This clause, as in the case of the other clauses of this Bill, increases considerably the penalties and fines which can be imposed by passport control officers. For instance, in this clause we find that the fine is being increased from R200 to R1 000. During the Second Reading stage I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question of supervision or the review of the action of these passport officers. If a magistrate were to impose an equivalent penalty, it would be subject to an automatic review by the Supreme Court, But here the power to impose what is in fact very heavy fines is vested in a passport control officer. By section 5 of Act 38 of 1969 power was given to the Minister to appoint passport control officers without circumscribing or limiting the very wide area from which such appointments could be made. The new section 28 (1) inserted by section 5 of Act 38 of 1969 empowers the Minister to—

1. (a) appoint any officer or member of a class of officers in the Public Service as a passport control officer, and
2. (b) confer upon or assign to any passport control officer or to any class of passport control officers such powers or duties as to the carrying out of this Act…

The question I want to raise is the status, the standing, of these passport control officers within the Public Service, these officers who are hereby entitled to impose spot fines of up to R1 000. It is presumed that at places such as Jan Smuts Airport and the Table Bay docks, a senior official will be appointed to deal with this matter. Another point is the procedure, if there is to be such, to be followed to review these penalties, either by the Minister himself or by the Secretary for the Interior or for Finance. But I do not know whether such a revision is to take place although I consider it essential that in view of these increased powers there should be at the same time some process of review.

Could the hon. the Deputy Minister clarify these points about the procedure which is to be followed for the purposes of supervision and regarding the status of these officers?

The hon. member for Green Point raised a number of problems, which, to my mind, requite an explanation. It is true that passport control officers on various levels of seniority may determine a maximum amount of R1 000 as a deposit. The hon. member should draw a distinction here; it is not a fine; it is a deposit which has to be made and it can be forfeited. Usually the amount is fixed with due regard to the cost of the maintenance of these persons and also with due regard to the cost that has to be incurred in removing such a person. As regards the status of the persons who have to make these decisions at our main gateway of entrance, i.e. at the Jan Smuts Airport, in Cape Town and in Durban, the position is as follows; In Cape Town and in Durban the passport control officer is under the direct guidance and supervision of our regional representative, who, in both cases, is an under-secretary— in other words, a responsible official on a high level. At the Jan Smuts Airport we have an administrative control officer, and this person usually obtains his guidance directly from the Deputy Secretary for Passports and Visas. Then there is the other question in regard to costs. I think he should appreciate that an air ticket for sending a person to a far away place can cost a great deal. As far as the question of cost is concerned, arbitrary sums can be determined …

I am not disputing the fairness of the amount of R1 000.

I appreciate that the hon. member is not objecting to the maximum. He only has doubts as to whether it will always be applied with proper circumspection by the proper person on the proper level. In this regard I just want to mention two extremes to the hon. member. For instance, if a person has to be escorted to North Korea or South Korea, one must at least be sure that one can lay down an amount of not more than R1 000- But it is quite a different matter if one has to convey him to the Portuguese border. Any person who feels that he is unfairly being asked to deposit a large amount of money, may appeal to a higher authority; he may go to the Secretary and he may even go to the Minister if he considers it to be absolutely essential. Furthermore, in the end such a person also has the choice of leaving of his own accord, if he wishes to do so. In addition, the person who makes the deposit, has the choice of deciding for himself to remove the person concerned. I think that the doubts in the mind of the hon. member can be removed by these processes and the way in which this type of case is dealt with at present.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanation he has given. I just want to make one thing clear. It is correct that in clause 3 we are dealing with deposits. The same powers are contained in subsequent clauses where it is in fact a fine and where forfeiture is ordered. Sir, one appreciates that it is an under-secretary who will operate in most of the major centres and also that there is a right of appeal to either the Secretary or to the Minister himself in the event of any dispute. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister- give the assurance that people asked to make a deposit are informed that, if they question the amount of their deposit, they have the right to go to higher authority to have the matter reviewed. If they are not informed at the time they make the deposit, will he see to it that they are informed?

Section 20 of the principal Act which is being amended prescribes certain offences and this amending Bill adds another offence. So far as existing offences are concerned, section 20 (a) of the principal Act refers to a person who aids and abets any person in entering or remaining within the Union or any province in contravention of this Act, knowing that person to be prohibited from so entering or remaining. In other words, the offence arises from the knowledge of the person who does the aiding and abetting. In paragraph (b) there is a similar provision-

The Bill before us creates the new offence of conveying or causing to be conveyed into the Union any person who is not in possession of a passport or identification documents, if that person is not a South African citizen by birth or descent. Sir, this could be done quite innocently, just as the offences under (a) and (b) could be innocently committed. I believe it would be correct and in keeping with the spirit of the principal Act, if this clause were to be worded in the way in which I have suggested in the amendment which appears on the Order Paper, and which I now move—

To omit the proposed paragraph (aA) and to substitute the following paragraph:

(aA) knowing any person, who is not a South African citizen by birth or descent, not to be in possession of an unexpired passport or other document of identity required by section 24 (1), conveys or causes such person to be conveyed into the Union.

In other words, the same mens rea which is required for a conviction under (a) and (b) shall also be required in so far as any conviction under this further provision is concerned. I move accordingly and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to be good enough to accept that amendment.

I agree entirely with everything that the hon. member for Green Point has said about this, and in support of his plea to restore the knowledge of the commission of an offence, which is contained in the original Act, I would point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this amending Bill makes the definition of “conveyance” very wide indeed and that the definition of “passenger” also includes “stowaway”. How anybody could know about a stowaway and be found guilty of conveying such a person who has no passport. I find difficult to understand. With these two additional arguments, Sir, I would like to add my plea to those of the hon. member for Green Point.

Sir, we must take into consideration the fact that the number of travellers in the world has shown a substantial increase over the past few years, and that the pattern of travelling has also changed. The number of people travelling by air exceeds by far the number of people travelling by ship, and usually these offences, with which we want to deal under this clause, are in fact found amongst air passengers. Our department regularly keeps the airlines of foreign countries informed, from time to time, as to the requirements that are to be met by persons who want to enter South Africa and what travel documents they must have. The greatest problem which we have in this regard, is in connection with people who do not have visas. All the airlines know that there are only four countries in the world whose citizens need not have visas when they enter South Africa, i.e. citizens of the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia and the Principality of Liechtenstein, The airlines are aware that exemptions have only been granted in respect of these four countries. And yet we often find that they come here with passengers who do not have visas, and then they have all sorts of stories to tell when the person concerned lands at the Jan Smuts Airport; sometimes the excuse is that the person’s mother suddenly took ill or that she died. In many cases the department tries its best to meet such people halfway, but this very attitude is also being exploited; if they got away with that on one occasion, one finds that next time they want to use the same argument in order to bring people into the country. And we are saddled with them. The moment these unauthorized foreigners have landed in our country, we are saddled with them and then it is our responsibility to see to it that they are removed from this country again.

The hon. member said that it was unfair to place the responsibility for a stowaway on the person in charge of a conveyance, but that is not the case. Who finds it so easy to stow away on an aircraft? If a ship has a stowaway on board and that person wants to disembark at a South African port and we do not want to admit him here, why should we be saddled with him? After all, we did not stow him away. All we expect, is that the master of the ship should assume responsibility for him when his presence becomes known. Why should we have to send him back to the country from which he came? Surely we did not convey him to this country; we did not stow him away. I think this is only fair. That is simply what the position was in the past. After all, these people must at least have a place to sleep and eat on board ship, but the ship arrives here and we are convinced that such people were not always stowaways of whom the master was not aware. Then such stowaways want to enter the country and, of course, when they do not succeed in doing so, the master of the ship concerned wants to hide behind the law and refuses to take any responsibility in respect of these persons. The penalty in respect of this offence mut be a severe one as it must also serve as a deterrent to the various shipping and airlines, especially the latter, in that they should be more careful in respect of the passengers they take aboard and convey to South Africa. Our airline finds itself in the same position in respect of other countries.

At the moment we have a problem with America. If any person alights from an aircraft in the U.S.A. without his having proper travel documents, they immediately ask for 1 000 dollars. At present we have such a case in the S.A. Airways with the American Government, We are therefore not making an exception. It is merely a logical adjustment. The fact of the matter is that it is illegal to bring into the country any person who does not have the necessary travel documents. The Act makes provision for that. We are therefore not creating a new offence here. At present it is an offence for any person to help another person to enter the country unlawfully, to make a false statement in respect of any person in order to bring him into the country, to try to hide any person whom we want to remove from the country. At the moment this is already an offence, and therefore we are not creating a new offence through this amendment. All we are doing is to increase the penalty, and we are placing a greater responsibility on those people who, notwithstanding the fact that they are aware of the offence they are committing, persist in trying to land here people who do not have the necessary travel documents.

I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Parow. You know. Sir, he never ceases to amaze me. Invariably, if we bring an amendment to this Committee, no matter how good it is, he will find some reason for opposing it, I cannot understand his attitude in opposing this amendment. His closing words were “as ’n mens bewus is van die oortreding”. That is exactly what we are trying to put into this clause, so that it should be done knowingly.

That forms part of the Act already.

With respect, the hon. member should go and read the Act, and he must read the amendment which is introduced in this Bill, There is no question of mens rea here at all. If makes it a plain and simple offence if somebody introduces somebody whose papers are not in order; not whether he does it knowingly or unwittingly, but just the fact that somebody brings someone else here without papers is an offence.

But that was in the Act.

No, this is a new offence which is being created, in terms of section 20 of the Act. I really cannot understand the hon. member. I will agree with everything he says. There is an increase in the number of travellers and more and more people are travelling by aircraft. But I want to ask him, when he talks about people who come in without visas or with incorrect papers, does he want to place the responsibility on the crew of the aircraft? He wants to place the responsibility on the captain of the aircraft to go to every passenger to check whether his papers are in order. [Interjection.] Sir, I ask you, with tears in my eyes, whether he is going to do this to our own pilots, to our own crews of our own South African Airways aircraft, and place the responsibility on the captain of that aircraft to go to every passenger and check that his papers are in order? This is the whole thing that we are trying to obviate, namely to take that responsibility away and to provide that it must be done knowingly. There is a degree of mens rea required. The question of stowaways raised by the hon. member for Houghton does come into this. I am dealing with a ship now and not so much with an aircraft, because in fact you cannot stow away on an aircraft, although it has happened, incidentally. People have arrived in countries by way of an aircraft, by biding in luggage compartments, etc. But in regard to a stowaway on a ship, surely it is only reasonable to expect that the court must prove that the captain was aware that this person was not allowed to enter before he can be charged. On this question of the penalties, we have not queried the increase in the penalties. We accept that this is being brought into line with modern finance. But I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Parow. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have a more reasonable attitude towards it. I feel that this is a good amendment and one which should be accepted. In the interests of justice it should be accepted. Knowing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a reasonable man, I will now resume my seat and I hope he will accept the amendment.

I honestly cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District in this regard. It is obvious that he has never read this Act. After all, it is simply absurd and unrealistic to say here that we are now going to expect the captain of the aircraft to check the papers of all the passengers. What is expected in this case, is that the airline responsible for that aircraft should, prior to granting the passengers permission to board that aircraft, discharge the onus of seeing to it that all the travel documents are in order. Does the hon. member think that we want the captain of the aircraft to walk up an down the aisle, like a bus conductor, so as to examine all the tickets? Surely, this is simply not the case. I simply fail to see how the hon. the Deputy Minister can accept this amendment, for if he does one would simply have reverted to the provision standing part of the Act at present.

But there is another aspect to the matter. People are not only being conveyed to the Republic by air or by ship. During the present session we agreed to very severe penalties in respect of people trafficking in drugs, etc. But in the meantime a man may smuggle a person across the borders of the country, knowing only too well that such person does not have the necessary travel documents, or the documents required for being an acceptable person in the Republic of South Africa. What is worse, is that these persons, who are smuggled into the country by these means, may hold a serious threat to the national security. In the light of these possibilities, and especially in this particular juncture in which we find ourselves today, I think the penalty in this respect is, perhaps, still not severe enough, although it has been laid down as a maximum penalty. If this amendment is accepted, the person concerned can only be punished if he knew that the person he conveyed did not have the necessary documents. In other words, on whom would the onus be here to prove that the person who deliberately smuggled another person across our borders, did so knowingly or unwittingly? In other words, one weakens the effect of this clause by allowing the onus of proof to hang in the air.

The hon. member for Houghton raised the question of a stowaway, and wanted to know how this could be the responsibility of the shipping line or the captain of the ship in question. But there is a separate section which makes provision for this question of stowaways, i.e. the proposed section 14 of the Act, under which we can discuss this matter.

I rise just to answer on one or two points raised by the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Tygervallei. They have overlooked this fact. The clause we are discussing now is a penal clause. It makes it a criminal offence for the conveyor who contravenes it. That does not affect the other aspects of this Bill. The hon. members would have done well had they done a little homework and read the Bill. Without invoking the penalty clauses, the conveyer can be made to deposit up to R1 000 on arrival of that person and can be made to forfeit that money under certain circumstances. There is no question of “aflaaiing” to which the hon. member referred. If necessary, the deposit can be asked for.

Now we come to the “afskrikking", namely that a penalty may also be imposed. One must keep within the bounds of normal justice when one imposes a criminal as well as a civil obligation. What I am opposed to here is that the criminal obligation which is additional to the civil obligation of making a deposit is based on a blanket liability. I see that the hon. member for Parow is holding up the Order Paper. My amendment deals with the criminal provisions. If the hon. member would look at section 20 of the principal Act, he would see that it provides penalties for offences. We have just approved previous clauses in this Bill. We have approved of the amendments to sections 13 and 14, which entitle a passport control officer to demand a deposit of R1 000 if a person arrives without the right documents. Under section 14 he can order a forfeit under certain circumstances. If the hon. member has not read that far and if he would read clause 13 which we are still coming to, he would see that it says mutatis mutandis the provisions applying to ships apply to aircraft. The clause concerning which I have moved my amendment, purely deals with the creation of a criminal offence. It does not in any way open the door or in any way relieve the responsibility of the conveyer, which can be the airline, to the State to ensure that the State is not involved in expenditure. I hope that the hon. the Minister, knowing that he has these civil rights against the airline or whatever conveyer may be involved, will not also impose the criminal sanctions with regard to such an act unless it is performed knowingly.

