required, is that one should send people who because of their o.vn intellectual status, their knowledge of the language in question, are able to make contact at a high level with the editors, with the opinion makers and with the political commentators. Because of personal friendship, and intellectual persuasion, they should persuade these people to put across the message. This is a field in which I think a good deal of reorganization might be possible.

A fourth point is that it is not a good idea to put out a single message from Pretoria and expect this to be equally saleable in every country of the world. There is a great variation in approach, in technique and in psychology in putting news across in various countries of the world. To assume that a single message, however good it may look in Pretoria, will sell equally well in France, Japan and America is entirely erroneus. There is too much uniformity in the presentation of information.

A fifth point is that we should use the existing channels as far as possible in disseminating information and we should co-ordinate our efforts through these various channels. There are for example business houses, there is the Tourist Corporation, the Department of Foreign Affairs. The various channels which are available should be co-ordinated and where other channels exist, they should be used. I would like to refer to a recent publication of La Revue Francaise which is one of the most glossy and prestigious journals published in France where the editor, a great friend of ours, and I would like to put his name on record, Bernard Demian D’Archimbaud, has again published a splendid series of articles about South Africa. This has been done through existing channels instead of trying to improvise our own. This is the right way to work and I wish there were more such examples. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis that an Opposition has a very important role to fulfil in a democracy. The hon. member for Von Brandis himself furnished a very opposite example of what a positive role the Opposition could play, and he made many positive suggestions here. His criticism, too, was positive. My argument was in fact that this kind of disparagement and irresponsible criticism was playing into the hands of our enemies. I have seen publications of the U.N. in which different quotations from the speeches of the hon. member for Orange Grove occurred, but I must say that he is not referred to as often as the hon. member for Houghton. This hon. member has also contributed his share in feeding our enemies, with the kind of propaganda he made.

The worst were the quotations of the Prime Minister.

I did not say that all countries desired to see chaos in South Africa. I said the communistic countries. who had fixed their gaze on Africa, would very much like to see chaos in South Africa, but it is true that various organizations throughout the world are being used by the Communistic initiators of this scheme. I am thinking for example of organizations such as The Organization for Individual Freedom, the Organization for African Unity, the British Opposition and the World Council of Churches. All these organizations are being used. These are well-meaning people who have high, praiseworthy ideals, but who are completely unaware that they are the instruments of the communists. They are being used to carry out this total strategy of isolation and disparagement against us. That is the argument and that is why what we have to say must be responsible and not irresponsible.

I want to come to the task which the hon. the Minister and his Department see as their task at home. It is very important that if we want to convey to the outside world our policy and the true facts of the policy of this Government, it is also correct and no more than right that we should know that policy, and all its implications as well. We are engaged in an ambitious task of nation-building. Our policy of multi-national development is a unique, exacting, complicated and challenging project, which makes heavy demands. It is unique of its kind in the world, and in it shape is being given to the nation-building process of a number of developing peoples. A great deal of research work has been put into this project during the past 22 years. A great deal of research work has been done, and much hard and profound thinking has been devoted to this matter. What is developing now is the result of much reflection and much consultation. It is obvious however that this policy affects inhabitant of South Africa intensively and most intimately, and it cannot do otherwise. That is why it is essential that on this level as well every inhabitant should be informed as to the contents of the policy and what the implications thereof are.

Before I put a question, I want to say that as far as the Department is concerned, any propaganda or winning-over to the Government’s standpoint is out of the question. That is not the task of the Department. The task of the Department is to state and to explain the policy, and to explain those implications to the inhabitants of South Africa. I now want to ask why the hon. member for Orange Gove is so afraid of the people of South Africa being informed about the policy of distinctive development. Does he not believe in the democratic principle that the majority governs? If distinctive development is such a dreadful thing as he alleges, surely the electorate would in fact, if they are informed about this, be inclined to go over to the United Party. Is the hon. member afraid of the truth? Is he afraid that the people will understand what distinctive development means, and that they will accept it? One cannot understand this argument of the hon. member.

This principle is nothing unusual, for in every other civilized country of the world the information service is also the mouthpiece of Government policy. So one finds for example the information publication of the American Government. In that publication the policy of President Nixon in regard to integration in schools, in regard to Vietnam, and also in regard to other matters, is stated. Is this also wrong now, or must the policy of the other party also be stated? I think that our hon. Minister and his Department have an enormous task. I specifically want to advocate that our young South Africans should be concentrated on. Scarcely have they left school when they are entitled to vote, and they must then decide on the future of South Africa by way of their democratic franchise. They, too, should be better informed so that they will know precisely what we mean with distinctive development, what it comprises, and what the implications of that policy are. I want to suggest that information material be made available to our schools in the school libraries so that the pupils can also make use of it. The South African Survey is a very useful publication. I find the South African Factual Guide to be a very neat booklet. It is very well compiled. and is presented in a very handy size. Consideration could perhaps be given to such a booklet being supplied free of charge to every matriculation pupil on behalf of the Minister, and perhaps adapted here and there so that it can make very useful suggestions to pupils. I want to express the desire that, since things are being written about the people of South Africa here, mention should, apart from the Whites, also be made of every non-white ethnic group, such as the Xhosa, Venda, Zulu, etc., instead of using the general term “Bantu”. The ethnical, cultural and historical background of every ethnic group should be elucidated, so that the idea of multi-nationality can in this way be brought home, and the erroneous idea which exists among those hon. members that all the Black people in South Africa belong to one group, can be eliminated, among our young people as well.

In conclusion I should very much like to express the idea again that the hon. the Minister and his Department could perhaps give attention to the possibility of trying to find a different name for the Republic of South Africa, a distinctive name. As the policy of multinationality is now developing here, and other independent republics may perhaps be established within the borders of the geographical concept of South Africa, it will become more and more difficult to identify it. That is why I think it would perhaps be a good thing if we could find a distinctive name for the white homelands which would then facilitate identification.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to finish my remarks in the time left at my disposal. I am sure the hon. member for Algoa will forgive me if I do not pursue his arguments. I have referred to five principles which I think are important in the organization of our foreign information services. I would like to refer to two more principles.

The sixth is that propaganda is no substitute for a policy. It does not substitute for military strength, economic efficiency or financial stability. This means that it is the task of the information service not to disguise, nor to provide a substitute for, what does not exist. It is its task to emphasize what is good and strong in the country. If, for example, we have a political policy which does not sell or is not accepted abroad, it is a waste of time to try and sell this policy, since it is rejected out of hand and is unsaleable. I am not arguing about the merits of the policy. I am merely saying that it is far better information policy to emphasize the good and strong points in this country, like our economy, and to insist on putting those points across and to get the message across that our good assets are the best. It is no use hammering fruitlessly and uselessly on those characteristics which are in fact less saleable abroad.

My last point is that there are certain essentials which must be persisted with if a foreign information service is to be successful. The first is quality. One wants absolutely top people and material. When I say top people, I refer the Minister again to my remarks that they must be chosen for the task, in other words, too many pressmen is not a good thing in the foreign services. One wants people of intellectual capacity and certain academic standards who can make contact with the top people, the opinion makers, and influence them.

The next point is continuity. This means that once you have identified your message in accordance with the principles which I am try-int to state, you must state this message regularly and with a sense of continuity. Lastly, there is the question of reliability. This means that the information service must be objective. It must avoid any suggestion that it is twisting, slanting or concealing facts. This kind of practice is very quickly found out. I am sure that members in this House who have received propaganda material from embassies are well able to recognize at a quick glance whether it is straight, objective, reliable material or whether it is in fact slanted and merely designed to dispose the member in favour of a particular point of view. These are the essential principles. I do not think the information services are carrying them out fully. I think that they should concentrate on these characteristics.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry the hon. member for Orange Gove is not here now. He is quite probably still busy. But I shall in any case try, in his absence, to reply to his speech.

The hon. member for Orange Grove unleashed a tirade here yesterday evening which astounded me. It seemed to me as if he was waging the Third World War here against us. Probably the hon. member already has an argument ready if we on this side of the House were to say that during the Second World War they made use of all possible means and finances to support the war policy of the then U.P. Government. I know what his argument will be. He will say that there was a war on.

Here he comes now.

Mr. Chairman, I anticipated what the hon. member for Orange Gove would say, and I also anticipated that he would come. If hon. members on the opposite side are going to conceal and cover up, or try to conceal and cover up their malpractices during the Second World War by telling us that there was a war on, then I want to tell them that we are engaged in a war of greater significance than that of the Second World War here. After the Second World War there were political survivors. Those who lost and those who won all retained their political sovereignty after the Second World War. But if we lose this liberation struggle with which the Department of Information is engaged in helping us, then there will be no white political survivors here in South Africa. That is why I say it is essential that the hon. the Minister proceed on his course as he announced, because there is a tremendous amount at stake for us here. We are not only engaged here in a struggle to free ourselves from the Bantu. We are also engaged in freeing the Bantu from the Whites. If we do not bring this liberation struggle to a successful conclusion with the help of the Department of Information, the Bantu and the Whites are doomed. We are also engaged in carrying out a peace directive. This party and this information service is also engaged in clearing out the most important peace directive which has ever been entrusted to a Government in South Africa. This peace directive consists therein that this Government must guarantee the stability on which that peace can be built. That stability is written into and built into the policy of this party. We are not working according to formulae. We are working according to historical realities. That party is working according to instant formulae. Time and again the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states an instant formula to this House. Then it is the Senate Plan, then it is a partnership, then it is a race federation, and then it is a confederation. Since I have been sitting in this House, that party has put forward various instant formulae. This information service is not merely engaged in producing instant formulae. The Information Service is carrying out a directive. It is complying with all the demands and the norms which a constitutional democracy may make on any Government. When our present term ends in 1975, it will mean that this party will have been in power for more than 25 years.

Marvellous!

Yes, it is marvellous. It is a record. The hon. member for Orange Grove must tell me whether this is not a directive on which this Government is engaged. What is the question which has been put to the electorate during the past 22 years? Surely it was the fundamental question in regard to our Bantu policy. It was not so much the Indian or the Coloured policy. It was the Bantu policy, which was a fundamental question. After 22 years, and shortly after 25 years, we cannot speak of an instant directive. If this is not the carrying out of a true democratic directive, then I do not know what it is. I am delighted to be able to say that this task, on which the Information Service is engaged, complies with the demands which any true constitutional democracy can make. The Minister and the Information Service are doing nothing else but to make the policy on which we are engaged clear, and to state where we are heading. This is a policy which concerns the weal and woe of every individual in this country. We are not being apologetic about this. The entire speech which the hon. member made yesterday was stated in such apologetic terms to the outside world that it lost its entire force. This party has never acted apologetically. Upon going through the reports of the Information Service, I find no sign of apologetic conduct. The Information Service acts from a standpoint of strength and resolution. I want to take my hat off to the Information Service. As I see the picture which will develop in future, I make so bold as to say that it will be an even more bitter pill for the Progressive and the United Party to swallow.