I might mention that the hon. the Minister’s department is well aware that certain prominent persons may well have been in serious trouble if this had been law at the time when the yachts assembled in Cape Town for the Cape to Rio race. There were many persons who came out as passengers or crew when the yachts were brought to Cape Town, who were not in possession of the documents required under section 24. I know that the department is aware of this, because I myself made certain representations in that regard. If this had been law at the time, a number of the premier yachtsmen of the world would have been committing offences quite innocently by having crew on their yachts who were not in possession of the right documents.

I want to mention a further point in conclusion, which might finally persuade him to accept my amendment, namely that the hon. the Minister himself, with regard to the amendment we have approved in clause 6 of this Bill, recognizes that it is not always a heinous offence if a person arrives without his documents being in order. Lines 24, 25 and 26 of clause 6 (b), which contains the new section 19 (2) (a), provide that a passport control officer can in fact rectify the papers of a person on arrival if he believes it to be just and equitable to do so.

That can still be done.

Although the passport control officer can now endorse the visa of a person who inadvisedly and mistakenly came without a visa, the man who brought the person here is a criminal.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he will be a criminal because he brought that person into the country while his documents were not in order. Whether he will be prosecuted is a different matter; but he is a criminal and he has committed an offence. Therefore I do hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the principles involved in this amendment are not bad, but we already have a provision which covers the same ground as this amendment. If a person knowingly brings a prohibited person into the Republic, he is already guilty of an offence in terms of the existing section 20 (a). This amendment is therefore unnecessary if we do not intend removing this mens rea principle, and we have good cause for that.

Then why hide it?

That hon. member was worried about that. I am coming to that point. The existing section 20 (a) reads as follows:

is guilty of an offence. Section 20 now reads: Any person who aids or abets any person who is not in possession of valid travel documents (here we have visas in mind) to enter the Republic is guilty of an offence if the person whom he is aiding and abetting is a prohibited person in terms of section 21. The proposed insertion of paragraph (aA) section 20 will state the law in no uncertain terms. That is the main object of this amendment in section 20. It is aimed mainly at the conveyers of passengers who are not in possession of valid visas for entry into the Republic. Conveyers of passengers, especially by air and sea, and travel agents are fully aware of, and are kept up to date with, the visa requirements of the Republic. However, instances of persons not in possession of the required visas being conveyed into the Republic are increasing at an alarming rate and the factor which must be considered is that the number of persons entering the Republic for a temporary sojourn has increased from approximately 90000 in 1951 to 339 000-plus at present. That is an important factor we have to consider here, although it forms only part of the problem.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Deputy Minister please clarify that last point about people entering as temporary sojourners? What does he mean by that?

I am speaking of temporary visitors, tourists, etc. In cases of emergency steps are usually taken to authorize the admission of persons arriving here without visas, but the disregard of our visa requirements in the normal course of events cannot be tolerated. The refusal to land persons usually causes a great deal of pressure. It results in adverse criticism of the department and the Government. I am therefore very sorry that I cannot accept this amendment. As I have said, provision has already been made to cover those matters which the hon. member is worried about. We are removing this mens rea principle because we want to place the onus upon these people to make sure—and “sure” means “reasonably sure”—that they are not conveying a person who could be declared a prohibited immigrant. For instance, if there is a stowaway on a ship and the captain discovers him on board after they have docked, he has a case to put before the court, because a stowaway has actually committed an offence against the company which owns the ship. It is then for the court to decide whether or not the company concerned has a reasonable case. Yesterday such an atmosphere of equanimity reigned in this House that I am really sorry that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the last point made by the hon. the Deputy Minister is not valid at all. The very fact that there is inserted in a later clause, clause 14, a provision that “ ‘passenger’, for the purposes of section 14, includes a stowaway” means that he wants the conveyer of the stowaway to be considered as having committed a criminal offence. I think he is giving a guideline to the courts there which is going to make it very difficult indeed for the person so charged to escape a conviction. I think that is very hard indeed. The very nature of the crime of stowing away means that the captain of the ship is not aware of the presence of such a passenger. He is in any case responsible for conveying the stowaway back to his port of embarkation. The point made by the hon. member for Parow is also not valid, because the captain of the ship is not allowed to land the stowaway. The matter is then one between the stowaway and the ship's company. It has nothing to do with the South African Government. We are not responsible for conveying that man back whence he came. That is tire responsibility of the ship’s captain, or the aircraft company, whichever it happens to be.

There is a further point I should like to make. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that airlines and shipping companies are well aware of all our visa requirements. That is probably true, although clerks in offices all over the world make mistakes and tell passengers that they do not need visas for South Africa when they in fact do. They then arrive at Jan Smuts Airport without the necessary travel documents. I had a case only a few weeks ago where someone from a country where visas are required for South Africa came here and was held up at Jan Smuts Airport. It was a perfectly innocent mistake. The woman concerned had been informed by an airline office somewhere in Africa that she did not need a visa. I must say that the department could not have been more helpful. This incident took place on a Sunday and I had to chase around to get hold of the various officials, who were very helpful indeed. Within a matter of hours this person was able to enter South Africa. My point is that under such circumstances a criminal charge should not be laid against the company or the person concerned.

Another point I want to make is that “conveyance” is now very broadly defined in terms of a later provision in clause 13. It now includes “all conveyances other than ships”. What is the position in regard to persons bringing passengers into the country by car? They do not know about the visa requirements of South Africa, and in all innocence they may give somebody a lift across the border from Swaziland, Lesotho or some other country into South Africa. They too will then be covered by the provisions of this Act. Individuals are not aware of our visa requirements. I do not think there is a member in this House who knew that there were only four countries in the world in respect of which visas for South Africa are not required. I certainly did not know that Liechtenstein was one of those countries. Why Liechtenstein should fall into this category, I shall never know, and I am not even very interested. I am sure that nobody else in this House knew that the citizens of Liechtenstein do not require a visa for South Africa until the hon. member for Parow gave us the benefit of his wide acquaintance with visa requirements.

There is a third point I wish to make.

The fifth or the sixth.

I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister is making such a careful note of the points I am raising. I have personally lost count of thorn. There are cases where British subjects are in fact personae non gratae in South Africa. Some of them are informed of this before they even attempt a journey to South Africa, but some of them unfortunately arrive at Jan Smuts Airport not knowing that they are on a prohibited list. They are then told when they arrive that the exemption from visa requirements has been withdrawn in their case. Here the department cannot be so helpful because the withdrawal of such an exemption is carried out after an order from on high. Nobody ever knows from quite how high such an order comes, but there it is, and the department is not in a position to help. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me how, if the person concerned does not even know that the exemption from visa requirements has been withdrawn in his case, the captain of a ship or an aircraft can possibly be expected to know that such a person is not allowed into the country without a visa or special permission? Some of these persons are, however, given special permits to visit for certain reasons. I know of cases where people have left South Africa on exit permits and have for compassionate reasons been allowed to return. In the other cases the aircraft or shipping company ought not to be subject to these criminal penalties because they cannot know that they have committed a crime, the “knowing” protection having been removed, the mens rea. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will give this further consideration.

Through his amendment the hon. member for Green Point wants to restore the position as it is stated in the Act at the moment.

Yes.

Apparently the hon. member for Houghton has more insight into these matters than does that hon. member; he does not know anything about the matter. The Act, as it reads at the moment, provides that a person cannot be held responsible if he commits an offence unwittingly. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point defeats the object of this amendment. I do not wish to argue with those hon. members, for they obviously do not see matters the way we do. But, in the first place, I nevertheless want to point out that the hon. member for Green Point has continually been harping on the point that we may as well allow a person to commit a theoretical offence. He agreed that the maximum penalty was not so unreasonable and that it was quite in line with the position in other countries. But, in any case, the maximum penalty need not be imposed. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton accepts that, but not so the hon. member for Green Point. But, in any case, I do not want to discuss this matter with that hon. member, in his absence I said that he did not know anything about this matter. The point on which the hon. member kept harping, was that in this respect we might as well allow a person to commit a theoretical offence …

You are making of him an unconvicted criminal.

… whereas we do make provision for those cases to be dealt with by the officers. At any rate, the hon. member's argument is no argument. For instance, if I park here in Pie in Street, i.e, where I should not park, and I receive a parking ticket, I, too, will have committed an offence. What an absurd argument is it then for the hon. member to say that we are now making criminals of people. Surely, it is absurd to want to split hairs in regard to such a triviality.

What the hon. member for Houghton said, was quite correct—the department goes out of its way to accommodate people who can prove their bona fides, as it did in the case she mentioned, although I still think that the company which brought that passenger into the country, ought to have known better and that people on the other side should have helped him. In any case, the department goes out of its way to accommodate these people; in fact, there is provision for it in the legislation. However, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, these things are increasing; there has been a very substantial increase in the number of people who simply come here without the necessary travel documents, especially without visas. Of course, in many cases matters are arranged administratively, without any difficulty. But the hon. member also knows that in the past ugly incidents took place because people arrived here without the necessary travel documents. In such cases it is not the hon. member for Green Point and those hon. members who are held responsible, but in fact the hon. the Minister and the Government. Then they are saddled with the baby. It is easy for hon. members opposite to talk. They do not bear any responsibility and if unpleasant incidents do take place, incidents which can harm the good name of South Africa, they sit back and rejoice in them. I really think that hon. members should adopt a more considerate attitude. After all, the hon. member for Green Point is aware that such incidents do take place, and for that reason he ought to adopt a more responsible attitude. I do not know whether I should make the same appeal to the hon. member for Houghton as well.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that we have had an unnecessary repetition of arguments. For that reason I am going to be firm from now on.

The hon. member for Parow made a strange comparison when he compared the offence dealt with in this clause with his parking offence. But the hon. member I presume can read and thus he knowingly committed the offence when he parked illegally.

Not always!

We are asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to apply the argument of the hon. member for Parow also to these cases.

The hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough to point out that the question I raised was contained in section 20 as it is now. But section 20 (a) deals with the admission of a prohibited immigrant, with aiding or abetting a prohibited immigrant to enter the Republic. Well, I concede that the entry of a prohibited immigrant is a much more serious matter than the person whose travel documents are not in order. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows what is involved in the description “prohibited immigrant”, i.e. an unsavoury character whom we do not want in the country. Such a person and the one who assists him to come into the country, can only be convicted when it can be proved that he did so knowingly. But here we are concerned with an undocumented visitor and under the circumstances I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider what he said and to apply the same principle to this lesser offence, of bringing in an undocumented person. I have the suspicion at the back of my mind that there are some reasons for this, reasons which have as yet not been disclosed. Unless there is a very serious problem in some direction I cannot believe that a provision of this sort would be coming forward. There must be a very serious problem for a provision like this being introduced. If that is not so, and if it is only the isolated case that the Minister wants to deal with here, then he, even at this late stage, ought to agree that my amendment is a reasonable one.

I have listened to all the various arguments. As regards the hon. member for Green Point, he may accept that there is no hidden reason for this amendment, apart from those I have explained. As regards the hon. member’s reference to “prohibited person”, he should look at section 24 (1) where a “prohibited person” is defined. A person without the necessary documents is in any case a prohibited person. It is therefore unnecessary to define it any further. The hon. member may accept that there are no reasons other than those I mentioned, which I am not going to deal with again since I have already done so.

*The hon. member for Houghton mentioned a few problems which I consider to be exceptions to the rule. I said at the start that mostly people enter our country via these three ports and by way of boat or areoplane. The hon. member mentioned this problem of a stowaway. If a stowaway is found on board the public prosecutor will take into account the fact that the captain did not know about him, although he should have made sure from the list of reservations at the time of embarkation. If the captain did not know that this man was a prohibited immigrant, then I think no public prosecutor would have a case against him. The question is whether this man is a prohibited immigrant.

But the court does not have that prerogative.

As far as clause 13 is concerned, the hon. member was worried about people coming into the country by means of all types of conveyance such as motor cars, not just by ship or aeroplane. I think it is very important that these people should know everything about the visa requirements. They at least should be aware of these requirements because we have a great deal of trouble with people coming by other means of conveyance and I am not very sympathetic towards these people. Then she raised the question of a person who is persona non grata and who has not been notified that his visa to enter South Africa is not longer in order. That may happen in exceptional cases. If a person like that enters the Republic not knowing that he is persona non grata, then I think he will have a very good case because the department will have defaulted, and in the second instance I do not know of any case where such a person has been convicted.

I am thinking of the conveyer.

In any case, I do not know of any case that has come before the courts so far where a person who has been declared to be persona non grata has been convicted …

I am thinking of the person who conveys such a person; that is what this law deals with—not the person himself.

That person did not know that he was a prohibited immigrant.

Mens rea need not be proved now.

These cases would he rare exceptions, but our courts of law will be able to sort this out. I do not think we can make laws to cover very exceptional cases. I agree with the hon. member that in very rare instances that might be the case, but in those cases I think we should leave it to the courts.

Sir, the concluding sentence of the hon. the Deputy Minister was “in those cases I think we should leave it to the courts”. Sir, that is exactly what we are asking on this side of the House: that is exactly what the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point means, that we should leave it to the courts to decide whether there was an intention to commit an offence on the part of the accused. But the amendment as it stands in the Bill today leaves no discretion to the court whatsoever. If evidence is brought that a person was introduced by an accused person, that is all that is required for a conviction. The court need not enter into the question of intention at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his first reply said himself that it is the intention of the department to remove the question of mens rea. That is exactly what he said, and what we are trying to do is to restore the discretion of the courts. We want the State to prove that the accused person introduced somebody knowing that he did not have the proper papers to be allowed into this country. Sir, I am afraid I cannot accept the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister, He also said that the prosecutor, in the event of a captain of a Ship being charged with introducing a stowaway or allowing a stowaway to enter the Republic, would take into account the fact that he had no knowledge of the presence of the stowaway. Sir, the prosecutor may not take that into consideration.

Why not?

Because he is precluded by this amendment as printed here, because the offence is created by any person who “conveys or causes to be conveyed into the Union any person who is not in possession of an unexpired passport” or the relative papers—not a person who does it with the intention to commit an offence, not a person who knowingly does it with the intention of introducing somebody into South Africa who has no authority to be here. This is the crux of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now. That argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Houghton.

Sir, I think I have made my point. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that our courts are reasonable in this country, and we should give the courts the discretion to decide this matter instead of binding the court to find a person guilty without discussing the question of intention at all.

During the course of the Second Reading debate we raised the question of the words which appear in the English text, “a juristic person”. The hon. the Minister, as I understood him, said that what he had in mind in respect of a juristic person was anybody which had been established in terms of a statute. That is how I understood him. I have searched the Law Reports in vain for a definition of such a thing as “a juristic person”, as it is referred to here. One certainly could find out what is meant, but the difficulty one has is that a “person” is defined already in the Interpretation Act as follows. It says that when interpreting a statute —

The word “juristic” would be unnecessary if the hon. the Minister wishes merely to deal with statutory bodies. If he wished to deal with statutory bodies, he ought to calf them statutory bodies, but he does not: he calls them “a juristic person”. It is a “person” as defined in the Interpretation Act which is apart from all those things set out, also “juristic”. Now this is an added complication and I feel it is unnecessary. But in any event it seems to me that, having regard to the definition of “person” in the Interpretation Act, this goes much further than the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes it to go. He does not want to take the power to expropriate on behalf of local authorities, for example. The expropriation provisions in the provinces deal with the question of expropriation by local authorities. So I am sure he does not mean that. But if “person” as defined in the Interpretation Act includes all these bodies like local authorities, bodies corporate and bodies unincorporate, then he is taking the power to deal with that situation as well. It is not that I am trying to be technical or difficult; it is a matter of having a power here to expropriate in respect of certain other persons than those for whom he may now expropriate. It is important to know what it is. I would suggest that the words “juristic person” should come out and “a body corporate” be put in, or if the hon. the Minister wishes, “any body established under any law of the Republic”, or something of that sort. But as it stands, it is complicated and will lead, I think, to difficulties. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that he was a practical man, and that was one of the ways in which he distinguished himself from me in this regard. But let me say that as a practical lawyer, words like this should be welcomed by all the lawyers. You know. Sir, Gilbert and Sullivan, in “Trial by Jury”, used the words —

If I may say so, this is one such occasion where one might well have litigation to decide what on earth is meant by “juristic person”. I appeal earnestly to the hon. the Minister to take this word out and put in something which is known to the law, something which follows more closely what in fact is intended.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member on these points, since he has more experience of legal matters as an advocate. I want to say that I think the best in this case will be to ask our legal advisers to have another look at this clause. If they find that it should be altered, we can do it in the Senate. With regard to the juristic body we are referring to, I am glad that the hon. member mentioned the Interpretation Act. I was told that, according to the Interpretation Act, we have covered all the bodies for whom we are expropriating at the moment. Universities, technical colleges and the Atomic Energy Board are all covered by the expression “juristic person”. The hon. member suggests that we should rather refer to a body corporate or a body established by law. All statutory bodies are established by law. The main reason for this clause is that the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Potato Board need ground in order to experiment with virus free plant material, etc. I think, to save time, I will ask our legal advisers to consider whether we can alter the specific words for the benefit of the hon. member.

We also indicated at the Second Reading that we did not like this provision. This clause now extends the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court in respect of expropriation proceedings from R3 000 to R10 000. No good reason has been given why this jurisdiction should be so increased. At the moment the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court in civil matters is RI 000. The hon. the Minister of Justice, who is present at the moment, knows that the jurisdiction was put up a few years ago from R200 to R1 000 and this was done for a very good reason. As the Expropriation Act stands at the moment, it is already three times that amount by way of jurisdiction. To extend it now to R10 000 is, in our opinion, without any justification at all. One of the reasons why the inferior courts have a limited jurisdiction is that some matters are so important that, in the first instance, they should be dealt with only by the persons of greater learning and experience, namely the Judges of the Supreme Court. That is the basic reason for the distinction in jurisdiction between the inferior and the superior courts.

The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated yesterday that very few expropriation cases, in fact, went to court, as they were usually settled. As he says, the smaller cases of R2 000 and R3 000 are not cases which really concern the department. They are more concerned with the bigger cases. That is all the more reason, if I may say so, why the Supreme Court itself should retain jurisdiction over R3 000 with regard to these matters. As the hon. the Minister himself has indicated, the question of the expropriation of a man’s land against his will, if he does not want to sell, is a very important and serious matter. We must bear in mind that this question does not only concern the compensation het gets, but also the mere fact that he is being deprived of his immovable property against his will. This is a matter one obviously feels very strongly about in one’s heart as well as in one’s pocket. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, I believe that it is important and necessary that the amount of compensation one gets with regard to expropriation should be determined, if possible, in all cases, only by the highest judicial officers in the land, namely the Judges. As I have said, we do not like this clause and, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us some good reason why this should happen, and I do not include as a good reason the fact that the National Roads Act was amended the other day to give the magistrates’ courts jurisdiction up to R10 000 instead of R3 000, I am afraid we will have to oppose this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to support the general principle which the hon. member for Durban North has indicated, I do so partly now because the hon. Minister of Justice is present. I imagine that one of the reasons advanced for this provision is that it will save costs. Now, theoretically of course the magistrate’s court is less expensive than the Supreme Court. That is the position theoretically. But as you raise the amounts in respect of cases that may be taken to the magistrates’ courts, as has been done here, so you will find that clients will insist upon having counsel as well as attorneys in those courts. It happens today in the case of large amounts. It is a perfectly sound idea to try to keep costs down to the minimum. With that I fully agree. But no one should think that because a matter is taken to the magistrates’ courts it would necessarily save costs. If you put up the amount of the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court sufficiently you will always get advocates briefed to go there which means a full team as you would have in the Supreme Court. I believe therefore that it is illusory that you can save costs by following this principle continuously. I therefore think that this supplements the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, there is an additional aspect, namely the question of time. My two colleagues have dealt with the principle of responsibility of the judicial officer and the question of the expense. There is also the question of time. It is very often thought that by giving jurisdiction to a magistrate, the case will be dealt with with greater efficacy and in a far shorter time than would be the case if it had to go to the Supreme Court. Now, with the shortage of manpower in the magistrates’ courts, and the constantly increasing jurisdiction which all sorts of statutes, two of which we dealt with this morning, give to the magistrate’s court, you will find in many cases I think the lawyers will bear me out—that to get a cause heard in a magistrate’s court is slower, if anything, than the Supreme Court. The delays are just as great in the magistrates’ courts. So whether you look upon it from the point of view of delay or the point of view of responsibility and experience which my colleague from Durban North has dealt with or from the point of view of expense which the hon. member for Pinelands has dealt with, there is little to be said for giving a greatly enhanced jurisdiction to the magistrate’s court as has been done in this instance.

Mr. Chairman. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to yield to the Opposition as regards this clause. The precedent exists in the present section of the Art that the normal amount of the magistrates’ courts may be exceeded, namely with R3 000 as against R1 000. What actually happens here is that to a certain extent only normal appreciation of land values is taken into account. If we take into consideration that the existing section was inserted in 1965 and that a great deal of the land that is expropriated is town land or land situated near urban development, I think that, by increasing the amount of R3 000 to R10 000 the normal appreciation of land during the past six year term has been taken into account to a large extent.

Moreover, I cannot agree with previous speakers that the cost aspect is not important. I think that in many cases it is a fact that the cost aspect is kept down by having the cases heard in magistrates’ courts. This is an important aspect, as is the time aspect. I cannot agree that it will not necessarily take longer if a case is heard by the Supreme Court. In most cases time is saved if the trial takes place in the magistrate’s court. That is why I think this provision is a reasonable one, and I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to retain the proposed legislation as it is.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is a practising lawyer. Let me give a practical reason why this clause should not be passed in this form. Normally every claim in excess of R1 000 would go to the Supreme Court. If you had a claim of R9 000 then I think in almost every single case counsel would be employed. The attorney would instruct a barrister to appear in that matter because it is a matter of great importance. R9 000 is a lot of money. Our legal system recognizes that anything over R1 000 must be dealt with by a Judge. So you would employ counsel. Now, if you are the person whose land is being expropriated and you win your case —you are awarded a sum of money in excess of that which has been offered you by the State. In addition you get an order of costs, i.e. that the other side will pay your costs. Your costs have to be paid by the Other side. But it is the taxed cons. It is not the costs that you incur in having to pay your attorney and barrister for their fees. Those you have to pay. You cannot get all that back. You can only get back the taxed costs on the magistrate’s court scale. The taxed costs on the magistrate’s court scale as opposed to costs on the Supreme Court scale are I suppose about one-sixth or one-fifth. I have not got the exact figures but the hon. gentleman who has just sat down will know. In other words you are only going to recover one-fifth of the actual costs that you have expended, having won your case, in order to get justice in the court, That is a practical reason why it is undesirable to extend the jurisdiction in these matters to R10 000. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister is now satisfied and that he will in effect withdraw the clause.

This amendment is necessitated by the cost factor. We want to cover the public, the people whose land is being expropriated. The hon. member yesterday said that it was amended in 1968 from R1 000 to R3 000. It was actually in 1965, namely seven years ago. During that time the value of money deteriorated while land values appreciated. But if a man goes to the high court he needs two or three lawyers in most cases. It is more expensive. The hon. member mentioned the figure of R9 000. It is not about R9 000. Say, for instance, that we keep it at R3 000. We expropriate a person’s plot worth R4 000. Let us say he is not satisfied. The argument will centre around R1 000 and not the R4 000 or R9 000. In most of these cases where amounts are small we come to an agreement. Sometimes we say: “Come let us split the difference” or might even say: “Forget about it, it is only R500 extra, do not go to court.” It is really the cases in excess of R10 000 that normally go to court. But now you want to force people where there are small differences in value to go to a high, court. The hon. member for Zululand said that cases are dealt with much faster in the high court than in the magistrate's court. Our experience is the direct opposite. Who will be more capable of making a decision, the local magistrate or the Judge in a high court without any experience of what is happening in the vicinity where we are expropriating? In practice it does not work that way.

The hon. member asked whether the Minister of Justice was satisfied. We had discussions with him. He said that to be practical in view of today’s circimstances the amount ought to be altered from R3 000 to R10 000. The main purpose is to save the public’s money.

"Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. member for Kroonstad as a lawyer says he feels we must not accept the suggestion that this proposal should be amended. The people must protect themselves. As I said, if there is a matter which concerns farmers, the farmers support one another. Now the attorneys and advocates are supporting each other. Hon. members on that side of the House must appreciate my argument too. We can argue about this matter for a very long time. The hon. member said that the provision in the National Roads Act in respect of the costs of such a case has been increased from R3 000 to R10000. This is no argument. The same argument which applied to the amendment or the National Roads Act applies here as well This Parliament accepted the provision as such. If land is expropriated today for the purpose of building a road there, one is not going to argue about R500. We pay the amount which the owner of the land wants. In most cases we give him an extra R20 for the inconvenience suffered by him. The hon. member must therefore forgive me if I do not grant his request.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill contains proposed amendments which have, in the course of time, become necessary.

I Firstly, the existing definition of “department”, which in some respects is unsatisfactory, is being amended by clause I(a) of the draft Bill. In the existing definition a bureau of the Government, an office of the Government are referred to without making it clear that the bureau is also a department of State. In addition, the use of the words “department of State” instead of “department of the Government” adapts the language to the language of section 20 of our Constitution Act. In the existing definition a department is defined as a department which is already mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, i.e. a department which has already been established. In terms of section 6 (2) (a) of the Public Service Act, however, the recommendation of the Commission is required for the establishment of a department which is intended to be mentioned in the Schedule—at least, that was the intention. The proposed definition in clause 1 (a) makes this intention clearer. The words “provincial or other administration of the Government referred to” have already given rise to misunderstanding and the words “including a provincial administration or the administration of the territory” are being substituted. This amendment makes it clearer that the definition of “department” is being expanded to include as well the administrations which are not normally departments.

2. Clause 1 (b) makes provision for the insertion of the definition of “non-White authority”. The degree and form of self government of the non-White population groups differ, and so, too, do the bodies in authority, A definition which includes all these bodies is deemed to be necessary.

3. In view of the success which has already been achieved with the permanent appointment of married women and the retention in service of female staff in a permanent capacity after they had married, viz. the fact that the staff position had improved considerably as a result of that, the Public Service Commission concluded that it could to good effect delegate to departments the power conferred upon it by the Public Service Act in regard to the permanent appointment/permanent retention after marriage of female staff—as it has already done in respect of a number of its other powers. Such a step would eliminate delay and promote efficiency.

Section 14 (7) of the Public Service Act provides as follows—

However, section 5 (3) of the Public Service Act provides that the Commission may not delegate the powers conferred upon it, inter alia, by section 14 (7) of the Act. With a view to the necessity for the optimum utilization of trained and experienced manpower at this present juncture, and in order to ensure that decisions concerning the permanent appointment of married women /retention in service after marriage of female officers can he taken without delay, the removal of the said restriction is in every way justified.

Clause 2 makes provision for this.

4. As far as clause 3 is concerned, the Public Service Commission is not in terms of the provisions of the said sections of the principal Act required to have its annual report, which covers the period 1st January to 31st December, ready for tabling during the ensuing parliamentary session. However, it is deemed advisable that Parliament should be informed about the functions of the Commission and the staff position in the public service as early as possible. The office of the Commission is to a large extent dependent upon departments for supplying the statistics which are required for drawing up the report, precisely at that time of the year which is the busiest. Difficulty is continually experienced therefore with the finalization and printing of the report before the end of the ensuing session of Parliament. If the report year were to end on 30th June, it would not only reduce the pressure on departments, but would also reflect the staff position more accurately, which undergoes its greatest fluctuation during the period December to February. The intention is to cover a period of 18 months in the first report which will he drawn up after the statutory amendment has been passed.