What about the white Japanese?

Sir, I know that it is a bitter pill for them, and I shall tell you why it is a bitter pill. If they were to come into power and had an information service at their disposal, then they would want to utilize it to cover up the deceit which is part and parcel of their political policy. Here we are coming forward with a cut-and-dried, clearly-formulated policy, and what is our Information Service implying? I shall tell you what it is implying. It is implying that we admit that South Africa has passed the point of no return —no concessions, no adjustments. Sir, the positiveness which is part and parcel of the Information Service is clear proof to me of the fact that we accept that we have reached the point of no return. And we shall continue on that course. It is only a Minister who is aware of that fact who is able to state his future task so positively. Sir, this is to my mind very definite proof that we in South Africa, under the National Party Government, have paved our way so that there can be no possibility of returning. [Interjection.] That gentleman carried on here yesterday and said that we were insane. Sir, the hon. member has a good intellect; he has a good intellect, but I have never in my life seen worse intellectual murder than I saw here yesterday. It is really going too far for a man with an intellect such as the hon. member has to say here that we are insane and dangerous people, that we are making use of storm troops, etc.! I want to conclude by saying that their storm troops did not have an illustrious past, and I am referring here to their “Torch Commandos”. They were their storm troops. [Time expired.]

Sir, I cannot emulate the oratory of the hon. member for Carletonville and I do not intend to try. It is a waste of time. I want to talk about the task of our information services overseas. I would say that the primary task of our information services overseas is not to sell the South African Government as such but to sell the country as a whole. May I say that we do South Africa no good at all and display less than a basic knowledge of human psychology if the heads of our information services seriously imagine that their only task is to whitewash everything that this Government does, because in doing so they underrate the intelligence of a great many people overseas, who are just as anxious to know something of the differences of opinion that exist here and are allowed to flourish in South Africa on all sorts of topics whether it is politics or air pollution or anything else. I think that our approach to these matters is not nearly sophisticated enough. Our propaganda overseas tends on the whole, with respect to the hon. the Minister, to the very dreary indeed. It is both defensive and aggressive at the same time and neither approach goes down well in terms of public relations. We are much too edgy about everything, and I suggest that our oversea services would do far better if they were quietly to publish a factual and high-standard monthly journal entitled What South Africans are thinking containing articles on statements made by people holding diverse opinions about our affairs. The effect overseas of such a publication would be cathartic. Images of a “police State” would be less easy to maintain; the hopes of a racial confrontation, which is the desire of certain of our enemies, as we know, would face considerably with the publication of the views, not only of the Government, but also of those outside it, and there would inevitably be, I do not suggest a spectacular, but a very definite release of tensions with regard to other people’s attitude towards South Africa. Sir, the hard and bitter case against us, which is so often made, and the apparent inhumanity of our approach to race relations, will never be successfully handled, with the world’s mass communications media loaded against us as it is, merely by a stubborn re-statement of Government policy. The fact is, whether the hon. member for Carleton-ville accpets it or not, that the hard and bitter case against us would make far less headway were the Government’s information services themselves to let it be known how our democratic system works, how free our Press is, and how divergent our thinking is; in other words, that sanity and thought and compassion and dialogue are as much a part of the South African scene as they are in other countries. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that loaded little pamphlets, setting out the Government’s virtues, no matter how accurate the statistical information inserted therein, make less than no impact on people overseas. Those who already support what we do do not need such documents, and those whose activities are aimed at our destruction could be very largely disarmed by a frank and a fearless display of the internal South African dialogue, proving the degree of our own maturity and sophistication in this field. I am surprised that no one in the Department of Information has sufficient imagination to see just this. We do ourselves no good at all by crouching in the laagter and spitting angrily at everyone outside it, even if we produce lots of facts and figures in the process.

Sir, during my lecture tour in the United States last year I was given four subjects to prepare from which clubs, organizations, universities and colleges could choose, when they invited me to speak. These four subjects were “Racial co-existence: S.A. and U.S.A.—A comparison”; secondly, “South Africa: Let’s Get the Record Straight”; thirdly “S.A.-U.S.A. interdependence: Now and in the future”, which was largely strategic, and fourthly, “Sunny South Africa”, which was all about our lovely mountains and country and all the rest of it. Of the 16 lectures which I gave not a single organization wanted the one on “Getting the Record Straight”. No one asked me about “Sunny South Africa” either. They all chose either “Racial co-existence; a comparison between S.A. and U.S.A.” or the one on our strategic interdependence. The result was that after my first lecture, when I found how little people in fact knew about us, I spent the first ten minutes of every assignment “getting the record straight”, whether they asked for it or not. Sir, getting the record straight, as far as I was concerned, involved a pen-picture of the whole South African scene, something of our historical background, and a brief comparison of the policies of all three political parties. I usually ended my lectures by emphasizing those issues on which the country as a whole is united, because there are specific issues on which we are clearly united.

Sir, why can our information services not do something similar? People with inflamed and preconceived ideas, when I gave these talks, usually fell silent when they realized that we do in fact conduct a dialogue of our own in a civilized fashion, and those whose minds in any case thrive only on dogmatic beliefs will continue to do so whatever effort anybody makes, whether it be through our information services or by any of us. Those who go away, after listening to this type of thing or if they were to hear it through our information services, are full of genuine astonishment at the honesty, the openess and the extent of the public dialogue here inside South Africa. At my lectures they had the edge completely removed from the emotionally based prejudices with which they arrived at the lecture. That was my experience. Sir, whatever our internal information services may be, I would like to lodge a very urgent appeal with the hon. the Minister here tonight, an appeal which has already been made from other quarters, to think very seriously about handing over our external information services to the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is no reflection on the Minister; it is a practicality which has to be faced.

I would also like the Government to ensure—to endorse the plea made by the hon. member for Von Brandis—that our information officers overseas should be people of real status and standing. I do not wish to insult any of those who are there at the moment. Some of them are journalists who have been seconded for a period. But, Sir, we must have people who will be sought after rather than rejected, people who are sought after for their objectivity, their knowledge and their personal calibre. There is no question whatsoever that an enormous and very important public relations job still remains to be done overseas and I am very much afraid that I must say to the hon. the Minister that both our personnel and our techniques in this field overseas are hopelessly outdated in terms of modern public relations and the techniques we should be using at the present time.

At the commencement of this debate I specifically asked, in all honesty and sincerity, for this debate to be conducted at a high level, and the reason I furnished for my request was that this Department is the show window of South Africa and that no shopkeeper leaves his show window in a state of disorder. He dresses that window attractively to draw clients and if he has any problem, he solves that in the back-room as his storeroom may be in a state of disorder but not his show window.

Now I want to say at once that this problem arose straight away in that the hon. member for Orange Grove immediately adopted an attitude which made it impossible for most members on this side to keep up that standard without referring to him and his whole approach. Because of that we have had the situation that this debate has been disappointing, bar a few exceptions. I want to say at once that members on our side of this House first destroyed the preceding attack of the Opposition in a few words and then made fine, strong and positive contributions, as the case should be in politics, and I want to commence by reacting to what was said by one or two of the hon. members on my side and to reply to a few questions put to me, and then I shall proceed to deal with the Opposition.

The hon. member for Sunnyside put two questions to me in connection with the possibility of the opening of offices in the Scandinavian countries and the opening of more offices in the U.S.A. I want to say at once that both these cases are under consideration at the moment, and I hope to be able to make further announcements in this connection within the next year. The hon. member for Algoa asked us to inform the youth. I want to make the specific statement to him that the Department of Information in its whole approach has to inform all sections of the people and consequently the youth of the people as well, and that they will be informed in connection with the general standpoint adopted here. This will be done in a way which is deemed suitable for the purpose, but I shall deal with this in much more detail at a later stage.

He asked me whether it was not possible for us to make available to each matriculant the “South African Quiz” he had with him, but unfortunately this will be too expensive a project. It would have been a very good thing if it would have been possible to do so, but I can give him the assurance that each school library will receive copies which will be available to the children for that purpose. I think this more or less covers the questions put to me. The other members on my side made excellent speeches, and I want to leave them at that.

At the outset I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Wynberg, and I shall return to her at a later stage. She said we had become completely antiquated in our entire set-up and our whole approach overseas; our methods were antiquated, and we were not keeping abreast of developments, we were not effective, etc. I just want to tell the hon. member that proof speaks more clearly than words, I want to begin by making a few quotations in connection with the effectiveness of our service overseas. And it is not my Department that is saying these things. I have here in my hand a quarto size advertisement which appeared in the Wall Street Journal Eastern Edition, on Friday, 11th September, 1970. The form of the pamphlet was a number of headlines of report and on the inside a single advertisement of the Department, and the effect of that is very interesting to me. I am now going to quote from the Daily Mail. This article was written by Raymond Bird. He is the correspondent and the report comes from Washington. The heading is, “Provocative Bid to give South Africa a New Image”. To me this does not seem antiquated. It reads as follows—

The advertisement also gives the South African Information Service’s address on Maddison Avenue, New York. Then he continues by saying—

Then there were other favourable headlines, according to them, and I quote—

and so it continues. The reaction of our information officer, Mr. Les de Villiers, was, and I quote—

What was the reaction? It was, and I quote—

To me this does not look like an antiquated way of doing things. I want to mention another example which speaks just as clearly.

A flash in the pan.

When I look at the hon. member, he looks like a “flash in the pan” to me. The following quotations does not come from a South African newspaper but from the South Wales Evening Post. The headline of this article is: “South Africa makes Critics look foolish.” The article goes on to deal with a speech made by Dr. Poorter of our information office in London, in which he mentioned the various standpoints and said, and I quote—

Then an article appeared in this newspaper in which they carried on in their usual typical way and said—

These were the words published. This Department drew their attention to that statement immediately. In a later edition they tendered their apologies, and here we can quite clearly see the difference. I quote—

We have reactions like this to the work of our Department overseas.

It is ineffective.