5. (i) Clause 4 (a) amends the Act by the insertion of a subsection 5A through which provision is being made for the employment by departments of State of persons in the service of other governments, a non-White authority, hoard, etc. The recommendation of the Commission is stated to be a requirement here and the employment takes place on the conditions (excluding conditions laid down by or under a pension law) as may be approved by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Commission. This subsection is worded to cover all possible cases of secondment to the Public Service and not only Bantu in the employ of non-White authorities. It is felt that the conditions under which the employment takes place should be recommended by the Commission to preclude a seconded person retaining conditions of service which may differ fundamentally from those of his co-workers.

(ii) Clause 4 (to) makes provision for the transfer of non-White officers and employees in the public service to the service of non-White authorities. The intention is that with the establishment of “public services” of their own for the territorial authorities, all the Bantu staff at present in the service of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education, to whom functions have been entrusted, shall be transferred to the “public service” of their national unit in question with all the accompanying privileges, such as salary scales, conditions of service, pensions, etc., according to their own circumstances.

However, the two Republican departments will still have to make use of the services of Bantu officers in White rural and urban areas and it may sometimes be necessary for such Bantu officers to be seconded from the establishments of the Bantu territorial authorities in question to the two Republican departments in question, which will also in such cases be responsible: for the remuneration of the Bantu official in question.

The concluding remarks of the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that this Bill really belongs to the sphere of influence of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. When one examines this Bill from the point of view of the administration of the Public Service only clauses 1 (a), the definition of “department", clause 2, dealing with delegated authority in regard to women marrying when in service and clause 3 dealing with the annual report, have reference to normal Public Service Commission activities. Basically the provisions of these three clauses are unobjectionable and there are good reasons for their acceptance.

But when one strips the Bill of this superficial veneer then one sees what is in reality the main principle of this measure. This then takes us once more into the realms of fantasy of this Government and its Bantu policy. These provisions can only be understood by those who accept the Government’s policy of separate sovereign independent states.

To prove my statement let us examine the Bill. The definition of “non-White authority’’ needs some analysis. This definition now creates some five types of non-White authorities. The first three of these can be created under existing Bantu laws; under the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951; under the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act of 1968, and finally under the Bantu Homeland" Constitution Act of 1971. In view of these definitions, which Minister or ministry is primarily concerned with this legislation? I am sorry to see that neither the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration nor the hon. the Deputy Minister is present. in view of the fact that this is of such paramount importance for their departments. The fourth type of authority is an interesting one, i.e. the “Government of a territory which has been or is declared by or under an Act of Parliament to be a self-governing territory within the Republic” without it having any relation with the concept of sovereign independent states. The final authority introduces another interesting facet of thinking in an effort to tidy up the Public Service Commission in relation to Government policy, i.e. an institution or body with executive authority in respect of a specific non-White population group. I hope hon. members realize that we are not here dealing with any of the concepts of nationhood in so far as this authority is concerned.

Under the definition we now cover the whole spectrum of the race policies of the Government. We cover the spectrum of the various types of authorities so far as the Bantu peoples are concerned; we cover the idea of the separate nationhood of the South-West African non-White people; we cover the self-governing authorities within the territory of the Republic, and we finally come to authorities with executive powers over their own population groups. Sir, we on this side of the House would support communal councils with executive authority over their own population groups within the Republic; we accept it as part of our policy, and we realize that such communal councils exercising executive authority over matters which are of particular concern to their particular population group, would require a staff of civil servants to be available to them. But, Sir, we do not believe that the control can be divorced entirely from the Public Service Commission of the Republic. But, Sir, that is Government policy, and primarily this Bill has reference to the establishment of sovereign independent Bantu homelands. Is this reality? Let us turn to clause 4 of this Bill.

Why are you people so afraid?

Here we have the subterfuge of the hon. the Minister of the Interior introducing a measure; I do not say that it is a deliberate subterfuge, but the calmness with which it is introduced creates the impression that it is just a little matter of dealing with foreign governments when we know what “foreign governments” mean to that side of the House. But, Sir, I must not be led astray by the hon. member for Potchefstroom Sir, at first glance clause 4 would appear to have some merit, if one looks at it from the point of view of the employment, on secondment, by our Public Service Commission of officials from other governments, in other words, officials seconded to the Republic. One can recall practices of that nature in the past which have been of tremendous value to South Africa. One thinks of the years gone by when there was a teacher exchange system between South Africa and other countries, where teachers from South Africa were seconded to overseas countries and teachers from overseas, specialists in various aspects, were brought to South Africa. That system has merit and I agree that in so far as it was used at that time, it was a practical and useful practice, but that type of thing has been dropped by this Government. The secondment here is the secondment of a Xhosa from the Transkei Territorial Authority to come and do a job in Langa or Soweto or Guguletu. That is the secondment which is envisaged in this clause of the Bill.

The second portion of clause 4 deals with the transfer of persons to the service of a non-White authority. Those persons are trained here and they are then transferred to the Civil Service of the territory. And to that extent it has a certain amount of merit. But, Sir, when one examines these provisions in the light of the Government’s political thinking, then one finds that this Bill before us has many objectionable aspects. Sir, the new subsection (5A) in effect extends section 13 of the principal Act which provides for secondment out of the Republic, subject to certain protections as to salary and grade. At the moment, Sir, as you will be aware, secondment out of the Public Service of the Republic requires the consent of the individual concerned, and on transfer from one department to another there are statutory protections as to his grade and remuneration. Sir, this is done and it has been correctly done by us in the past. We have seconded South African civil servants to neighbouring countries to assist those countries in various technical capacities. One sees in the last available report of the Public Service Commission that an organizer of training in the Civil Service was seconded from our Public Service to the Public Service of Malawi; that is secondment out of the country. As far as the secondment of officials from other countries to our Public Service is concerned we have no difficulties; they come to this country and they are employed under the laws as they now stand cm a temporary or a special appointment basis while they are working in South Africa. We do not need this new subsection (5A) to enable us to take into our employment bona fide officials from foreign governments because they are employed here now for specific purposes. People are brought to this country to assist in research of a certain nature and there is no difficulty in employing those persons here temporarily, so one must ask oneself why this provision in the Bill is necessary. It becomes necessary, Sir, solely because of the introduction into this Bill of a non-White authority and because this is to apply to secondment of persons from a non-White authority to the Public Service of the Republic, It is not necessary, in the case of a pucea foreign country, to have this provision in our law at all.

That clause therefore is not necessary, but it only becomes necessary with reference to non-White authorities, because these authorities at present are part and parcel of the body politic of South Africa; they are not foreign. The Bantu authorities at the present time are not sovereign independent authorities; they are part and parcel of the body politic of South Africa, and just as the Public Service Commission controls a vast strata of officials employed by the provincial councils, it would remain the duty of the Public Service Commission to control the Public Service, While or non-White, of a Bantu authority, unless special legislation was passed to vary that provision. Sir, what the Government is trying to create in this Bill is the status and the aura of foreign authorities, of foreign governments, in the minds of members of this House for a constitutional fact that does not exist, in other words the creation of a fiction of foreigness and independence so far as these non-White authorities are concerned. Sir, that is a fiction because it is not a constitutional fact, and that is the very purpose of this clause which is now being brought in to deal with foreign authorities.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration were here I would remind him that what we are trying to do is to create what he always terms a de jure position out of a de facto situation. That is what we are trying to do now by this particular legislation. Sir, when one looks at clause 4 (b) which contains, the new subsection (7), one finds that it is a most interesting clause. First of all, it negates the safeguard in regard to non-Whites which exist at the present moment, in section 13 as regards consent by an official before he is seconded. This clause provides that a non-White officer or employee may be transferred, on the recommendation of the commission, to the service of a non-White authority on such conditions as may be prescribed on the recommendation of the commission. Sir, why are these non-White employees not to have the protection which is afforded to every other public servant? If one reads section 13 of that Act, one finds there that a secondment can only take place with the consent of the public servant concerned. This is an intrusion against the basic protection of a public servant of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. These people can now be transferred willy-nilly without their consent.

Nonsense!

That is so. Sir, whenever the hon. member for Brakpan finds himself not quite understanding what is going on, he says that it is nonsense. Let me take the hon. member through this quietly and calmly. If the hon. member will look at section 13 of the principal Act he will find that under the principal Act there can be no secondment without consent. There can be a transfer from one department to another but there can be no secondment. I will read to the hon. member section 13 (6)—

It is with his consent. I hope the honourable and enlightened member for Brakpan will show me where the consent of a non-White officer or employee is required under this new subsection (7). A civil servant can be transferred at the present time from one department to another, but not outside to another Government without his consent, subject to safeguards as regards pay under section 13 of the principal Act. But this clause in the Bill can create a new concept of transfer, because this is a transfer not within the Public Service Commission, or within the orbit of influence of the Public Service Commission, but it is out of the Public Service into the service of a foreign authority, with its own public service, and there are no safeguards whatsoever in so far as that person is concerned. He is transferred on the basis on which the Commission decides, not the basis that that particular employee or official of the Public Service is prepared to accept. If one goes further and looks at the proviso, the provios is worthless. The provios says that until any law in force within the territory of the non-White authority provides otherwise— that is, until the law of the new controlling authority provides otherwise—he shall he protected as regards leave and pension rights. In other words, the non-White public servant who is in the employ of the Public Service Commission of the Republic of South Africa can be transferred to the Public Service Commission of the Transkei, and he immediately becomes subject to whatever provisions may there be imposed by the Public Service Commission of the Transkei. He no longer has the protection and the safeguards which he enjoys at present as an employee of the Republic.

Sir, I want to say that I find some saving grace in this Bill. These things can happen to these persons, but I think we should have no fear that that fate will befall the non-White officers and employees of the Public Service of South Africa at the present time, because they must be retained; their services are required in the Republic of South Africa in the jobs which they are doing at present. Paragraph (b), I feel sure, will not be applied to a single non-White official or employee of the Public Service without simultaneous application of paragraph (a), and that is that the official becomes seconded back to the Public Service of the Republic of South Africa simultaneously. This fits in with the fictional thinking of the Government. Let us say a teacher, who is working for the Bantu Education Department, and who is teaching in a school in Guguletu in the Cape and now falls under the control of the Public Service Commission, is a Xhosa. Under the fictional thinking of the Government he is a citizen of the Transkei. He is also a citizen and a national of the Republic, but he is a citizen of the Transkei. So that Bantu is now transferred without his consent. He is put on the list of the Civil Service of the Transkei, and simultaneously he is brought back into the service of the Republic of South Africa on secondment. The Bantu does not move. He does not leave his job. He does not have to move out of his house, and he does not have to miss one class. But in the process of that, the fictional thinking of the Government has now been achieved, and this main is now I an employee of the Transkei; he is now a public servant of the Transkei seconded to the Republic of South Africa to serve the Xhosas in Guguletu. He is no longer a problem of ours, and he is removed from the Public Service list of South Africa. He is a seconded official from a foreign state. It is very interesting when one thinks of this process taking place, because when one looks at the question of secondment and transfer to these non-White authorities, according to the report of the Public Service Commission on 31st December, 1969, non-Whites under the control of the Public Service Commission totalled 66 905 and they represented 42 per cent of the total number of officials and employees under the control of the Public Service Commission.

Now I can appreciate that any Nationalist purist will consider that it is a blatant example of integration that 42 per cent of the Public Service of South Africa, under the control of our Public Service Commission, should be non-White. It spoils the whole illusion of separateness; it is too factual, and it is for this reason only that this type of legislation is being brought into this House. These provisions of clause 4 can and will in practice provide that by a bookkeeping entry, a journal entry, or a re-sorting of the computer cards in the computer of the Public Service Commission, all non-White civil servants will disappear or can disappear. They can go to the authority which looks after the Cape Coloureds. They can be transferred to the authority looking after the nations of South-West Africa. They can be removed from the records and there will remain a nominal roll of the Public Service of South Africa, which is pure, unsullied and White. But 42 per cent of that Civil Service will in fact remain non-White, working in South Africa and doing the same jobs without having being disrupted for one moment of their time and their work. The Xhosa teacher at Langa, the Zulu clerk in Durban, and the Shangaan on one of the ships— and will the hon. member for Potchefstroom take note that this applies also to the services—will de jure no longer be employed by the South African Republican Civil Service but de facto they will carry on doing the jobs which they have been doing the whole time. And to achieve this happy result, the Deputy Minister will be plaguing—I am glad to see the Deputy Minister is here—the Minister of the Interior that he and his Commission should create these departments and see to it that these transfers take place, and that on paper the Civil Service of die separate non-White authorities is established, with their whole staff seconded back to the Republic of South Africa. Sir, we cannot support this measure and will vote against it.

After having listened to the hon. member for Green Point one is at first inclined to think that he said such a great deal and yet said nothing. But I do not want to say that of the hon. member. I think that if one analyses very accurately what he said this morning, it is really frightening—and I shall return to this again in the second half of my speech—when one realizes what the Opposition actually have in mind by opposing this Bill in principle. I found it amazing that, although certain amendments are being made to the original Act in this Bill, the hon. member actually had so little to say about clauses 2 and 3. That is to my mind proof that the moment one discusses the Bantu and the solution to our problems there, these hon. members simply become blind to all the other assets which are after all included in this Bill.

We cannot deal with fantasy.

The fact that a change is being effected in clause 2 of the Bill in respect of the delegation of powers of the Public Service Commission to others, is very important, and I think the hon. member ought to have discussed it, and I hope other hon. members will. It proves once again the importance this side of the House attaches to the Public Service in our society. I have mentioned previously in this House, and I want to mention it again, that in 1965 the late Dr. Verwoerd replied at Loskop Dam to the question of how the White civilization in South Africa could survive. One of his reasons was the presence of a sound Public Service. I think that hon. members on the opposite side do not want to appreciate sufficiently the value of our Public Servants, particularly in respect of these changes in which die emphasis is being placed on the role of the women in our Public Service. One ought on this occasion, where the emphasis falls on the women, to express a word of gratitude in respect of the role women have played in our Public Service and the increasing importance of the role which they will still have to play in future. I want to slate this morning that in Pretoria in particular, where the Public Service is concentrated, the inhabitants of Pretoria are beginning to realize the role which women play there without neglecting their normal functions. That is why I think this change is important. It will make the Public Service far more streamlined, and it will make the functioning of our Public Service far more efficient if a woman, when she marries, does not automatically lose her permanent role.

I should like to dwell for a few moments on the argument raised here by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the proposed sections 3 and 4, Once again the hon. member immediately wanted to drag in Bantu Administration in this connection to play a little politics in regard to their solution to our racial and population problem in South Africa. It is very interesting to observe what the views of the hon. members of the Opposition are on the Public Service in South Africa, particularly in relation to the race problem we have in South Africa. In this connection the National Party adopts the premise that since there is a variety of different kinds of peoples one can only find a solution to this matter with a policy of separate development. Because the Opposition does not view the problem in this light, the hon. member for Green Point attacks us when we want to adopt the course of principles, which the National Party adopted a long time ago, in regard to the development and progress of the non-Whites in our State administration as well. The United Party really sees South Africa, and therefore the Public Service and also the functioning of the Public Service Commission, as an integrated unit. In other words, they see it as a unit in our State administration in regard to which there is no distinction between race and people. That was what the basic attack which the hon. member for Green Point made on us consisted of, when he referred in certain terms to this legislation. During his entire discussion this morning the hon. member for Green Point did not really say anything about the nature of the role of the non-Whites in our State administration at the moment, and what it should be in future in terms of their policy. That is the gist, the crux of our discussion. He advanced many minor arguments which were very superficial, hut the hon. member and the speakers who are going to follow him, must deal with this fundamental point and tell us what role the non-Whites are going to play in the State administration in terms of their policy. The hon. member said that they accept that the non-Whites must perform certain work on a provincial level. However, that was never their policy in the past. Their policy was only published in the yellow booklet because the National Party forced them at that stage to accept our policy. It is very easy now for the hon. member to say: “We are going to deal with the non-Whites up to that level”. But the hon. member and the speakers who are going to follow him, must go further. They most tell us what the role of the non- Whites is going to be in the whole central organization of our State administration.

The hon. member also spoke about “the realms of fantasy”. It was he who began this discussion of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. That is why the hon. member asked: “Where is the Minister then?”. Does the hon. member think that the Minister of the Interior would have introduced such a Bill without having held thorough consultations in advance with the other Ministers and departments involved in this matter? Sir, I want to tell you that this Bill is clearly in line with the solution which the National Party offers for our racial and population situation. In that respect I agree with the hon. member, for the National Party does not do a thing like this without its being based on principles and without bearing in mind the ultimate ideals we cherish for our country. These amendments to the legislation are rendering a service to the Bantu. They bring to those Bantu who want to make a career of State administration all the benefits which the present Public Service Commission brings to White officials, benefits which we find in State administrations throughout the entire Western world. In other words, for virtually the first time in the history of Africa the Bantu of South Africa are now being afforded an opportunity of being introduced, on the soundest basis, to State administration in the Western world. It is therefore an important aspect we are dealing with here. Sir having now mentioned this general principle. I must point out that all the study material, all the methods and all the organization which is already being supplied by the Public Service Commission within the White State administration is now going to be supplied in a much more effective way to the Bantu. This is also in line with the National Party policy of trusteeship, in terms of which we want to lead these people to a specified point. Another important aspect is that, with this amendment, the Bantu are also being afforded an opportunity to develop leadership talents in respect of this facet of State administration. This is a very important matter, and we are doing it in such a way that no ceiling will be established for these Bantu in the State administration. That is precisely what would happen under the policy of that side of the House.

Through these amendments the Bantu are being offered a greater variety of work opportunities. Just think how many possible occupations there are for any White person in the State machinery. Now we are establishing all the possible occupations which exist for the Whites for the Bantu as well in their various ethnic units. A world of possible occupations is now being opened to the Bantu. That choice is so tremendous, so phenomenal and so far-reaching that we will in this way promote stability in the future development of the various Bantu groups. In other words, this Bill brings greater benefits not only to the individual Bantu, but also to the various Bantu communities.

Another very important point is that it will also relieve the pressure on our White labour. At present there are many Whites who have for many years been performing certain duties very efficiently for the Bantu. Now we will have an opportunity to replace many of those Whites with Bantu and to use them in an effective way in the White State administration. In other words, it will also to a certain extent be possible to alleviate the shortage in our own Public Service. We are rendering a service to the general South African community, in that we are in this way eliminating unnecessary points of friction.

Another important point is that this Bill is based on the principle of trusteeship in respect of the Bantu. This is a policy which will lead to the independence of the various Bantu groups, in contrast to the policy which the hon. member for Green Point nurtures in his bosom, but does not state, namely a policy of White domination which is in the long run going to force them under pressure to allow integration, or a policy of White domination which in this country will lead to a revolution. That hon. member can laugh about it now, but he shall have to ponder very thoroughly what his ideals in respect of this matter are.

There is another point I want to raise. The hon. member is tremendously opposed to this legislation now. But what is the position at the moment in respect of Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana? Do we not find that some of our White public servants are being transferred to those countries to give assistance there? Are not our own Bantu then in a far more privileged position, because we are making our White officials available to them from the very outset? From that it also follows that as these people fill their own Public Service vacancies, they will to a far greater extent be able to serve their own people. With retrospect effect we will also find that if there are a large number of Zulu, Xhosa or Venda who as a result of the circumstances of their work have to remain within the White areas, some of those people will then be able to go from here to serve their own people, as could also theoretically be the case in regard to a large number of Malawians or Swazis who are working here.

By way of summary I want to say that the National Party is, with these amendments, continuing to ensure that the State machinery in our country functions smoothly and efficiently. We are also establishing a Public Service among the non-White peoples and are training public servants that will, in the most efficient way possible, be of assistance to the Government of those areas—to whatever stage they may have developed—as well as to the individuals of those communities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik started by criticizing the hon. member for Green Point for not having addressed the House on clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this Bill. I do not know what more the hon. member wanted. The hon. member for Green Point said that we supported those clauses. If we are in agreement with those clauses, must we make a long speech about them? After all, they are very simple clauses. There is nothing to them. What the hon. member for Rissik wanted the hon. member for Green Point to do, was to thank the women for what they do for the Service. But the women know that on this side of the House we have the champions of the women who have always fought for the rights of the women and for the advancement of women. It is not necessary for this side of the House to assure the women that we have their interests at heart. But it does become necessary for that side of the House to do it every now and then.

The hon. member for Rissik must be very naive or he must think that we are. He asked us whether we do not think that there is the closest consultation with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Does the hon. member want this side of the House, or the country, or even his own colleagues to believe that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is responsible for this clause? How did this clause get in this Bill? There sits one of the instigators, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I use the word instigator, because this does not affect the security of the State. I use it in regard to the change of this legislation. The other one …

What do you mean by “the other one”?

I am trying to think of another word for “fiend”. Perhaps the hon. member can help me. Anyway, the main instigator of this clause is not here. It is quite obvious that this amendment is being made at the request of the Bantu Affairs Department and nobody else. I bet the hon. the Minister of the Interior never thought of this. In discussing another Bantu Bill the other day, I said that the only good point I could see in the Bill was that we were probably coming to the end of Bantu legislation, because the department had taken over so much power that there was nothing else they could do. But how wrong I was! The initiative and ingenuity of this department amaze us. They are always thinking of something else.

You will see next year how wrong you were today.

Clause 4 of this Bill is the only clause that matters. It is the only clause on which I wish to address the House. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member who has just spoken, only dealt with the Bantu. But as I read this clause, it is not only Bantu civil servants who can be transferred. What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

It is there.

Yes, it is there, but there is no mention of them by members opposite. The hon. the Minister only referred to the Bantu.

No, read my speech. It is a comprehensive clause.

As far as I can remember, the hon. the Minister only referred to the Bantu in his speech. The hon. member for Rissik will certainly not deny that he only dealt with the Bantu. If one reads this clause properly, one sees that it can also apply to Coloureds, Indians and other population groups. But they are of no importance, because only the Bantu have been referred to by the speakers on that side of the House. When this Bill comes into operation we will see how many other groups are transferred to the various boards. I say now that we will find that it will only be the Bantu.

No, I have Indians in my department.

But will they be transferred? Which civil service do they work for?

They work for the Department of Indian Affairs.

Do they come under the Public Service Commission?

Yes, of course.

Will they be transferred?

You said that this Bill only refers to Bantu.

No, I did not say that. I said the Bill can also refer to Coloureds and Indians, but they are not mentioned. Only the Bantu are mentioned. Once this Bill is passed, we will find that as either the lesser authorities are established under the Bantu Authorities Act or the major authorities or governments under the Bantu Homelands Act or other Acts under which these authorities are established, the Bantu civil servants in the White areas will be transferred to these authorities.

Do you want me to repeat what I have said? Do you want me to repeat it?

The Minister will reply to this debate and he can then deal with this matter. As these authorities are established, so the Bantu civil servants in the White areas will he transferred to those authorities, although not physically. They will remain here and do what they are doing now. Consequently, their transfer will only be a journal entry, a figure in different books. Otherwise nothing will change, not for the time being at any rate. All Bantu civil servants are classified as belonging to one population group or another; they are citizens of some or other fictitious state and have dual citizenship. It is quite easy to transfer them now, say to the Transkei, the Ciskei or the Zululand Bantu Authority and as those authorities get their own civil service these Bantu civil servants at present serving in the White areas will be transferred to those territorial authorities.

The hon. member for Rissik said we ought to accept this as offering real opportunities for the Bantu. But what opportunities are being offered? They will still be doing the same work, whether as teachers or in any other job. All that is being done is that they are being transferred on paper. But should there be such wonderful opportunities as the hon. member says, why is it necessary to bring in this legislation? Surely, if the opportunities in the Bantu homelands are so wonderful, these Bantu civil servants would of their own accord apply to be transferred there; they would not have to be transferred against their will and without their consent. This is what is going to happen now—they are not going to have any choice.

I think this situation is unique anywhere in the world, where a Government goes out of its way to pass special legislation enabling it to transfer civil servants willy-nilly to some other Government, willy-nilly and without giving them protection. Because what protection are they going to get? The proviso to this clause means nothing. They will only be protected till the Authority to which they are transferred passes its own laws in regard to salaries, pension rights and that sort of thing. Is that the way to treat civil servants? When the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration transferred certain servants recently he did not do this type of thing, but went out of his way to protect them.

But they will be protected here too.

How? Let us look again at the proviso, at the new subsection being introduced by clause 4 (b) of this Bill. It says, inter alia—

As soon as the other government passes its own law in regard to pension and leave, that law will apply to these servants and may even effect them detrimentally, because they may then get less than they are getting now.

You know better than that.

Why does the hon. member say that?

Don’t you know that these things are arranged?

What things? Once these civil servants are transferred from our public service to the public service of some other state, for instance to the Transkei …

But the Transkei civil servants have been transferred long ago.

I am trying to illustrate what may happen. The Transkei Government has its own regulations …

Why did what you fear will happen here not happen in the Transkei?

Because the Transkei Government did not reduce their conditions of service it does not mean that they may not still do that in future. Why is it then that the Deputy Minister took such pains when he introduced the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill to protect the officials whom that Bill affected? Why did he have special provisions in that Bill to protect them? The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that (hat matter was discussed here at some length and that he even accepted amendments. As a matter of fact, he went out of his way to ensure that those administration servants were protected. That Bill provided that the Minister could take over Bantu administration of the Bantu townships from local authorities. Obviously he needed staff to do that and, consequently, provided that the present staff of the local authorities would be seconded to him for six months, within which period he would have to make an otter to those officials.

You understand that Bill much better than this one.

I am pointing out what is lacking in this Bill. In any event, that offer of the hon. the Minister cannot be less than what they were getting from the local authority concerned. And if they were not prepared to accept his offer they could not be forced and the local authority concerned would have to find alternative work for them, work which must not be less remunerative than their previous positions. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister was so concerned about satisfying these people that he even accepted an amendment …

Order! Yes, but we are not discussing that Bill now.

The point I am trying to make, Sir, is that a similar provision ought to be inserted in this Bill as well. Our point is that under this Bill civil servants are not being protected. What we would like to see is the inclusion in this Bill of provisions similar to those of the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill. I referred to that Bill as an example of how civil servants ought to be treated when transferred from one authority to another. In terms of the existing Act a civil servant cannot be transferred from one department to another unless he is transferred at the same salary or for more, but he cannot be transferred at a lesser salary. In this Bill before us no such protection is being given. Servants can be transferred from one service to another without any protection whatsoever.

When business was suspended I was dealing with the terms of employment of the officials who will be transferred from the Civil Service of our Government to the civil services of the different Bantu authorities and bodies, and I pointed out that in terms of this Bill before us there was no protection given to them. In fact, they are not given the protection that is given to other public servants under our Public Service Act, which we are now amending, or under the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, where servants are transferred from one body to another. In all those instances their rights are protected and I submit that in this case their rights are not protected. Sir, the point is this: They can be transferred without their consent to another service. This is all part of the ideological plan of the Government. The illusion is created that there are going to be no Bantu in the White areas and that the Bantu we see there are in fact not there. We will again have the argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the de facto position and the de jure position. I see he nods his head. He is working it out.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill and confine himself to the Public Service.

I submit. Sir, that whether they are here de facto of de jure they will in fact continue to remain here, doing the work that they are doing now as civil servants or teachers, although they will be transferred to the Transkei Civil Service, for instance, without moving physically at all. Under this Bill they will continue to work here on the same conditions until the Transkei Government passes another law. So the question is whether they are here de jure or de facto. This Bill, Sir, is a paper apartheid. These people are described as citizens of another country, although they are working here, doing the work that they should be doing as ordinary citizens of this State, in the White area, administering to the needs of citizens in the White area …

And under the laws of the White area.