Instead of hon. members expressing their gratitude for our effectiveness, they are always levelling criticism at us. I want to mention another example. This is a very clear example and I am referring to our annual report.

I have read it.

Oh, the hon. member has read it? In this report we make reference to the pleas of the U.N.’s Special Committee on Apartheid to the General Assembly for more funds, for greater dedication in undermining and opposing apartheid and the reason for that is: “The need for such measures have become greater as the South African Government with the support of business and other interests has intensified its propaganda for the purpose of the deceiving world public opinion about its racial policy defaming United Nations.” Then follows the compliment to our Department, and I want to quote this—

This is a compliment to our Information Service which derives from the U.N. They are now asking for more funds to enable them to neutralize the information service. But hon. members here say we are totally ineffective and are not achieving anything under the sun. Later I shall come back to other aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg.

I should now like to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis. I want to single out the hon. member straight away, although he will eventually begin to feel guilty about the fact that he is being singled out by everyone, but I really want to single him out as one of the hon. members on Opposition side who made a civilized, a balanced, a positive and a constructive speech. What is more, the hon. member did so in civil language. He mentioned seven specific points here, which clearly show that he understands the problem. He mentioned seven points to which the Department should give attention, and I immediately want to examine these seven points. He said the information service should be seen as an extension of the diplomatic services as such. I want to tell the hon. member at once that the closest co-operation exists between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs in every country in which we are operating. We are operating in every country under the authority of the Head of Mission in that country and in close co-operation with him. As I shall quote later, there is not one single country in which the Head of Mission has not said that they have a special need of an information service and that they in no way see their way clear to carrying on without an information service additional to the embassies. Therefore, that question of the hon. member is answered by the fact that this system is already in existence.

The second argument of the hon. member was that the service should be provided if a need existed, and that the service should therefore have a specific purpose. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a very useful hint, that we are already doing this, and that we shall continue to keep it in mind for the future. Thirdly, the advice of the hon. member to us was that we should concentrate on a few people. I see the Chief Whip speaking to the hon. member. He should not tell the hon. member that he is sitting in the wrong party. He belongs one hundred per cent where he is, but he nevertheless made a good speech. He said we should concentrate on a few people as we could not reach the masses. I want to tell the hon. member at once that this is precisely what we are doing. If only the hon. member had read the report of the Department, he would have seen that it is clearly stated in that report that, from the nature of the case, we cannot reach the multitude, that it is impossible, too expensive and also completely out of the question. For that reason we are concentrating on a few selected people in each country at the moment. We concentrate on certain young people in a country, because they are the leaders of to-morrow. In the second place we are concentrating on the people who are the moulders of opinion, and in this regard we are inviting editors of large newspapers and correspondents of newspapers to visit our country. We also invite academic people who can exercise influence on their students and who can return with the true information and present the facts to the students. We are also concentrating on politicians and people taking the lead in their countries in the political field, as well as on professional people and people who have trade relations with South Africa. These are the people we invite as guests to South Africa. We receive them here and hon. members opposite are witnesses to the fact that we do not hide anybody. Time after time when people come to this country, we introduce them to a few members on Government side. They also have discussions with members on Opposition side. I think they use the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for that purpose. I also want to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for sometimes consenting to seeing guests.

I do not like the word “use”.

I cannot use the word “misuse”. These hon. members are prepared to convey their standpoint to these people and I am grateful to them for that. These people also have interviews with the hon. member for Houghton in order to learn about her policy. We do not try to give these people a one-sided picture of South Africa. They all leave this country with a comprehensive understanding, and we are reaping the fruits of that. In this regard I want to mention a very clear example. In a certain country there have just been misgivings—I am not going to mention the name of this country as it may create problems—about the fact that a certain person wished to come to South Africa. On Government level questions were asked whether it would be a good thing if that man were to come. He would be brainwashed in South Africa, he would hear only one side of the story and the rest we would not tell him. Fortunately, before it was necessary to reply to these questions, three editorials appeared in three different newspapers, the editors of which happened to visit South Africa earlier this year, in which the sound advice was given that that person could visit South Africa with the greatest of pleasure. The editors said in those editorials that they had just returned from South Africa, that they had seen whom they wished to see, when they wanted to and where they wanted to, and that nothing had been hidden from them. They said it could do this person nothing but good to come and have a look for himself and that there were no disadvantages attached to that. Therefore it is very clear that we are reaping the fruits of this aspect of the Department’s work. I am therefore able to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that we are concentrating on these people as they can be of great value to us.

The hon. member for Von Brandis also said we should send people of the right quality to other countries. He said they should be the “intellectual equals” of people overseas. Later in my speech—I do not want to digress from the speech I have prepared—I shall come back to the qualifications and the quality of our men overseas. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that the quality of our men in general is good. I am very proud of our overseas staff and the work they are doing there. I also want to thank the hon. member for his compliment on the edition of La Revue Francaise from which he quoted. For the information of the hon. member I may perhaps mention with regard to the publication to which he referred as an excellent one and from which he mentioned certain articles, that the Department of Information happens to be the responsible body that took the initiative in the publication thereof. We ourselves are very proud of that publication which he quoted as a fine example of our work.

The argument was also advanced that an idea could not be conveyed in translated form. With that I agree 100 per cent. I experience this every day in my discussions and interviews with guests visiting us from overseas. One cannot possibly approach the Dutchman in the same way as the Englishman, the American, the Frenchman or the Spaniard. Each people has its own ways and approach to which one must have regard. For that reason the position is that we do not draw up a pamphlet here, have that pamphlet translated into all the different languages and make that available to all. We forward the basic facts from here to our information offices in each country. Each information office draws up a pamphlet in that country on the basis of that fundamental information in the language of the country and in the idiom which is understood in the country in which that office is operating. This pamphlet is made available and distributed in that country. In other words, we are doing exactly what the hon. member asked. I want to give him that assurance.

In conclusion he asked that the essential principles be emphasized by us, i.e. continuity, reliability, etc. Now I just want to tell the hon. member that this is one of the highest requirements we set in our Department, i.e., that our facts must be reliable. It should not be possible to question them in any way. Everyone is intent on striving to achieve that to a high degree. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive contribution, which I appreciate.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Kensington. He tried to make a speech here. I see he is vice-chairman of his Party’s study group. Some newspapers called him the deputy shadow minister of this Department. Now I just want to tell the hon. member that in his entire speech he—and I am being perfectly honest when I say this; he knows me— really contributed nothing positive. I should like to know from the hon. member why he mentioned, in pursuance of my press statement last night on our new liaison with the press, three examples to prove the existence of preferential treatment in dealings with the press, whereas my Department did not have anything to do with any of those three cases. He knows the Department had nothing to do with them.

The Government had something to do with them.

I am speaking specifically of my Department. The Department of Information had nothing to do with any of those three cases. Now I want to add to this that the hon. member is a journalist. He ought to know better than other members that the Department of Information has always held the view that statements issued by the Department should be made available simultaneously to all news media. The Department is implementing this policy. Can he mention one example to me of my Department officially having given preferential treatment to one newspaper at the expense of another? If he can mention one, I should like to hear of it.

What about the policy statement in Hoofstad?

Yes, I shall certainly come to that. I am saving the dessert for last.

Surely the hon. member, who is a journalist, ought to know this. Now I immediately want to put it very clearly to the hon. member that I should like to have certainty about one matter. I am quoting an extract from page 4 of this morning’s Cape Times, “The statement had been handled by the Department of Information”. Now I want to say at once that I immediately instructed the Department to telephone the member and to inquire whether or not he meant the Department of Information. He rectified the matter. He did not mean the Department of Information. Therefore the report of the Cape Times is incorrect. I want to make this very clear. Very well, the hon. member is nodding his head to signify that I am correct. He says this is correct. In other words, another Department handled the matter. Am I correct? As a newspaperman the hon. member will understand this language. Now I have learned from a very reliable source that also that standpoint of the hon. member, that another Department handled the matter, is not the true and correct one. The statement deals with third party insurance. There is no misunderstanding about that. The Department concerned handed the report to SAPA. An embargo existed for a certain period. It was not to be released before 12 o’clock that evening. Therefore no one could benefit from the statement having been handed to SAPA. As a pressman the hon. member knows that if a report has been handed to SAPA the Afrikaans-language newspapers cannot derive any advantage or preferential treatment from that because everybody is treated equally in that case. The first insinuation was that my Department was the guilty one. This has now been disproved. Then the insinuation was that another Department was the guilty one. This has now been disprove. Now it appears that in the end it was SAPA, and therefore there was no preferential treatment of any nature whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister should get to the truth.

Well, I think the hon. member knows what the truth is and I, too, happen to know what the truth is. [Interjections.] Is the hon. member aware of the fact that a letter had been written which was subsequently withdrawn? I also know about that; therefore the hon. member should rather keep quiet please. I shall rather leave the hon. member at that unless he persists that I am not speaking the truth. In conclusion, before leaving the hon. member, I want to give him one piece of sound advice. I think it is necessary for me to give him this advice. I want to give the hon. member one piece of sound advice. I have been a member of this House for more than 12 years. I have seen many members come and go. This House is a strange place. For the information of the hon. member for Kensington I want to say, “This House polishes some people to the brilliance of diamonds and others it grinds to dust”. Allow me to give the hon. member some sound advice rather. To a back bencher characteristics such as humility, decency and modesty are much more valuable in the long run than the cheap publicity one gets for the moment through arrogance, swagger, conceit and bravado. One pays a price for such swaggering and the price paid is that he loses the regard and respect of every responsible and decent member on both sides of this House. The hon. member may not agree with me now, but if he happens to be here in ten years’ time and he reads this Hansard, he will understand what I have just told him.

I now want to drop this subject, and I want to come to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I now want to make this very clear: I think the Department of Information was hit by a tragedy when the Opposition decided to make the hon. member for Orange Grove the main speaker on this specific Vote on their side. I am convinced of this. I am saying this in all honesty and I mean nothing wrong by saying this. After all, I know the hon. member. He has been chairman of the Postal group for many years and on this side I was the chairman of the Postal group. For years we crossed swords in that field. And the level of the debate conducted throughout the years never rose higher than the level of the floor, as the hon. member was the one who introduced the discussion from that side. Let us understand each other well. The previous main speaker of the U.P. in this debate was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Although I often disagreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I want to admit frankly, and I think the whole House will accept this, that his speeches at least contained something positive and lasting which one could consider. The manner of his presentation was at least such that it gave food for thought and enabled one to reply. What this hon. member was speaking about, I truly do not know. I am now going to quote and prove that he really did not do honour either to this debate or the Department or the entire discussion. I shall reply to everything he said. I shall leave nothing out.