… and under the laws of the White area. On paper they will be citizens of another slate and here on a temporary basis. I say that this bit of legislation, sponsored by the Minister of Bantu Administration, is an attempt to prove that the policy of apartheid, of taking all the Bantu out of the White areas, is succeeding, whereas it is not. The hon. member for Rissik mentioned integration. Surely I am entitled to deal with this question of integration in the Civil Service. The fact is that there is more and more integration, not only economic integration, but also integration in the Government service, every day in the White areas and that is what the hon. member for Rissik referred to. He said that we wanted to continue this integration, while they wanted the separation to be complete, and that that was the difference between our two parties. Sir, I submit that merely to put them down on paper as servants of another government seconded to us does not end integration. They are still here in our Civil Service.

Order! That is not the point in the Bill.

I am sorry, Sir; the hon. member for Rissik was not stopped when be mentioned this. He dealt with this at great length.

Order! I am ordering the hon. member now not to proceed along those lines. He must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Sir, I submit that I am dealing with the contents of the Bill. The fact is that these Bantu will be working in the White areas as civil servants.

Which clause are you referring to?

Clause 4 (b). They are working here at present. In terms, of this clause they can be transferred to the Public Service of the Transkei Government or the Authority in Zululand, or the Ciskei, or to any of the other Authorities. Then in terms of paragraph (a), they can be brought back to continue working where they are at the moment.

The hon. member for Rissik said that this would relieve the shortage of White civil servants. I see him nodding his head. That is what he said. I submit that that is not true. They will not help to relieve the shortage of White civil servants, because they will continue to do the same work that they are doing at present. The White civil servants working in the Transkei, the Ciskei, in Zululand or wherever they may be, will still continue to work there because they are seconded to those authorities. That has nothing to do with the provisions of this Bill. This Bill does not provide for White officials. It only affects the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian civil servants. It is therefore not going to relieve the shortage of White civil servants. I submit that this Bill is not going to relieve any situation. It is not going to solve any of our problems, and that is why I called it “paper apartheid”. It is just an illusion to pretend that these people are not here.

Mr. Chairman, it has been a long time I last heard the hon. member for Transkei discuss a matter and, in my humble opinion, flounder about to such an extent as he did this afternoon. I shall i v to prove that statement. He said, in the first place, that this Bill was an example of “paper apartheid”. Allow me to mention to that hon. member, as example, what Prof. Ntsanwise, at present chief councillor and if the legislation in question is made applicable to them, also Prime Minister of the Shangaan people in the Northern Transvaal, told the Dutch public when he and Dr. Van Zyl, the Secretary for Bantu Education, recently visited the Netherlands. When Dr. Van Zyl put the policy of apartheid to the Dutch, there was still a measure of doubt. Questions were asked, etc. Then Prof. Ntsanwise stood up and said that he and Dr. Van Zyl had grown up on the same farm and that they had played together as children, amongst other things with knuckle bones, etc. He also told how there had been a secret rivalry between them. Dr. Van Zyl attended his school, and Prof. Ntsanwise attended another school. Dr. Van Zyl made progress, and subsequently became a teacher. A long time after that Ntsanwise also became a teacher, but when he became a teacher, Dr. Van Zyl had already been promoted further. He was at that time already deputy secretary of the Department of Bantu Education.

Prof. Ntsanwise then told the Dutch public that he had thought that he would never again be able to catch up with Dr. Van Zyl, But then, as a result of the fact that this Government established their own Bantu university for them, he succeeded in becoming professor at Turfloop. But even then he was still far behind Dr. Van Zyl. [Interjection,] Just allow me to make my point please. You spoke about paper apartheid. Prof. Ntsanwise went on to tell the Dutchmen that Dr. Van Zyl subsequently became Secretary of the Department. Again he. Prof. Ntsanwise, thought that he would never be able to catch up with Dr. Van Zyl. But, as he related: ‘‘Then we got our own Government. My people had to elect a Prime Minister, and they elected me as Prime Minister. Then I had passed Dr. Van Zyl, because Dr. Van Zyl will never be able to become Prime Minister of his people!” [Interjections.] Is that paper apartheid? Sir, now they are laughing at this. I want to inform those hon. members that that story Prof. Ntsanwise told made a great impression on the Dutch audience, Sir, the ignorance which exists on that side of the House in regard to the application of this policy of multi-national development, can sometimes be abysmal. We shall have to do something to enable those members to go and have a look for themselves at what progress is being made in respect of this matter.

That hon. member has now asked what new opportunities this Bill will offer the Bantu Public Servants, He said: “They will do the same work. They will only be transferred to the Bantu homeland Government and their own civil services.” But surely it is the most blatant ignorance to talk like that, and for this simple reason. Does the hon. member for Transkei not know that in the Transkei, as long ago as 1963, officials like these were transferred to the establishment of the Transkeian Government, that this has been the position for eight years now and that it is a brilliant success, and does he not know that in the Transkei there are already two Bantu magistrates with an entirely Bantu staff, and that a third is shortly to be appointed? [Interjections.] Surely a magistrate is a public servant. He said: “There will be no new opportunities.” Would the hon. member tell us whether he thinks a Bantu can become a magistrate in White South Africa? But in the Transkei there are already two, with their entire staff, and a third is to be appointed next month. As they become capable of occupying those positions, they are appointed to them. But the hon. member asked what new opportunities there were.

In the homeland governments these Bantu public servants can go on to become full-fledged secretaries of their departments. There are at this stage already six departments, and the Transkei will be getting more, but there are six in all the other ethnic government public services. They can go on to become full-fledged secretaries of the departments. Not only with the emolument attached to that position, but also the status and the housing and all the other things attached to it. They can go on to become deputy secretaries of their departments, and all the other ranks from there on down. Now I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if the hon. member for Transkei does not want to reply … [Interjections.] Do not be so hurt when I ask a fair question. Answer my question.

What is the question?

Would a Bantu in White South Africa become secretary of a department? And then the Leader could also tell us of which department.

What ban that to do with the Bill?

But this is what the hon. members opposite side call paper apartheid …

Order! I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

The contents of this Bill are precisely, with all due respect, to enable these Bantu people to go on to occupy positions in the Public Service in their own homeland governments which they cannot occupy in White South Africa and to which they cannot attain. My objection is that the hon. member complained here, saying: “What new opportunities will there be for the Bantu?” What he implied is not true, Sir.

Let me now furnish hon. members with the background to this Bill. Then they will see that what this entire matter amounts to is that we had no alternative but to come forward with this Bill. I repeat that this has been the situation in the Transkei since as long ago as 1963. All Bantu teachers in the Department of Bantu Education have in terms of the Bantu Education Act for several years already been transferred to their homeland governments, with excellent results. This is therefore no new principle at issue here. But let me now illustrate this matter to the hon. members on the opposite side by way of a practical example. The work which many Bantu public servants normally do in White South Africa is for example the same as is being done at Hammanskraal. I am just mentioning this as an example, because the same thing is happening in Vendaland and Shanganiland and all the other homelands; but I am taking Hammanskraal, which is not far from Pretoria, as an example. This is in the homeland and the work was transferred to the Tswana territorial authority, which is now in terms of this Bantu self-government Act which was passed here this year going to become the Tswana Legislative Assembly.

Now, at Hammanskraal, at the moment, we still have one White in charge and we have two White assistants. Because the work is being transferred to the Territorial Authority of the Tswana people, as it has been transferred to the authorities of the other peoples, and because this Tswana homeland will now become a legislative assembly and will have its own Public Service, they have to occupy positions such as those of tax-collectors and staff which have to be employed in that taxation division at Hammanskraal. Otherwise the work cannot proceed. They must, for example, establish a department dealing with land, and they must appoint people to this department who will occupy all the necessary grades. Public servants must also be appointed in the charge offices, which are also being transferred to the homeland governments.

The homeland government is also being entrusted now with the responsibility for its own Public Service. That is why they must man their own Public Service. Posts in the charge offices and the courts must be filled. The clerk of the court and other staff must be appointed. At Hammanskraal we already have a Bantu who even holds court. So I can continue to mention scores of examples of posts which must be filled in the homelands. Since this work now has to be transferred to the homeland governments, the position which forms the basis of this Bill is that without this Bill we would have had to keep on doing one of two things ad infinitum: The Bantu, for example, who occupy those positions in our service at Hammanskraal, we would have had to dismiss. After all, we would not then have that work for them any more. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance. After all, it would be prejudicial to those Bantu if we had to dismiss them.

Why should they be dismissed? Surely they can be transferred?

Because that work is now being transferred to the homeland government, we have no other alternative than to come forward with this Bill. That is why the Bantu self-government Act in the Transkei made provision for this from that very outset, and with excellent results for eight years. We do not want to dismiss the Bantu officials because that would be unfair to them. The only alternative was therefore to come forward with this Bill, for what have we done in the meantime? On the basis of our fair approach to the Bantu we have kept these Bantu in service and have loaned them to the territorial authorities of the Tswana and others. But we cannot continue to loan those officials to them, because it would be unfair to the Bantu. That is why we are now making it possible for that territorial authority to employ those Bantu themselves and to include them in their own establishments, with all the benefits attached to that. If the hon. members understand this, they will not make such nonsensical remarks as hon. members made this afternoon.

You make it sound as if it is.

I am simply giving the hon. member the facts. If he does not like them, there is nothing I can do about it. That is why I say that there is nothing new in this principle. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed, provision was made for transferring Bantu officers.

The hon. member also discussed the protection of rights. In this regard the facts are simply that the proviso to subsection (7), which hon. members may as well read, protects pension and other rights until the authorities determine otherwise. What other legislation would determine otherwise? While I am dealing with this, I just want to point out that it was I who piloted through the Pensions Act for the Bantu authorities this year. The hon. member who was waxing so eloquent this afternoon, did not have a word to say when that Act was being discussed. The Opposition did not even oppose that Act. The only member who discussed it, was the hon. member for Umbilo. In anticipation of this Bill, the Act made provision for the protection of the rights of these Bantu. I can remember that that hon. member Mr. Oldfield, rose and asked whether there would be a fundamental difference, and whether the Bantu would not be worse off. We then gave him the assurance that the rights of such Bantu would be protected and that they would under no circumstances be worse off. In addition, a set of staff regulations have already been published for each territorial authority, regulations which have been cast in the mould of the Public Service Regulations. Just now, when I asked the hon. member a question in regard to the Transkei, he said: Yes, but the Transkei is now being protected by the Public Service Regulations. I am now informing the hon. member that in respect of each of these other homeland governments regulations have been promulgated which were cast in the same mould as the Public Service Regulations. They are protected by these regulations. All these regulations are the same and the Venda regulations, for example, provide inter alia that (translation):

Read the Bill.

But I have just read the regulation now. But now the hon. member is telling the kind of story he told this afternoon. In regard to the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, which was piloted through this Parliament earlier this Session, the hon. member said that we were looking after the interests and welfare of those officials very scrupulously in that legislation. That is true. Section 10 of that Act does so in a wonderful manner. I was very glad today to receive that compliment from hon. members opposite. I am only sorry they did not compliment me when the legislation was being discussed.

We did.

Then I say thank you.

Do the same thing now in this Bill.

That is precisely the point I want to come to now. We are trying to do precisely the same thing in this legislation in respect of the Bantu officials.

Why is it not stated in the Bill?

But I have just told the hon. member that earlier on in this Session a Pensions Act was piloted through this Parliament which applied only to Bantu officials. That Pensions Act protects their rights and ensures that they will not be worse off than they are at present in the service of the Public Service of the Republic. Does the hon. member want to make another interjection in that regard now, or does he admit it now?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? It is not possible for the Transkeian Government to alter its laws in regard to pensions and emoluments?

But of course they can do that. If they do that, they are doing it in respect of their own people and then it will not be my or anyone else's responsibility. After all, they also have an obligation now to look after their own welfare. But we, on our part, are protecting these people’s rights, exactly as was done in the Bantu administration legislation.

But [ want to go even further. In terms of ex sting regulations one of the functions of the Commission is to make recommendations concerning the scales of salaries, wages and allowances of all the various classes and grades of officers and employees. Surely such a commission will not do its work in an irresponsible manner. Surely it will take those salary scales into account. It will not allow an official to be transferred at a lower salary. In this way we are directing a friendly request and instructions to the Commission that it should not do this. Therefore we are in fact looking after the welfare of these people as we have in fact done in the other cases. As soon as a start is made with public services of their own, the question of salaries will of course have to be considered. It is self-evident that these will have to be adjusted to the corresponding scales in the Public Service; otherwise the staff will not be attracted. If the salary scale is not attractive enough, how would one be able to attract staff? It is also obvious that in the same way as pension and leave rights have already been protected, so the salaries of those who have been transferred will also be protected by means of adjustment to appropriate scales and recognition of former service in the Public Service. My standpoint has been, from the beginning, that when such transfers are made, I prefer the person who is being transferred to be better off to the tune of one notch than under the old dispensation.

The hon. member for Green Point and others as well, made the point that it would be possible to transfer these officials summarily and that they have no say it? the whole set-up. But that is not true. The staff cannot simply be transferred summarily. The provision in question reads that the officer or employee may, when the public interest so requires, “be transferred, on the recommendation of the Commission, to the service of a non-White authority on such conditions as may be prescribed on the recommendation of the Commission ..

He has no say.

I am trying to explain to the hon. members that what they said is not true. I am now telling the hon. members that the legislation provides that the Commission has the final say. From this it appears in the first instance that the provision is empowering. That the hon. members for Green Point and Transkei should be able to understand, because I think they are attorneys. The provision is therefore empowering. The hon. members may as well read it and look into the matter. The persons may be transferred, ..

Yes.

It is not being stated that he shall be transferred.

Without his consent.