Now, what exactly did the hon. member do? I accept that this was the first time he had to act in this capacity and consequently he had to start from scratch in his study of this subject. He had a great deal of matter at his disposal. He had the Estimates, with all the figures contained therein, figures of increases and decreases, additions, etc., which could provide him with the necessary material. He had the annual report, which covers the period up to March, 1969, as all other annual reports do. He had the replies to numerous extremely long questions he put to my Department for written reply. He was furnished with pages and pages of particulars concerning staff, salaries, liaison services, etc., with the utmost conscientiousness.

I am grateful for that.

Yes, the hon. member had all these things at his disposal. He had all the publications of the Department at his disposal, such as Digest, Panorama, Alpha, Bantu, and others. Last year he saw our films which won awards throughout the country and overseas. He even had discussions on behalf of his party with numerous overseas guests who were visiting South Africa. He put his standpoint to them.

With all that information at his disposal, what did the hon. member do? He now is the main speaker on Information on Opposition side and he had all this material at his disposal. He did two things. He used a newspaper report, which he completely wrested from its context, as I shall indicate. He took one sentence from a speech I made at Elsburg in November, 1968. On these two thin legs he constructed his entire attack on this Department. And, what is more, he asked for the half-hour. He could not even fill that half-hour, although this Department is doing a massive amount of work. I want to fell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that hon. member probably has too much work and is over-burdened, but as far as this Vote is concerned, he really did not do his homework. I want to give the hon. the Leader the assurance that he did not do so.

What did the hon. member do? He started off by trying to belittle and cast suspicion on my policy statement in respect of better liaison between the Government and the local and foreign publicity media, in which I include the radio and the local and foreign press, whereas virtually all news media, and even the English language press, welcomed and praised it as a positive step. I saw that in numerous newspapers to-day. There is one quotation to which I want to refer here as this was said by someone to whom I attach value. I am quoting from this evening’s Argus—

Was he speaking on behalf of the journalists? I quote further what Mr. Rudden said—

This is the reaction of the Press. The hon. members for Orange Grove and Kensington immediately tried to belittle this. They tried to create suspicion in this connection. They alleged that we would invite certain people only and that we would exclude people who did not write well. They made all kinds of statements of this nature, although they know as sure as I am standing here that the intentions in this regard are good and that we did it openly. I want to leave the matter at that.

The hon. member went on to accuse me of being biased. I am referring to his Hansard now. He said I had issued a Press statement to one newspaper only, i.e. Die Hoofstad. What are the facts? I am now quoting from the newspaper itself. The following is what was said in Die Hoofstad of 1st July, 1970 (translation)—

At Die Bron?

Yes. I granted an interview to a newspaperman while I was relaxing at a holiday resort. Does that amount to issuing a Press statement? Does the hon. member understand the difference between “conduct an interview” and “issue a Press statement”? Surely there is a vast difference. I was on holiday at Die Bron. A man arrived there and put all kinds of questions to me. I replied to them. That does not constitute a Press statement.

Was it a policy statement?

No, it was no policy statement. I told the reporter in which direction I was moving. That is no policy statement. That was an interview I granted at Die Bron while I was relaxing there.

Then I come to his next argument. He said this was the main task of the Department. It also appeared in that article. I want to tell the hon. member that the questions put to me by the correspondent mainly concerned one single aspect of the information service, i.e. the internal information service. He asked me, “What about the furnishing of information in this country to Whites”? He wanted to know whether that was our task or whether that was not our task. As regards the furnishing of information in this country to Whites, I took up the standpoint I took up there, i.e. that the main task, as I saw it, of the internal information service to Whites, was the task as I stated it there, and I stand by every word of that.

And complete territorial segregation?

I shall still come to that too; the hon. member need not be concerned about that. I shall deal with the matter fully. The questions at the interview did not concern that; they did not cover the other major task of the Department in respect of non-white information, publications, the film service, Press liaison, information abroad, guest programme, etc. The hon. member need only have consulted the Estimates and then he would have seen what the facts are. These are the facts: The total expenditure is R5,725,000. On the foreign service an amount of R3,631,900 is spent, in other words 63.4 per cent of the total budget is spent abroad.

And how many members of the staff are there?

I shall also deal with that in full. As I have said, 63.4 per cent of the money is spent abroad whereas 36.6 per cent is spent in this country. From that hon. members can see which is our main task, because surely the largest amount of money is spent on the main task. Surely this is the proof of that; it is as clear as daylight. Questions were put to me on a specific aspect of the service and in my reply I emphasized that aspect.

Now I come to the next question about which the hon. member is so concerned, and that is the question dealing with the ideal of total segregation. I repeat these words on purpose: “The ideal of total segregation”; these are the words which appear in the newspaper report. Does the hon. member not know the difference between an ideal and a day-to-day policy?

Absolutely, total segregation?

Yes, absolute, total segregation as ideal. The ideal of that party is to get into power but in practice they will never get into power.

Is there a difference between the ideal and the reality?

I shall fully explain the matter to the hon. member; he need not concern himself. Some ideals are realized and other are never realized. I want to state the position clearly, and I cannot state it any clearer than it was stated by Dr. Verwoera. I should like to quote what he said. I am quoting from Senate Hansard of 3rd September, 1948—

Is this clear? This is the ideal. Then I want to quote what Dr. Verwoerd said ten years later, on 15th September, 1958, in the House of Assembly. Now hon. members should pay close attention. It still is the policy of the party up to this day—

That was my approach and standpoint in this entire article. The ideal is total apartheid in all its aspects and every Act is measured by that yardstick; are we working towards or away from that ideal?

May I put a question? Is absolute territorial apartheid in South Africa possible for the Coloureds and the Indians?

I shall reply. The hon. member knows full well what my personal standpoint is with regard to the Coloured population. But the ideal of total territorial separation for the Coloureds is not practical policy.

Is that not the ideal?

It is the ideal, but it is not practical.

And in the case of the Indians? Did you not say you were going to advocate this ideal through the information service?

I did not speak of the ideal for the Coloured or the Indian. I referred to a specific case and made the appropriate quotations. [Interjections.] There is no difference between the hon. the Minister of Defence and I as regards this matter. I now want to proceed. Then the hon. member dealt with my Elsburg speech and quoted one sentence, or only a certain part, from that speech but if the hon. member had read the entire speech, as I accept he did. he would have seen that the entire first part of the speech, more than one-half of the speech, was devoted to the question of how we are operating abroad and what we are doing abroad to advocate our policy and to promote our image abroad, and to do this, that and the other abroad, the task of the information officers, the demands made on them and their problems. More than one-half of the speech dealt with our service abroad, and then I proceeded to deal with the service in this country and I said what the task was in respect of the Bantu and the Coloured and the Indian and then the words followed which the hon. member used here eventually. I want to read the full quotation before the hon. member misunderstands me again. I said the following (translation)—

Exactly what I meant by that, is simply this. Earlier the view was held that if one gave Whites information on Government policy that was party politics; one was allowed to give such information to the Coloureds and the Indians and the Bantu, and also abroad, but the moment one gave information on Government policy to the Whites that was party politics. I then said the following—

And then I said, as clear as daylight—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout objects to the words “State policy”; I shall return to that in a moment.

I quoted all that.

Yes—

And then I said—

What is wrong with that? I stand by every word I said there, in the sense in which I have just interpreted it here. [Interjection.] I shall come to that. Now I should first like to deal with a few of the general things said by the hon. member for Orange Grove, then I shall come to his main attack, that I was allegedly dragging politics into the Department.

The hon. member went out of his way to create false impressions which must be rectified. He spoke of the very small number of officers abroad and referred to the 392 officers who were being used for, as he called it, brainwashing in this country. It is a fact that the Department of Information has only 53 officers on its external establishment, but what the hon. member does not realize is that a considerable number of staff members are appointed abroad to assist the officers of the Department. They assist the Department as typists, clerks and messengers and their posts do not appear on the Vote of this Department, but on that of the Department of Foreign Affairs, as they are staff added to our Department. Does the hon. member not know this? The staff members recruited abroad are carried against the estimates of the Embassies and not against that of our Department. All posts of staff employed in the Department of Information in this country, however, appear on the establishment of this Department, including typists, Bantu messengers, clerks, etc., and that is why the number is so high. I shall now give the hon. member figures of the staff in this country. In the 24 regional offices in this country, plus 14 sub-offices, we have 88 Whites, 21 Coloureds, 5 Indians and 74 Bantu. The largest number of Whites work in head office, i.e. 169, as well as 35 Bantu. One of the tasks of head office—now the hon. member must understand why there are so many employees, and they are far too few—is to deal with the administration of the entire Department; the entire administrative section is at head office and this includes the accounts section. The largest number of professional and technical staff is also concentrated at head office. They are the people who provide offices in this country as well as abroad with information on all aspects. That is the source where they draw up information documents and from where they send these documents to all the offices of the Department, and the people required for the provision of films, radio programmes abroad, photographs and film strips are also there. They are all there, technicians and photographers. All these people are on the establishment for the internal service, but they are not engaged in “brainwashing” in this country; their films are sent abroad and the facts are sent abroad. They are in this country, but they are working for the overseas offices. Is this quite clear to the hon. member now? This is why the staff position seems to be disproportionate. They are doing work for offices abroad and for offices in this country, but the hon. member wants to suggest that they are working for this country only and are doing “brainwashing”.

The hon. member also spoke of the tremendously high salaries paid to my staff abroad and specifically referred to one case, and I want to mention this as I am of the opinion that an injustice has been done here. [Interjection.] The hon. member mentioned one specific case and I think he chose the wrong one. He mentioned our information officer in the Netherlands, who receives a salary of R21,000. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. The salaries of staff abroad are not determined by my Department but by the Public Service Commission and in accordance with the differences in currencies in the various countries salaries are determined by the Public Service Commission on the basis of the cost of living and that standard of living. Secondly, in the case of officers abroad entertainment expenses are included in their salaries. Thirdly, this specific officer is an extremely capable man who has a doctor’s degree.

That does not say much.

You do not understand this; you do not know what this means.

Then why is he receiving a salary that is virtually equal to that of an ambassador?

He is a senior official who has been in our service for many years and who has reached a high notch on the scale. Should I hold him back because he is an information man? If the hon. member were to examine the salaries of the officials of other Departments, he would find this same phenomenon.

In London he is receiving more than the Minister.

That may be, but does he now want to give out here that the people of my Department of Information are being favoured by the Public Service Commission and are receiving higher salaries than those of other Departments? This is what the hon. member is insinuating. [Interjection.] The hon. member referred to these officers abroad and be used the following words. He said they had to be outstanding and good people. He said we had to entrust the task to good people and not to people who had been trained as journalists in the gallery of the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State, and as an afterthought he mentioned the Cape Province and Natal, but he first said the Free State, then realized the reaction and added the Cape Province and Natal. Yes, the implication was that the people of the Free State are inferior. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows in his heart of hearts that that is what he meant. I have caught him out. Now I just want to tell the hon. member what the qualifications are of the people who are employed in my Department abroad. In our Department there are three officers—this is also for the hon. member for Von Brandis—who have doctor’s degrees and who are abroad, two officers with master’s degrees, four with honours degrees, whereas all the others have at least a bachelor’s degree. It is men of this quality we have there. I do not know why hon. members are saying this and why they are casting reflections —and I should rather like to see how the Press is going to react to this—where they say that those people are journalists; as though the journalists who sit in the Press gallery are inferior. This is the reflection they made on the journalists and on the Press in general. I want to tell the hon. member that the task of these people is a virtually impossible one. It virtually is a superhuman task. These people must be walking encyclopaedias, and, if possible, they must be able to give immediate replies. They must be able to reply immediately to any questions regarding South Africa’s problems, if possible. They must know how to handle all situations and they must be able to represent South Africa with honour. They must be able to appear on television, they must be able to make speeches, they must be able to draw up pamphlets, they must be able to react, and they must learn the language of that country as quickly as possible. They have a virtually superhuman task. Instead of those people getting tributes of praise, credit and commendation for the task they are performing, they are being disparaged and belittled by those hon. members who are trying to make all kinds of insinuations.

The fact of the matter is that our information officials abroad and in this country are acquitting themselves so well of their task that I am having a constant battle with the private sector as the private sector wants to entice them away to become publicity officers for the large companies in South Africa. They are always trying to get my people to come to them. They entice them away and buy them with higher salaries than we can offer in the Public Service. If large business undertakings entice my people away, surely they cannot be third-rate people, or what form is the reasoning of the hon. member taking now? The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Wynberg said during the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote, as was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove on this Vote, that we should transfer the foreign information service to the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the previous debate the hon. member for Wynberg even said, if I remember correctly, that it should be transferred as it used to be. The hon. member for Orange Grove also suggested in his speech that there was a period during which this Department fell under the Department of Foreign Affairs. All these members are completely mistaken. Throughout its entire existance the Department of Information has hever been part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It was under the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Well, it was under the Minister, but it did not form part of the Department of Foreign Affairs. What is the difference? I am the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and I am Minister of Information, but the two Departments having nothing to do with each other. Likewise, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information have nothing to do with each other. Both are independent Departments. No, hon. members should not try to be so childish. The so-called practice to which they want to return, never existed. Even during that period of one year, from 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956, when the part-time State information office was taken away from the Department of the Interior and was, under its own directors, brought under the Department of Foreign Affairs merely for administrative purposes, the information service remained an independent entity with its own specialized function and with officials of a particular training and experience. The then Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not satisfied with the position that he had to account for the expenditure of funds, but had no real say in the information function handled by the Director. This is more than sufficient proof that the hon. members are labouring under a serious misunderstanding. Because of the objections of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a separate vote was allocated to the State Information Office on 1st April, 1956, and the Director was appointed as accounting officer. This also fell under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This position obtained up to the time of the establishment of an independent Department of Information, on 1st December, 1961. In other words, what they tried to give out here, was not the position. My predecessor, Senator De Klerk, paid an overseas visit a few years ago and on his return he reported as follows to the Cabinet on this specific aspect. I want to quote it because it is applicable here. He said (translation)—

I want to give the hon. member the assurance straight away that as far as I am concerned, that co-operation will be retained, and that the closest co-operation does exist between the two Departments.

Now I come to the main attack made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. His main attack, to which he devoted virtually the whole of his half-hour, was that the Department and I wanted to use public funds for the purpose of propagating National Party policy in an attempt to win the favour of the electorate by those means. This was, more or less the charge made by the hon. member. Is this correct? I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member.

To propagate the National Party’s policy.

And what our object is in doing so. In the first place, I want to tell the hon. member that in his entire speech he did not furnish any proof whatsoever to the effect that this has been done anywhere in any publication issued by my Department. He merely made an unfounded allegation, without furnishing any proof whatsoever. I am still waiting for proof.

You alleged it.

I did not allege it, and I have just proved that I did not allege it. I can also tell the hon. member that there is no need for the National Party to enlist the services of the Department of Information for the purpose of propagating its policy. The National Party has its own information service, which has been in existence for many years. I myself was head of this information service for two years, and I know precisely what is happening there and how effective it is. I was head of that service from 1966 to 1968. We fought an election during that time, and we scored a magnificent victory over the United Party. That was no problem. The hon. member also wanted to know from me what I actually wanted to do with this Department. I want to tell him that I want to carry into effect the terms of reference which I received, signed by the State President, at the time of the establishment of this Department. It would take too long to read all the terms of reference to hon. members, but I want to single out a few points which have a bearing on our discussion. I shall read the following—

These are my terms of reference.

Information and not propaganda.

The hon. member must prove that there is propaganda. He should not merely make an allegation. The hon. member must say in which respect I am making use of propaganda. I challenge the hon. member to bring me an instance of such propaganda next year. I am waiting for it. I continue—

Does the Government form part of the activities of South Africa, or does it not? I am asking hon. members this question.

And the ideal of absolute, total segregation?

The hon. member is absolutely, totally obsessed.

These are your own words.

I want to repeat that this is the ideal. It is still the Government’s ideal to-day. Mr. Chairman, let met make this very clear to hon. members. I want to carry my terms of reference into effect, namely. as I have just read out. to inform the citizens of South Africa, the Whites and the non-Whites, on what the Government envisages with the implementation of all the aspects of its policy.

But that is politics.

It is not politics at all! Let us understand each other clearly. It affects John Citizen every day. Government policy becomes a reality. It is not a “pipedream”. [Interjections.] We shall deal with that empty laughter in a moment, when I continue. The Opposition policy remains theory. It does not affect John Citizen at the moment.

Why not?

It is not being implemented. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to stop making these incessant interjections. It has been said on occasion that interjections are the salt of any debate, but I do want to say now that too much salt will leave some members in a nice pickle. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I state this very clearly: The Government may justly be blamed if it leaves the public in the dark as to its policy and the consequences thereof and if it does not tell them what course it is taking. Surely, it can be blamed if it does not tell them these things.

But, surely, it does say these things in Parliament.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout ought to know that the Department has the task of conveying Government policy—i.e. the policy of the Government of the day—to the public. It is not the task of the Department of Information to convey to the voters the policy of the Opposition party as well.

Why not?

I want to make this very clear. I shall tell the hon. member in a moment; I want to ask a practical question first.

I want to request the hon. member for Green Point to cease his running commentary now.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does he really believe that public money should be used to propagate the Nationalist Party’s policy?

I congratulated the hon. member on his maiden speech. I spoke just after him. I said that he had made an intelligent, fine speech. It seemed as though there was something in it. But if I am to judge by this question, it would appear that this was not really the case.

Reply to the question.

Of course I am replying: to the question. I think that it is neither good nor right that the Government should use public money to convey National Party policy. Satisfied? I am not doing it, nor am I going to do so. After all, I have just explained it. Are hon. members really as dense as that? Let me proceed. Just give me a chance to finish. I say that the Department does therefore have the task of conveying Government policy, i.e. the policy of the Government of the day, to the public. Now I want to know, in the first place, what Opposition party’s policy we are supposed to convey as well? Should we convey the policy of the United Party? Hon. members reply in the affirmative.

No, none of them. Leave that to the newspapers.

Should we convey the Progressive Party’s policy, or that of the Hertzog Party, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? Which policy should we convey? After all, all of them are considered to be Opposition parties.

But now I want to come to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He is the main speaker.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I want to know whether the free process of politics is not the vehicle for conveying the policy.

Yes. The free discussion in Parliament and in newspapers, etc., is the vehicle for conveying it. That is quite true. It is already being done.

May I put a question? [Interjections.]

I have no objection.

With a view to the fact that the hon. the Minister agrees that the free process should exist as part of the democracy, why does he now want the State to step in, in a one-sided manner, in order to promote the Government’s policy?

If hon. members would only give me a chance to get on with my speech, I shall explain it to them. I have here with me evidence as to what the practice is in every Western democracy in the world, to which the hon. member referred me last year. I searched for them and found them. I am going to quote them to-night. Hon. members should just give me a chance to finish; then I shall explain to the hon. member what the position is.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He very clearly told me what we ought to do. Listen very closely now. He mentioned the tasks my Department ought to undertake. I have his Hansard. I am going to quote directly. I wrote it down. He can check it. It is not wrong. In the first place, he said—

Satisfied? May we do it? This we may do.

Explain, not defend.

Yes, explain. “They could perhaps have explained the taxation policy of the Government and sales tax.” Is the hon. member satisfied with that? May the Department of Information do that?

Yes.

Then he gave the second instruction, which reads as follows, “They could have explained, for example, what is being done in the Department of Defence with a view to the training of our young people.” Is the hon. member satisfied with that?

The procedure for young people.

Yes, the hon. member should not elaborate on it now. The hon. member said this could be explained. This the Department of Information may do. In the third place, the hon. member said, They could have explained to pensioners what they must do in order to obtain pensions”. Is the hon. member satisfied with that?

Yes.

Fine. The hon. member says that this is a good task for the Department of Information. Now I ask, with tears in my eyes, why am I allowed to explain the policy of the Department of Finance, why am I allowed to explain the policy of the Department of Defence, why am I allowed to explain the policy of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, but I am not allowed to explain the policy of the Department of Bantu Administration? What kind of intelligence is this? I am allowed to explain everything, and according to the hon. member these are good tasks. But the only thing is that I may not explain the policy of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Propagate.