Very well; he may be transferred, but there are no sanctions if he refuses to go. The hon. members cannot show me any sanction in that clause which is directed at the man who does not want to leave, hon. members may as well try, so that I can see it. There are no sanctions. In addition the transfer depends on whether the authority to which he is being transferred, is willing to accept him. That is therefore the second requirement. Thus, this clause is simply an empowering clause. The person may he transferred, but for the rest the transfer depends on whether the authority to whom he is being transferred, the homeland authority, is willing to have him. There can be no transfer if the authority does not want that person. What results from this is surely very clearly that such a Bantu official must in the first instance be willing to go, because no one will want to employ an unwilling official. Surely that is self-evident. In addition it appears from that clause that transfer must take place “when the public interest so requires”. That is the third requirement. Why did the hon. member not inform the House of this? From this it appears very clearly that there is only one body that can decide whether it is in the public interest or not, and that is the Public Service Commission. Transfers may only take place on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.

Elaborate a little on that. What is the basis?

It is in the public interest, for example, that an official is not forced against his will to go anywhere, Otherwise you are left with a lot of unwilling horses.

No.

But of course. If the hon. member would tell me what they are trying to get at, I shall reply to him on that.

It is not in the public interest.

I am mentioning this as one example of the public interest. The Public Service Commission is a responsible body and with these three requirements which I have just stated and which are included in the legislation, surely it is clear that it is not correct to say that an official may be summarily transferred, and that that is the end of the story. There are three very important requirements which have to be complied with, and then in addition there is a responsible body involved, namely the Public Service Commission. With such a body it is surely very clear that the hon. members are quite wrong in their view of this matter, and that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.

There is still a fourth requirement. It is that a transfer can only take place “on such conditions as may be prescribed on the recommendation of the Commission”. Therefore the hon. member for Green Point is quite wrong if he wants to create the impression that the Commission exercises no control over this. The Commission continues to exercise control at all times. I want to repeat that this is a very responsible body, or does the hon. member want to say that the Public Service Commission is not a responsible body?

Transfer is without consent.

Because this matter deals with the development of the Bantu homelands, they just want to arouse suspicions in regard to the matter. That is all hon. members on the opposite side want to do. That is why I want to say with the greatest emphasis that the Commission will exercise supervision and control throughout, and that it is hardly conceivable that the Commission will give its approval to any conditions which are fundamentally prejudicial to persons being transferred. That is why I am grateful to be able to say that the conditions which we have applied to the Bantu Administration Act are also being applied in this legislation, as far as possible.

Lastly, I just want to say that we will not proceed in a haphazard way here. We are not simply going to transfer all Bantu Public Servants, even in Bantu Administration and Development, to these homeland governments at one go. This will be done gradually, as the need arises and as the vacancies arise in the homelands with the increasing responsibilities that are being conferred on them, so that the officials who are now in the White Public Service may in that way, which I think is a very fine, reasonable, fair and humane manner, he transferred to their various public service departments.

Order! I have been listening to a lot of repetition and I want hon. members now to raise new points of argument.

Mr. Speaker, you will, I hope, allow me to reply to one or two new points which have been raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Now all is revealed to us. We were in some doubt before the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke as to the true parenthood of this Bill. It was introduced, we now find, by a proxy father. The true father has now been found. He stands before us. We need no blood tests, because he is a self-confessed father. His paternity is now obvious to all. Well. Sir, the father is none other than our old favourite illusionist, the Houdini of modern-time politics in South Africa.

I think the hon. member can come back to the child now.

We have had some very interesting arguments from the Minister. These arguments do, if you will allow me to say so, contain an element of illusion. First of all, the hon. the Deputy Minister takes the attitude, in explaining the Bill of “do not read this legislation —just listen to me. It is what I say which is the true explanation of the intention of the legislator, not the words in the Act". He has told us that, whatever the words may say, “our intention is not to go into this matter rashly and precipitately. We will deal with the matter quietly. Don’t worry! Never mind about the Act—just trust me. I will see to it that everything takes place in due and slow order.” Well, Sir, we are discussing here not the hon. the Minister’s character, but the contents of this Bill and more specifically clause 4 (b). The hon. the Minister has in the past, and again today, done his trick with mirrors on the de facto and the de jure situation. Some matters are de facto and some are de jure. When you look at them too carefully, he turns the mirror round and it is the other way round. The hon. the Deputy Minister has produced the argument that what we see envisaged by this Bill is something which has in fact been happening for a long time in the Transkei. He says it has been happening most satisfactorily that civil servants have been transferred to the Transkei. They are extremely happy there and have no complaints at all. Now, Sir, if this is possible, why do we need new legislation? If it is possible to achieve this great state of happiness under the old legislation, why do we need new legislation to achieve this very object? Is it intended to add to their happiness?

We have heard the argument that what has been done in the past—and we agree with it—was done with the consent of the civil servants. If a civil servant was transferred to the Transkei, it was done with his consent. Now, quite clearly, in terms of this new legislation, however much the Minister may argue, there is no provision for the consent of the civil servant concerned. The hon. the Minister has argued that there are other means of looking after his interests. The Public Service Commission will look after his interests to ensure that no injustice is done to him. The civil servant is ordered to go; his consent is not sought; he refuses to go; and the hon. the Minister says there is no provision whereby he can be forced to go, and he will suffer no punishment if he does not go. This Bill must be read in the context of the Public Service Act. Section 17 of that Act states that ‘‘any officer … shall be guilty of misconduct … if he contravenes any provision of this Act or fails to comply with any provision thereof with which it is his duty to comply’; or if he disobeys, disregards or makes wilful default in carrying out a lawful order given to him by a person having the authority to do so. This is perfectly clear. In the Bill we are considering today, provision is made for a civil servant to be transferred and we agree that there will be due consideration by the Public Service Commission when he is transferred. But that having been done, he has two options. One is that he can go wherever he is ordered to go and where he may in due course become subject to the laws of the new territory. He is being asked to go blindly and unknowingly into a new situation without his consent where other laws operate, whether it is his territory or not, and new contracts made with him.

If he does not want to go, he does not have to go.

I have just said that if he is ordered to go and he does not go, he is guilty of default and disobedience and may be punished in terms of the Public Service Act.

I now come to more serious things.

Surely he can resign if he wants to?

I want to put it to this House that it is not easy to recruit civil servants in this country. When a civil servant is recruited he is given a certain degree of inducement to carve a career for himself in the civil service. The most important inducement that is held out to him is security of tenure. This is a most important factor. He is not offered a very high salary, but be is offered a dignified service with security of tenure. This is precisely what he is now being deprived of. When a civil servant joins the public service he enters into a contract with the public service whereby certain guarantees are given and accepted. One of the major guarantees of his employment is security of tenure. It is done in the form of a contract and this contract is jealously, carefully and honourably safeguarded by the Public Service Commission. The commission is the watchdog of the public service and of its interests. It is conceded that under these new provisions a public servant may be taken away from the service which he joined under that specific set of conditions and under those specific safeguards and can, without his consent, be transferred to another public service in another territory. It must be recognized that that territory may become self-governing and independent.

It will be his own people.

It does not matter whether it is his people or any other people. He has a contract with a given set of people, and is then unwillingly pushed into a contract with other people while he does not know what the terms of his new contract will eventually be. When the terms of the contract are altered by the new people, his own or any other people, the terms of that contract may be less favourable than the ones he accepted when he entered the service. This change takes place without his consent. It is perfectly obvious that a situation is created where a breach of contract can take place. There is no uncertainty about this. It is quite likely to happen. We feel it is only right to stand up here and defend the rights of people who have a contract with the State against being forced into a situation where they will operate under a new contract the conditions of which are as yet unknown. There are all kinds of anomalies that can arise. I do not want to go into cases. Unlike the hon. member for Rissik. I was not at the Loskop Dam and the great Revelation was not made to me. But let us look at a few practical examples. It is a fact that there are a number of Shangaans in service in the South African Navy. Is it the intention that these Shangaans should be transferred from the South African Navy to a Shangaan navy and be put on the nominal roll?

There is no Shangaan navy.

There can be a nominal roll for Shangaan sailors. They can then be seconded back. This sort of thing becomes quite interesting. In fact, let me say for the benefit of that hon. member, that there is one point on which l think we can sincerely congratulate the Minister with regard to this curate’s egg of a Bill. I call it a curate’s egg of a Bill, Sir, because you will remember that the curate tasted the egg and said, “this is a curious egg”. When he was asked whether it was not all right, he said, “Well, it is quite good in parts”. We grant the hon. the Minister that his Bill is quite good in parts, but we are concerned about the other parts. The one good part possibly is that this Bill will create a new homeland industry, and the homeland industry that it will create is that scores of people will be employed making out nominal rolls for the 67 000 Bantu who will be transferred from the Civil Service of this country to their homeland civil services and then seconded back. Sixty-seven thousand names, with the changes which will occur through wastage will, I submit, give reasonable employment to a large section of people who are as yet without work!

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a bit disappointed in the defence that we are getting from the other side on this measure. I do not know whether members on that side are particularly shy this afternoon, or whether they have the weekend feeling, but I cannot understand why they are not defending this measure of the hon. the Minister.

It needs no defence.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Kimberley South to say that it needs no defence.

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick again.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill instead of attacking the defence of the Bill.

I will abide by your decision. Sir, as I always do, and come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in claiming parenthood of this Bill, says that the prime object of this Bill is to create opportunities for the Bantu people in their own areas, to create opportunities for them to advance to the top of the tree, shall we say, as far as they can. But, Sir, I want to put it to him that they can advance under the present set-up. He speaks of the Department of Bantu Administration having Bantu magistrates, Bantu agricultural officers, senior officials in their own areas, but. Sir, we have always had them. Twenty-five or twenty-six years ago when I was in the Civil Service we had them then. What is this new nonsense that they can only advance now under the benign government of this Nationalist Party?

Order! That argument has already been advanced. The hon. member must raise fresh arguments.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to you? Am I to be allowed to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education?

The hon. the Deputy Minister replied to the hon. members for Transkei and Green Point and now the hon. member wants to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If this continues, the Bill will never go through the House.

Sir, is that not the essence of debate and is this House not established for debate?

Order! The hon. member should not argue with the Chair. He must abide by my ruling and continue.

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. I want to tell an anecdote too which has reference to this particular Bill, because we are here creating a civil service for the Bantu Homelands. I want to relate what happened to me in what is now a Bantu homeland in 1946. I was transferred to a place called Nqutu …

Who transferred you?

When I arrived, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner there was a man who eventually became president of the Native Appeal Court and the Native Divorce Court.

What clause is that?

When I arrived there, he said to me: “Webber, one day in the next 40 years, if you remain in this department, you will come back here and you will be the only White man in this office”. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister boasts about Hammanskraal and other places where this is the position. I want to remind him that that was under a United Party Government in 1946. It was then already the policy to allow these people to advance. We do not need a Bill such as this to allow the Bantu civil servants to advance. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that that is the reason for this measure. The only reason for this Bill is the ideological clap-trap of this Government's policy. As has been pointed out, the Bill is only necessary because of this idea of separation.

I had an experience a few weeks ago when I had to go to court in one of the homelands. I went to that court as a complainant. I was the only White man in that court. The magistrate, the prosecutor, the clerk of the Court, the orderly and every other person there was a Bantu, I maintain that this is right and proper. This is what must be done, and I want to say that it was done before this Bill was introduced, We do not need this Bill to ensure that type of advancement for these people. Is this not the crux of the matter?

It is the purpose of the Bill to promote that advancement.

To promote it? It is promoted already. This advancement is already taking place. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration says that the reason for this Bill is to allow the Bantu in their own areas to rise, as he put it, to the point of being a secretary of a department. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior a question in this regard. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has gone. He was here a minute ago, and I would have asked him this question, had he been here. Is he going to allow the same advancement in the case of the Indian and where are the Indians going to enjoy this advancement? I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is here. Is he going to allow the Coloureds to advance to the same extent as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is going to allow the Bantu to advance? Why has the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of Coloured Affairs not come into the debate to explain their situation? Do they intend doing this as well, and if so, where do they intend doing so?

How do you know that I am not going to take part in the debate?

Sir, I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will come into the debate. Perhaps we shall then have this point clarified, because this Bill does not refer only to the Bantu. The hon. the Minister of the Interior, when he introduced this Bill, said that it was going to be applied to the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Bantu Education now. I accept that the provisions of the new section 13 (7) will be applied to these departments by proclamation as and when this arises, but that side has been silent as to when this is to be applied to the Coloureds and the Indians, and on how it is to be applied to the Coloureds and the Indians. I think that that side of the House, in the person of one of those hon. Ministers owes this House an explanation. We are being asked to approve this measure today, but we are being asked to give them a blank cheque with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration: Has he consulted the Bantu employees in his department? Do they know what is in this Bill? Do they accept these provisions? Do they accept that they can be taken arbitrarily and transferred to another government? I do not believe they have been consulted. I want to say something else, and I am not sticking my neck out. I believe that most of those employees do not want to be transferred over and will not wish to be transferred over.

Have you consulted them?

I have consulted certain of them. I have spoken to them although not about this particular issue, because this Bill is being rushed through here with the usual unseemly haste that we have come to expet from that Government. I have not spoken to them on this particular issue, but I know that they completely reject the policy …

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the word “unseemly” not a fair word to describe excessive haste?

It is a reflection on the House and that is why it must be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to reflect on the House, and I do withdraw it. While we are talking about these people who have not been consulted and who will be arbitrarily transferred to other governments, who will become employees of another government, with a possibility of being seconded back to this Government, has the hon. the Deputy Minister thought how this will affect the rights of those who are at present civil servants of the Republic of South Africa? He has been asked questions about the conditions of employment under these Bantu Authorities. I hope we will get a reply from the hon. the Minister of the Interior, because we have had no reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister. It has been pointed out that even after they are seconded there is no guarantee that their conditions of employment will remain the same, because they will be under a foreign government, and not from their own choice but because of an arbitrary decision. But this goes further. It affects other rights which pertain to these civil servants. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that a Bantu employed by the Civil Service in this country—and there are 67 000 of them in the Republic—enjoy certain privileges and certain rights, Influx control, for one, does not apply to him or to his family or to his children. What is their position going to be when we have the situation that arbitrarily, as someone put it earlier in the debate, by a journal entry in a book, they are going to be transferred to the employ of a foreign government or the government of a Bantu Authority, and then seconded back, so that physically there is no change so far as they are concerned.