No, not propagate; explain. That is the argument. Now, the hon. member should just tell me in respect of which Departments I may explain policy and in respect of which Departments I may not do so, for apparently he has imposed certain restrictions in this regard. I am allowed to explain some of them, but not all of them. But let us understand each other clearly now. What is involved here, is not the points of policy on which we differ with one another. No, these are not involved here, for that side of the House does, after all, not agree with our policy of sales tax. Or do they agree with it now? After all, they opposed it. But he says that I may explain the system of purchase tax to the voters, and that that constitutes a good task.

The facts.

But why, then, am I not allowed to explain the policy of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development? What is the difference? There is no logic whatever in the argument advanced by the hon. member. I am allowed to explain certain policies, and this is a good task. But the same does not hold good for this other Department. It is my duty, it is my task; I must do it. But let me explain the matter. We must argue this matter out now. If the Opposition were to say that they are not going to protect the white worker and that they are going to abolish job reservation when they come into power, it is, to my mind, the task and the duty of the National Party’s information service, under the guidance of Mr. Smit of Stellenbosch, to bring this to the notice of the voters at the next election. If the Department of Information were to handle that matter, I would immediately say that this would be an abuse of public moneys and that it should not be done at all, for it would amount to politicizing. But if the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development announces, on behalf of the lawfully elected Government of South Africa, that he is going to develop homelands, to bring about a greater measure of separation and to introduce forms of self-government—all of these are in terms of legislation piloted through the Parliament of South Africa in a democratic manner—then it is the duty of the Department of Information to inform John Citizen on these matters, for the implementation of this policy is going to affect him either directly or indirectly. That is my argument. And this is nothing new. In the course of this debate last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred me to the Western European democracies and said that in those countries it was never done this way. On the contrary, he said, if they did go so far as to present the policy of the party, the policy the Opposition was presented as well. He specifically referred me to a certain edition of the British Information Service, “For the Record”.

In the German publication (German Tribune).

Are the Germans better? Very well; in that case I shall quote to the hon. member examples relating to Germany, for he says he prefers Germany. I have brought a few pamphlets along. In the first place, I want to say that the official information services of virtually all countries give comprehensive publicity to a whole series of aspects of their Government and their views on matters of policy, both domestically and abroad. The first pamphlet which I am holding here in my hand, is the Deutsche Pressee Informationsdienst der Bundes-Regiering, i.e. the official counterpart in Germany of my Department of Information. This pamphlet contains a report of a speech made by Willie Brandt, the German Chancellor: “Bericht der Bundes-Regiering zur Lage der Nation 1970” —a full speech by the leader of the Government of Germany with all its political aspects, and all the aspects of their policy are published by the official Department of Information in Germany. In South Africa such speeches made by the Prime Minister are published by the information service of the party. I had to adapt numerous speeches made by Dr. Verwoerd for those publications. The Department of Information has never published such speeches. [Interjections.] A full speech made by the Prime Minister? No, that has never been done. I challenge hon. members on that side of the House to prove it. Quotations explaining a standpoint on policy have in fact been handled by the Department of Information, but such a full speech, with all its political aspects, has never been published by the Department of Information. I am not referring to the information service of the party now.

I want to mention a second argument. The hon. member has now referred specifically to Germany. It is a democracy.

The German Tribune.

Yes, I shall come to that. Here in my hand I have a booklet which was also published by the Department of Information in Germany. If hon. members want to look at it, they may do so. Printed on the cover are the words Das will die Bundes-Regiering. In this booklet they say what the Government wants to do. I quote—

I have read the first sentence in this booklet. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove approve of this sentence? This booklet was written by the official information service, the Department of Information in Germany. I am now going to translate what they say in that booklet: “The Federal Government wants to bring about more social justice. That it does not only talk about it, but also acts accordingly, has already been proved by it during the first three months of its activities.” Does the hon. member approve that I may distribute something of that nature? May I write something of that nature about my Government in my official documents?

If it is propaganda, no. [Interjections.]

That is what is being written in West Germany. Here in my hand I have the Bonner Almanach of 1970. It contains an introduction written by the counterpart of our Secretary for Information. It is being explained here precisely what the policy in Germany is. It is stated as follows (translation): “The Bonner Almanach for 1970 reports on the conclusion of the activities of the grand coalition of Kiesinger on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on the commencement of the activities of the S.D.P.-F.D.P. coalition of Willie Brandt.”

Does Willie call you “Connie”?

They refer to “Willie” Brandt, not I. They talk about “Willie” throughout. I want to thank the hon. member for that argument. The image of the person is built up by calling him by his name. That is something which we shall have to consider, too. We shall also have to handle the matter in that way, according to the advice which that hon. member gave us a moment ago. In this publication they talk about “Willie” Brandt. They use that appellation all the time. The German policy is set out very clearly in this publication. The first part of this book states the standpoint and Government policy of the previous coalition. Subsequent to that there was an election in Germany and there was a new government, and in the second part of the book the standpoint of the new coalition is stated. This is as clear as daylight.

That is the policy of various parties, not so?

Yes, but the policy of the Government of the day is stated. Does the hon. member not understand it? The day you come into power, you can do the same. [Interjections.]

I want to mention another example. Hon. members must give me a chance to do so now. They attacked me cruelly, and I wanted to furnish them with all the replies so that they would know what was happening. The next book I want to mention, is called A Documentation of the Publicity Campaign of the Federal Government of West Germany. The publishers are the Press and the Information Service of the Federal Government. It is an official document issued by the Department of Information in Germany. The heading reads as follows (translation): “The course is correct”. That is what they say. What is said in that book? Hon. members should now listen closely to what is being said in this official document of the Department of Information in Germany (translation)—

Can it be stated more clearly? I continue. Hon. members should listen to this now. This is even worse—

That is what is stated in this publication.

Do you agree with it?

No, I do not agree with it, but this is what other countries are doing, and you are holding them up as an example to us. Then they go on to say the following—

And so they go on. It is a full account of propaganda in favour of the German Government. The hon. member accused me of using the taxpayers’ money for this purpose. I challenge him to bring me, in support of that statement of his, one single document published by the Department of Information.

You disapprove of it?

Of course I disapprove of it. Sir, let us see what the position is in other countries. Let us take France first. The hon. member came here with all sorts of stories about France. I do not know French, but I have here in my hand La Politique Intérieure de la France, a splendid, sizable publication with numerous quotations, and what do we find in this book? I quote from a translation—

Not a word about the Opposition.

Do you disapprove of that too?

In France the Department of Information made an entire full-length film on the person of the State President, Pompidou. Hon. members must bear in mind that the State President in France is a political figure. He is the leader of the governing party. Unlike our President, he is not above politics; he is in the thick of politics. From this article it is very clear that a film was made on him; the Department made a film on him in order to build up his image. In this publication the film is advertised, along with extracts from it, and the public are advised to make sure that they see the film, because it is the President of France who is being shown. This would correspond to our making a film on the person of our present Prime Minister in order to build up his image, and to the Department of Information making use of Panorama and Digest in order to advertise the film. This is what is happening in the rest of the world. In France the Deputy Minister of Information attends all Cabinet meetings. He is the only Deputy who attends Cabinet meetings, and after the conclusion of every session of the Cabinet, he appears on television in order to make public, or explain to the people, resolutions or the formulation of policy. This happens after every Cabinet meeting, and then the U.P. complains about the South African Broadcasting Corporation. In France a standing Government committee daily decides beforehand on radio and television programmes —a standing Government committee, not an independent body such as the S.A.B.C.

America was held up to me as an example by the hon. member. He said that America did not have any internal information service at all, but its information service was only aimed at the outside world. I want to say at once that the State Department does have its Information Office, which directs its activities at the outside world; that is quite correct and true, but what hon. members failed to mention is that every Government Department in America has its own information service. Hon. members must remember that in America, with a change of government, with the election of a new President, new political appointments are made. The Secretary for the Department and the Minister is one person; he is Secretary of Defence and Minister at the same time; he is a political figure, and in his Department he appoints his personal handpicked political friends. In other words, everything changes the moment a new Government comes into power. The entire information service there is geared for one purpose, i.e. to announce and explain the policy of the President to the public outside. The entire American system is geared to that. Do hon. members want to deny this?

But the radio is accessible to all parties.

That is another matter. Sir, I want to mention Britain as a further example—Britain, the mother of all democracies, where democracy reached its zenith, where democracy is supposedly perfectly correct and where the information service is never used as a vehicle for Government propaganda. No, surely one cannot accuse Britain of being guilty of this; surely it is impossible!

The hon. member for North Rand’s own mother country.

Last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred me to a publication by the name of For the record. He told me that the standpoint of both parties was always presented in For the record. I now want to ask the hon. member to show me where that is presented. It is as clear as daylight that there is only one occasion on which For the record presents the standpoint of both parties, and that is Question Hour in the British Parliament. That is the only occasion, but only one out of every six is Question Hour; the other five are used for ordinary statements of policy. At the moment I have before me the edition of 15th May, 1970. Hon. members should note that this is a date on which the Labour Government was in power—

In this speech he attacked South Africa in regard to its sports policy. Not a single word is published about what was said by Opposition speakers; only Mr. Denis Howell is quoted. Then one finds Question Hour and the questions, the various supplementary questions and the replies are then set out. Under the heading “Rhodesia: Illegal Assumption of Republican Status” there appears a full statement by Michael Stewart, and nothing more; nobody else’s standpoint is presented here.

Nothing about Lord Salisbury?

No, nothing. Then there was the election on 18th June, 1970, and there was a change of Government. Here I have the edition of For the Record dated 1st July, 1970—

Reference is made to the standpoint of the new Minister, and not a word is published about the Labourites, not a single word. The entire statement by Mr. Barber is set out and no other standpoint is presented. I quote further—

Here one finds open criticism of the previous Government—

This is open criticism against the Labour Party. Not a word is published here on the standpoint of Mr. Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition.

Who issues that?

It is issued by the British Information Service, not by a political party.

Mr. Chairman, I have been saving the dessert for last. I have here before me a special pamphlet entitled Prepared for British Information Services by the Central Office of Information in London. Here we have an entire pamphlet, a beautiful pamphlet, dealing with this matter only. I shall let the hon. member have access to this, if he wants to see it. I just want to read a few quotations from this pamphlet, and hon. members will just have to forgive me; I must quote these extracts, for they deal with Britain, the mother of democracy, and what does Britain do? I have taken the following extract from the introduction to this publication—

Other peoples in other countries.

Does the hon. member wish to suggest that this does not include internal policy as well? Sir, I want to proceed, and I am now going to quote from the next report—

This is still “overseas”—

I repeat this—

Then he goes on to state very clearly—

Not Opposition policy, but Government policy.

I should like hon. members to listen closely to this paragraph, the most important of all, for here we have a summary of the objective—

Let hon. members listen to this—

Sir, I have now indicated what the position is in all the Western countries which are important for the purposes of this debate. In each country I found there to be more political activities in the Department of Information concerned than is the case in the South African Department of Information. But we are being accused of policising, and these countries are held up to us as splendid examples.

What you quoted here, forms only a minor part of what is published.

But the policy is published there. This pamphlet was drawn up for the specific purpose of setting out the policy. This entire pamphlet of the British Government Information Service explains how the policy works. Sir, this is the position: In the various Western democracies the official information services are not only harnessed for the purpose of propagating the policy of the Government of the day, but political leaders are also given special build-ups; Government policy is extolled and people are persuaded to accept it, for they say that they are on the right course. The image of the Government is deliberately promoted with the electorate in order to make it popular and to facilitate its task. In South Africa we have never gone to those lengths, and I have no intention of doing so. I am stating this very clearly so that there may be no misunderstanding in this regard. I wonder whether there is a Department in one single country in the world which has succeeded in staying out of politics to the extent to which South Africa’s Department of Information has succeeded in doing so.

Sir, in conclusion there is just one thing I want to say. On 28th May, 1951, Dr. Verwoerd said the following in this House of Assembly (Hansard, volume 76, column 7807) with reference to the Department of Information for the Bantu—

Hon. members should listen closely now—

This is what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1951, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was a member of the National Party at the time; he sat in the caucus of our party and he raised no objections to Dr. Verwoerd’s open use of the information service for this purpose. He did not say a word.

Sir, in conclusion I want to put it to the hon. member like this: He must understand clearly that it is not my objective to make party-political propaganda through the Department of Information. This is not my objective, and I shall not do it. If information on political parties and their policies is necessary, I want to put forward another suggestion. I now want to extend officially an open invitation to all three political parties which are represented in this House. I want to extent an invitation to the National Party’s information service, to the United Party’s Brains Trust or information service and to the representative of the Progressive Party here and the people who assist her, whoever they may be, to draft their policy in both languages, to have copies printed of them, to make copies available to the Department, and then I shall send a copy of the policy to any person who makes inquiries about the policies of any of these parties. This is an open invitation to all three parties. [Interjections.]

You will have to publish a different one every week.

Now I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove, as the main speaker opposite, that in spite of what other countries are doing, I do not engage in politicising in the Department of Information. However, I shall carry out in full my terms of reference, as set out when the Department was established and as I read them out here. That is my task, and at this early stage I want to ask him that next year he should not come forward again with a lot of hollow words and wild allegations and all sorts of statements. Next year he must, by giving chapter and verse, furnish us with evidence, taken from the publications of the Department of Information, to the effect that we are engaged in politicising in this Department. This is my challenge, and then we shall meet each other again in the course of this debate next year. [Interjections.] Now, there is something else I want to say. Firstly, what exactly do we intend doing? I want to make this very clear, and I shall read it very slowly so that there may be no misunderstanding in this regard. What does this Department want to do, and what is being envisaged? Firstly, at a general election the voters confirmed the policy of a certain political party as advocated by that party, and put that party into power in a democratic manner. Secondly, as long as that specific party is in power, the policy of that party is also Government policy, and in the negotiations with other states on an international level, that policy is considered to be the policy of the country. Thirdly, as far as the domestic scene is concerned, the Department of Information has to furnish both Whites and non-Whites with information on every aspect of society in South Africa, especially those aspects which affect John Citizen either directly or indirectly, be it on economic policy, health policy, foreign policy, defence policy, education policy, colour policy or on agricultural policy. As regards these tasks which are to be carried out in the Republic itself, the Department would be neglecting its duty if it did not bring home, to both Whites and non-Whites, the relations policy with all its consequences. A government dare not leave its citizens in the dark as to the course it is following and the target it has set itself; it must be honest. Fourthly, in countries abroad we must have every means at our disposal in order that we may present the image of South Africa as it is, namely that of a beautiful, prosperous country, in which law and order prevails and in which progress in the scientific, technical, economic, cultural and numerous other spheres is the order of the day, and where, in an atmosphere of peace and calm, numerous peoples with different languages, cultures, religions and traditions are living together in an orderly manner; a country, furthermore, where democracy is being practised in the full sense of the word, and where political parties are represented in Parliament, as elected by the people—an example to the whole world. This is how I see my task, and I shall carry it through in the interests of South Africa; and the Opposition, with all the fuss they are making, will not make me deviate from that course.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 43, as printed, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 44.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R149,229,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 24.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R1,300,000:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? This Vote which is now before the Committee is indeed a most important Vote affecting as it does the livelihood of many hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have to rely on the State to render them financial assistance. I use the words “render financial assistance” in their broadest terms, because in fact the Government has itself on occasion admitted that the amount of pension that is paid to social pensioners is not supposed to be an amount on which alone a person can live. It is therefore “financial assistance” to many hundreds of thousands of people who watch anxiously each year when the hon. the Minister of Finance stands up in this House and delivers his Budget speech. I know the rules of the House will not permit me on this occasion to plead for an increase in expenditure, but I believe it is an important occasion to review the hon. the Minister’s policy concerning the payment of social pensions and other matters falling under his jurisdiction. Before dealing with this, I should like to say that on this side of the House we welcome the new Secretary of the Department, Mr. Van Vuuren, a man who has assumed the highest possible position in the Department and a man who, I am sure, will carry on in the same spirit as his predecessors, who have been dedicated men, not only dedicated to their task as Secretary of the Department, but dedicated as well in the field of social welfare and pensions.

I should also like to say that it is disappointing that when we come to discuss the Vote which is now before the Committee, the report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has not yet been tabled; as a matter of fact one has not been tabled for a considerable time. The last occasion when a report of this Department was tabled in this House, was on 2nd February, 1967, covering the period from 1964 to 1966. This means that a period of four years has elapsed, four years of the activities by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in regard to which a report has not yet been laid before the House. I should like to suggest that efforts should be made to table the reports of this Department at least more regularly than they are being tabled at present. Certain legislation has been passed during the period from 1966 to 1970 and other legislation was placed on the Statute Book in 1965, such as the National Welfare Act, and this is indeed a very important piece of legislation because it virtually covers a wide field and almost the entire field, to a certain extent, of the welfare service that are provided by the Department.

This Act was only passed in 1965 and made provision for a large number of commissions, which are important in certain spheres of welfare work. We have not yet had an opportunity of hearing how these commissions are functioning or of having reports from these commissions so that this House will be able to judge whether any progress has been made by these commissions in the various spheres in which they are operating. In connection with one commission, namely the Social Work Commission, we know that the hon. the Minister has taken steps to ensure that social workers will now gain professional status and be registered. We welcome this move, but we do feel that the work of these four commissions should be subject to report to this House and to this Committee so that we will be able to assess their usefulness and what progress they have made in the four very important fields that they have to cover.

There are certain aspects in considering this Vote which we believe should receive some form of priority. The largest item before us is that dealing with social pensions for which an amount of R65½ million under item K is appropriated. We know that these social pensions are subject to a means test and that the hon. the Minister, in a previous debate, indicated that he is not prepared to accept the proposals from this side of the House that he should work towards the ultimate abolition of the means test and the replacement thereof of a national contributory pension scheme. I might say that we listened with interest to the hon. the Minister during the course of that debate, but we still remained unconvinced that it is in the interests of a modern South Africa entering the 1970’s that we should still have a system which was adopted 42 years ago. We believe that a step forward should be made. The limited degree of social security that we have on our Statute Book at the present time is not sufficient to meet the challenge that faces us particularly during the next decade. We on this side of the House believe it is impossible for such a system to be introduced in South Africa. Indeed, we believe it will be inevitable. As we have heard from a number of authorities, the percentage of persons of over 60 and 65 years of age is increasing at a considerable rate and this will mean that a larger sum will have to be found every year to finance our present system. In addition we have the costly administration whereby the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions continually has to keep under surveillance 150,000 to 200,000 files as far as social pensioners are concerned. We believe that the long term solution to this problem certainly lies along the road of a national contributory scheme. However, the hon. the Minister has set his face against such a scheme and he is certainly not prepared to accept this proposal at this stage.

Therefore, we on this side of the House intend to put forward proposals which are really short term solutions to the caring of the aged such as the relaxation of the means test in certain regards. We believe that the short-term solution is a matter of alleviating the plight and difficulty of many of these people and not only the aged, but also the disabled people who are receiving disability grants and blind people receiving blind person’s pensions. Welfare organizations that are assisting these people also deserve greater consideration.

Let us first look at the position as far as the means test is concerned. As I have said, we would like to make constructive suggestions in this regard to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. Firstly let us take into account the position of a person who is a property owner, who has perhaps saved over a number of years and who has paid off a property over 30 years or more. He then reaches the stage when he applies for a social pensioen, either a war veteran’s pension or an old-age pension, and is then subject to the means test. In the past a concession was made whereby the property, which the man owned, is taken into account at the rateable value less bonds, less 25 per cent. In other words, 75 per cent of the unencumbered rateable value of that property is taken into account. Now the position is arising that, in many instances, local authorities are revaluing many properties and are taking out a revaluation in many of the local urban areas. This means that a number of the people who have been awarded pensions prior to such revaluation continue to receive such pensions. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, that these people will not have their pensions interfered with in any way should there be a change in the valuation of their property because of the new revaluation of properties as compared with the value of their property at the time of their application.

I will give you that assurance now.

Thank you. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister gives that assurance.

The next point that arises is the question concerning the persons who have not yet become social pensioners and who will now be applying for social pensions, either old age or war veteran’s pensions. Their properties have now enhanced in value as far as the rateable value is concerned. Consequently the situation arises whereby the person, who is now reaching the age of 60 or 65 as the case may be, due to a revaluation of their properties will be precluded from qualifying for a social pension. If they are not precluded, they will certainly receive less than the person who is occupying a property who applied for a pension at a date prior to such revaluation. This means that the situation arises whereby cognizance will have to be taken of the fact that, due to the revaluation of these properties, the hon. the Minister should review the position as far as the assessment is concerned of the value of these properties. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be doing a service to those people who have saved during their lives and provided themselves with a home, with shelter, which is one of the necessities of life, if he was to exempt the first R6,000 of the value of such a property. If the Minister feels that this would be too big a concession, I then believe he should give consideration to allowing these persons 50 per cent of the rateable value of their property when assessing them in terms of the means test. In other words, instead of allowing them 75 per cent of the unencumbered value of the property, to allow them 50 per cent of this unencumbered value of the property.

The question arising from other aspects of the means test, which I believe requires review by the hon. the Minister, is that of employment of social pensioners. Many of these people are indeed anxious and keen, and it certainly is in their own interest both psychologically and physically, to remain in employment to a certain extent and certainly to supplement their pensions, which they find are not at a level to maintain any decent standard of living. The concession that was made in the past allowed for the first R40, as far as the married person was concerned, to be excluded in the assessment of the income, when they were assessed in terms of the means test. The amount that was excluded for single persons was R20 per month. This means that many of these people indeed have to accept employment far below employment which they are capable of. They have to take employment that is perhaps not suited to them, whereas, if this were a more generous concession, it would mean that these people could be more gainfully employed by being able to take further employment either part-time or in some cases full time. They would certainly be able to take a better form of employment in order to supplement their pension. This amount of R40 per month for a married person and R20 per month for a single person is exceedingly low. We hear about the question of the manpower shortage. I believe that there is a vast amount of labour available, which can be utilized with a little encouragement particularly as far as the means test is concerned. Many of these people are loath to take any form of employment for fear of a reduction in their pensions. As I say, the most productive years for these people as far as employment is concerned after they have become pensioned, is between 60 and 69 years of age. We know that, in terms of a previous concession, those over 70 years of age do not have any remuneration from employment take into account. This is a worthy concession. However, many of those who have reached 70 years of age fear that they are unable to continue in employment anyway. So it only affects a relatively small number of people.

The other group who would receive some consideration as far as employment is concerned, if a concession were made in this regard, are the disabled persons who, in terms of the legislation, are receiving a disability grant. In terms of the means test, when these people take some form of employment they lose their disability grant. I believe this is not in the best interest of the disability grantees. Some of them are anxious to take some form of light employment within their physical capabilities. However, they are precluded from doing so because the means test clearly states that these persons should not take employment because they are now receiving a disability grant by virtue of the fact that they are not being employed.

Then we come to the other group, the blind persons. Here we have a situation where many blind persons amongst our community are also anxious to remain economically active. A certain concession is made in that only half of their remuneration from employment is taken into account for purposes of the means test. However, this means that some of those who take some form of employment, find after receiving an increase due to their increased productivity, that increase is negavated by 50 per cent because half of it is then deducted from that person’s pension. This comes as a great disappointment to many of these people, particularly when it is discovered some months afterwards and they are then called upon to repay an overpayment that has occurred because they have received an increment from their employer. This again does not encourage these people to be more productive and to take other forms of employment.

The other aspects in dealing with the means test show various anomalies that do exist. We have referred to this in the past and I make no excuse for referring to it again because I believe it is important. That is where social pensioners, perhaps a widow or a widower, who later in life decides to marry, then find that where they had been assessed separately, they are now assessed jointly. In a number of instances both the recipients lose their social pension. I have quoted cases before and I do not intend to weary the Committee with quoting these cases again. But it does mean that these people are discouraged from getting married. Many of them are keen or anxious to get married and they find, sometimes even after they have married, that both of them have lost their social pensions because these assets have been added together.

Then, Sir, I believe the hon. the Minister should give his consideration to bringing about a relaxation of the means test where it comes to the income limits that are provided for in the regulations. Here I refer particularly to a person who has paid into a provident fund or a pension fund and then on attaining the age of retirement goes on pension and finds that he is heavily discriminated against as compared to a person who has not paid into any pension fund and has merely saved a certain amount of money. Let us take a single person for instance. If that single person is receiving more than R48 per month from a past employer, in spite of the fact that he might have no assets whatsoever, he would be excluded from receiving a war veteran’s pension if he is under 70 years of age or an old-age pension. On the other hand you may have a case where a person has certain assets, a person who might have saved some money. He can have up to R8,000. To-day a person can get 9 per cent interest on that R8,000. This will bring in R720 per year, in other words, R60 per month. Yet that same person can apply for an old-age pension and be awarded a maximum old-age pension of R35 per month. If it is a woman over 64 years of age she receives another R10 per month because of her age, bringing in R45 per month. If she happens to have some physical disability and therefore can qualify for an attendance allowance, this can bring her another R10 per month. So she could receive R55 per month as a social pension with R8,000 invested, bringing her another R60 per month, whereas if the other person has paid into a pension fund, and if that pension for a single person exceeds R48 per month, the person does not receive any social pension whatsoever. Yet it is the hon. the Minister’s policy to encourage private pension schemes. Here too, we on this side of the House believe this matter should be given further consideration by the hon. the Minister.

There are other aspects dealing with the care of the aged and dealing with the care of all those who qualify for social pensions, not merely the group termed as old-age pensioners, but the other groups as well. One of their greatest difficulties is, of course, accommodation. These people are finding it extremely difficult to find alternative accommodation when their existing accommodation consists of an old building subject to demolition. Many of the social workers and large welfare organizations which are rendering assistance to these people find it very difficult to afford them some form of relief or to find them suitable accommodation. Here I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Aged Persons’s Act of 1967, where specific reference is made to the control of homes for the aged. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in regard to the implementation of these regulations. Obviously, if there are cases where homes for the aged are being run for profit and where there is a possibility of old people being exploited, the Minister has the power in terms of that legislation, to prohibit them from providing such accommocation for these people. He has very wide powers in terms of that legislation. The difficulty arises, when such a home is closed by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, that these people then have to find alternative accommodation. With the situation as it is to-day, alternative accommodation just does not exist.

The other matter I want to raise is the question of financial assistance to welfare organizations. On 22nd November, 1968, the Minister made a speech at the opening of the Silwerjare Home for the Aged. That speech was afterwards produced in a document called Policy on the Care of the Aged by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Here the hon. the Minister makes a very strong case for these people to remain within the community for as long as possible. We on this side of the House certainly agree with that point of view. However, it is extremely difficult for these people to remain within the community for as long as possible as a result of various circumstances, including the lack of sufficient services which are provided for them. Indeed, many of these people remain within the community for a longer period due to the assistance they receive from welfare organizations. Subsidies are paid by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to these welfare organizations on a certain basis. However, many of these organizations are finding it exceedingly difficult to provide the domiciliary services required, particularly by room-bound, disabled and aged persons, because of the very high costs involved, and the fact that no subsidies are granted in respect of certain of these services.

I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to give his very careful consideration to this aspect. These organizations are, after all, attempting to keep these people within the community as long as possible. I refer particularly to the “meals on wheels scheme”, where meals are provided to these people, usually three times per week, at a very nominal fee. This provides them with the necessary nutriment and enables them to retain moderately good health. These organizations also provide a “home help” service, where aged and disabled persons are assisted in bathing and so on. In addition, these organizations provide service centres which help to solve one of the aged group’s biggest problems, the problem of loneliness. The service centres, which are termed “Clubs for the Aged”, receive a very small subsidy of R120 per year from the Department. This means that many of the service centres are discourages from expanding their existing services or from opening additional branches. The “meals on wheels” service, which is provided at a very nominal fee, does not receive any subsidy at all from this Department. The “home help” service does not receive any subsidy at all from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions either.

It is important that these welfare organizations must be given every encouragement to expand their field of operations. In South Africa over the years the task of looking after indigent persons has not rested only on the State. It has rested partly on the State and partly on the community, represented by these welfare organizations. It is therefore to the Government’s benefit that these welfare organizations continue to render these services. Many of the organizations would like to expand the scope of their services. Some of them provide a very wide range of services. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister, during his recent visit to Durban, took the opportunity of visiting a large institution there known as Tafta House and seeing some of the services undertaken by that association. This is an association which has a very wide field of service. It cannot meet the demands that are made upon it from time to time and has to rely very heavily on the Community Chest in order to continue the services which they provide to these people. One of their services is the provision of accommodation to frail and infirm aged persons. Although the Minister is paying a subsidy, which was fairly recently increased, this subsidy falls far short of the costs involved in caring for these people. The Minister will know that such care is a very costly business indeed. This particular home, after only seven months of operation, is already showing a deficit of R26,000. This means that these organizations are not keen to enlarge the scope of their activities and to extend the services they are providing to these people. It is felt by many of these organizations that greater assistance should be forthcoming from the Government in various fields.

As far as the care of the frail and infirm aged is concerned, I believe that the Minister is now paying a subsidy of R33.50 per month. This is the maximum subsidy for these persons who are now classified under Category 2. This means that these organizations have to call upon the Community Chest for assistance. One must remember that the Community Chest has to support many other welfare organizations. Here in Cape Town I think the welfare organizations number something like 78. In Durban there are over 60 welfare organizations which rely on the Community Chest. As the welfare organizations face increasing costs, so the demands on the Community Chest increase. In Durban, for instance, the target for 1970 is R426,000. Although the appeal only has a month more to run, they are still short of R170,000. Only R256,000 has been collected so far for the 63 welfare societies in Durban. Next year it is estimated that the target will have to be at least R507,000. More than R½ million will be required to support 63 local welfare organizations in the area of Durban and district. These organizations find it exceedingly difficult to raise further funds. Here I should like the hon. the Minister to take into account the increased costs involved in running these organizations. One such increased cost results from the latest increases announced by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. These increases are going to affect these people considerably. Previously when they sent out their appeals for funds, they received a 25 per cent discount on bulk postage. This discount has now been reduced to 10 per cent. This means that instead of the cost for each circular working out at about .75 cents, it is now going to cost them 1.8 cents per circular. Many of these organizations send out a large number of appeals through the post. They will now have to bear increased expenditure in this regard. In addition, they also raise a considerable sum from the sale of Christmas cards. Many of these organizations will find that the cost of producing these cards will increase as a result of sales duty. Then, too, the demand for these cards may not be so great because the postage for such cards has been increased from 1 cent to 2 cents. These are only some of the difficulties which face the organizations when it comes to the raising of funds. They are affected in other ways when they have to reconstruct or refurnish buildings. In the case of new buildings, new furniture has to be bought at present-day costs, and sales duty has also to be paid. This all results in increased expenditure. The hon. the Minister does pay a subsidy, but that subsidy falls very far short of actual requirements when one calculates the costs involved in establishing these organizations and running them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.