Order! That argument has also been used.

I am just mentioning this in passing. Having done all this, these other rights to which I have referred are also affected. Has the Minister thought how he will protect those rights, and are the civil servants going to be happy to accept this change in their status? And, most important of all, having been transferred, they now become the employees of a foreign state. How can we in the Republic continue to ask them to give us their loyalty? Today they are utterly loyal to the Republic of South Africa. They are employed by the Republic of South Africa. But once they become employed by a foreign country and they are then asked to work in the Republic, for the Republic, will we retain their loyalty? Especially, are we going to retain their loyalty in the light of the fact that they will then suffer under certain disabilities under which they do not suffer today? As I have said, there are these privileges which are accorded to them in regard to influx control and the right of remaining in the White areas, particularly for their families. Sir, we could mention other rights, but these are the most important ones and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has thought of this, and whether he can tell us how he intends to protect those rights.

There is another aspect of the Bill, in regard to this new subsection (7) which is being added to section 13 of the Act, about which I wanted clarity and hoped that I would get this clarity from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I want to know what exactly is meant by this phrase “when the public interest so requires”? I asked the Deputy Minister that question. He has had the opportunity of explaining what is meant by “openbare belang”, but what is the answer we got from him? That a public servant must be prepared to move. [Interjection.] Yes, that is one of the reasons. What did you say?

Do you not know what I said? Read it in my Hansard.

That is the usual courtesy we expect from that side of the House. But I want to put it this way. I do not know what is meant by the “public interest”. What is the “public interest”? Is the “public interest” the interest of carrying out the policy of the Nationalist Party? Because that is the only reason I can see for this Bill and I do not believe that that is really in the public interest. It is in the interest of a section of the public; it is in the interest of a sectional government, but it is not in the public interest. I want to say that the intention behind this Bill is really the satisfaction of this Nationalist ideological policy, which is complete and total separation, even if the hon. member for Rissik disagrees with me. How many people are going to be affected by this Bill? Ultimately, 67 000 Bantu who were employed, are going to be affected. If one multiplies that by five, there are 300 000 people who will be affected, and that is only as far as the Bantu are concerned. Respectfully, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior how many Coloureds and how many Indians are in fact employed by the Civil Service as at the last day of the last report, which I think was on the 30th of June?

105 000.

If 105 000 are employed, and if we again take a family unit of 5, it concerns another 500 000 people. In other words, close on I million people are being involved here. Yet this hon. Minister in a matter of 10 minutes gave a short explanation. Surely, when we are dealing with nearly I million people, their futures and the privileges which they enjoy today, it deserves more than that? That is why this side of the House has taken the stand which it has taken. We are looking after the interests of these people. My comments with regard to the loyalty of the Bantu civil servants when they are seconded back also pertain and apply to the Coloured and Indian civil servants, when they will be seconded back to the Civil Service of the Republic of South Africa. Those who are going to be immediately affected, namely those in the employ of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s two departments, total nearly 20 000 people.

There is another sneaking doubt at the back of my mind, which I hope the hon. the Minister can clear up. A short while ago we passed in this House the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill. In terms of that Bill we gave to the Bantu Homeland Authorities the power to establish their own public service commission and to make regulations in this regard. We also gave them the power to make their regulations applicable to their citizens in the Republic of South Africa. Taking these two factors into consideration, when a Civil Servant is transferred to, for example, the Transkeian Government, is he going to come back under the conditions of employment of the Transkei, or is he going to come back under the conditions of employment of the Public Service Commission of the Republic? I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister says that the regulations drawn up for the Transkei are based on the regulations of our own Public Service Commission. Is this sufficient, however? Are the regulations identical in every respect? I know that they are not identical and so does the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Why should they be identical?

I do not say that they should be identical. I have never alleged that they should be identical and I do not think anybody else has alleged that either. But this raises the very point which has been made so often or strengthens the case which has been raised concerning the subject, namely that these people, without their consent, are being placed in the employ of another Government tinder different conditions of employment even with regard to salaries. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that the same salaries are not paid for the same jobs in the Transkei as are paid here in the Western Province. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister, with regard to the two provisions in the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, if these persons, when they are seconded back to the Republic by means of a book entry, will remain here under the provisions of the Public Service Commission of the Republic or whether they will remain here under the conditions of the Public Service Commission of the Transkei or any other authority. I do not believe I need waste my time or that of the House any more. I am sure that we on this side of the House have made it quite clear why we are going to oppose this Bill which, when it was presented to us, seemed innocuous until we investigated it further, until we discovered its hidden parentage. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Green Point said, namely that we will oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that this entire debate has changed into what I hoped it would not become, viz. a discussion of a minor part or clause of this submission which only indirectly affects our Bantu policy. During the discussion of this Bill, I had the feeling throughout that an ordinary point of policy was being discussed which should really have been discussed under the Vote “Bantu Affairs”, or at any of the other opportunities which exist during the course of a session to iron out this particular matter. Basically it is not this matter which is before the House today. This policy exists in any case. Hon. members know that the method which may be followed if one wants to or if one has to implement apartheid, is that machinery has to be created and the only place where that can be done, is this House. That has been done. Perhaps the details we furnished on this occasion were not adequate enough to the hon. members’ liking. The result was that a number of conclusions were drawn, on which statements were based which were definitely not correct. I want to admit at once that I am by no means an expert in this field. I did not try this afternoon, nor will I try, to tell the hon. members precisely where we are right and where we are wrong in respect of detailed sub-categories of this specific point. But what I could in fact do, and will do, is to indicate that at least as far as the Public Service Commission is concerned—that is the side I am dealing with —we will carry out this policy which has existed and has been ratified since 1948. It is very important to know that this is not the first time in history that secondment has become necessary in the Public Service Commission. This is very important because in the past we proceeded from the assumption that we only appointed a person to an establishment in an additional capacity. In other words, we did not second him in the full sense of the word. In any case, the Public Service Commission does not have those powers. With all due respect to hon. members who spoke here this afternoon about the powers of the Public Service Commission, and powers which already exist in terms of existing legislation and for which we need not make provision in this amendment Bill, I want to say that they should at least have taken the trouble to analyse the matter. The hon. members for Green Point and Transkei both made the point that there was existing legislation in terms of which this matter could be dealt with. I should like those hon. members on that side of the House to state in this House in terms of which Act machinery has been created which makes this action on the part of the Government possible? If that cannot be done, I want to say that I think that this was an opportunity to re commend a different approach than this one in regard to the Public Service Commission here. Surely it is our task to do so. Now I do not know what other possibilities hon. members on that side of the House may perhaps have had in mind. But in the existing machinery I see nothing which allows us to follow a course different to the specific course we did follow. In addition I should like to add something to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said here this afternoon. Something which runs very clearly through this entire discussion like a silver thread, is the fact that the amendment Bill cannot prejudicially alter the status quo of the present measures. It cannot alter the status quo to such an extent that it could be prejudicial to the Bantu, the Coloureds, the Indians, or anyone else. They will not be prejudiced by this specific machinery. This morning the hon. member for Transkei wove his entire tale around the fact that the only issue in this legislation was the question of the Bantu. That was very clear to me. But the hon. member subsequently corrected that.

No.

The hon. member corrected that after lunch and said that it included the Coloureds and the Indians. I stated very dearly in my speech that this was a comprehensive piece of legislation, that it was not only intended for the Bantu group, but that it was intended for all three groups. In addition to that I said that in my opinion there was no reason why it should not also affect Whites in the entire process. As I view the matter further, if the existing legislation is there, does he simply want us to leave the Public Service Act as such unused if we are able to create opportunities for the Bantu as we are now able to do? On a subsequent occasion, when another opportunity presents itself, we shall certainly do this in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. If one has this machinery now, the obvious way is not to do it step by step, in other words one group after the other, without necessarily proceeding from the assumption that the non-Whites will be worse off than the Whites, as hon. members wanted to impl throughout in this debate. I also want to say that there is no provision whatsoever in this Bill by means of which a non-White can in any way be compelled to do this. There is no indication in this entire legislation that he can be compelled to accept secondment. That is quite clear.

He can be transferred.

That is stated in the legislation and was very well explained by my hon. colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He made it very clear that there was no indication in this Bill that it was not our intention to make seconding possible without negotiation with these people ...

You can transfer him without his consent.

You can do that if you want to use a mandate or want to take compulsory action. However, that is not an indication of the Government’s attitude. The entire attitude of the Government has been throughout, and still is, that a person should be seconded through negotiations. All forms of secondment in South Africa’s Public Service have always been done by means of negotiation; negotiation from beginning to end.

It should be done according to law.

I say after negotiation. Hon. members cannot mention to me a single case where in the past provision was made in our legislation for the fact that if a man refuses after negotiation, he may be compelled to go elsewhere.

According to the existing law, you may not do that.

You are taking a new power now.

That is not so. Where do you see that?

This is not a new power we are appropriating for ourselves.

Of course.

One does it through negotiation, as one did it in the past.

If this is not a new power, why is this measure being introduced then?

I repeat that there has never in the past been such a provision in the laws relating to the Public Service. There have never been provisions where a person may be required during negotiations or after negotiations, when he does not want to go to a certain place, to do so. It is not our intention to do so in this case. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister made that very clear to hon. members. This is the one cardinal point which I feel we could have differed on if there had actually been a few reasons in the past as a result of the actions of the Government which indicated that this would be the intention of this specific Bill. Sir, I do not want to say anything further about the matter. I only want to say that I feel personally that this is the only place where we could have introduced it, and that hon. members had sufficient time to study it. If they want to study, or discuss further, the Bantu aspect of the matter, they may do so under the Vote, which will be moved within the next week or two.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? I would like to take the point that you would probably wish to recuse yourself from the chairmanship of this Committee on the ground that you have taken part in the debate. It is submitted from this side of the House that, since you have taken part in the debate, you would not wish to sit in the Chair and preside over the rest of the debate in view of the fact that what you said might be in dispute, and where indeed you did take part in the debate. It is submitted that you are able to call upon the services of other chairmen and we submit that you would not like to be in that invidious position when you are presiding as an impartial chairman, presiding over this debate.

The hon. member is confusing the position of Chairman of Committees with that of a judge in a court. There is nothing in the rules to prohibit a Chairman or Deputy Speaker from taking part in a debate. No Chairman in this Chair acts as a judge who has to decide between different judgments, and consequently there is no reason why any Chairman cannot take part in these debates. In fact, it has been the tradition in this Parliament since 1910 and it has been the tradition in the British Parliament since the sixteenth century for Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees to be able to take part in debates in Parliament just as ordinary members do.

Sir, last night the hon. member for Middelland said nothing contentious, and the attitude the Opposition has just been adopting shows you. Sir, that when an important Vote is being discussed here, there is no bona fide to be found among them.

Sir, with the independence of African States the Continent of Africa has been exposed to the communists in the sense that they can become the target of power, the ambition of the communist countries to take over these African States.

What does the hon. member for Middelland say?

Sir, the hon. member knows nothing about television and he knows even less about Foreign Affairs. I should like to attempt to keep this debate at a calm, high level, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Orange Grove would keep out of the mudhole he usually moves in. Sir, this exposure of the African States to the communists is a matter that does not only affect the Republic of South Africa. Ft affects all African leaders who display a sense of responsibility towards their own people in their own countries. The Republic of South Africa, is preeminently the country in Africa, and not only in Africa, but in the entire world, that prohibits the Communist Party by way of legislation. It is this National Party which, years ago, before the advent of independence for African States, already saw the dangers of Communism and then placed an Act on the Statute Book to make it clear that South Africa is anti-communistic. Not only did we act by way of legislation, but it is the wish of the people of South Africa that Communism should be opposed. Sir, we in South Africa have peace and quiet. Specifically for that reason we want to make our contribution to the combating of Communism in Africa, We are faced with the problem that the African States are young states which, in many cases, obtained independence before they had experienced the necessary political development. Many of them are economically poor countries, not having the financial capability to furnish their population with the necessary services. That is why their political development, their emergence to citizenship, their own identity, their own concept of identity, has been complicated because they do not have sufficient economic potential and support. There lies the danger for Africa. The danger for Africa lies in the fact that there are countries and powers offering pseudoaid to these countries. It is, of course, logical from the nature of the case that these countries’ leaders are exposed to the temptation of accepting this aid, and the present position is that by the acceptance of this pseudo-aid these countries are compromised by foreign powers whose intentions toward Africa are not sincere, countries which can eventually, by way of financial aid, effect the downfall of the relevant African States. Sir, South Africa is not only prepared to conduct a dialogue with African States, but we also realize that we have a task to fulfill in Africa, and our bona fide is being tested by these African States. In that connection we can prove our bona fide by our achievements. In the first place, South Africa is a part of Africa; in the second place South Africa has never in its history tried to become involved in a power struggle with other countries of Africa; we have never wanted to dominate other African States. On the contrary, our policy in South Africa is proof of the fact that we have no interest whatsoever in colonies or in the expansion of our territory. We ourselves are engaged in multi-national development in South Africa, and that is a proof to the African leaders that we are not begrudging other people their independent states in our own geographic area. That is why no African leader or nation ought to have any fear of a power struggle with South Africa. Secondly, South Africa is economically and financially a strong country. South Africa is a country which, as a result of its economic position in the technical sphere, has made tremendous contributions in Africa. We have granted technical assistance to neighbouring states and, apart from technical assistance, we also granted them assistance in connection with hospitals and medical services. Moreover, we are doing missionary work in Malawi, I still believe today that Malawi’s success has a great deal to do with the missionary work being done there. But, Sir, this is not the only aspect that is important. What is of great importance is that these African States, under the present set-up, find it necessary to conduct a dialogue with us to determine what South Africa’s bona fide is. In commerce we have proved our bona fide. Last year we exported goods to the value of R262 million to African States. We imported goods to the value of R131 million from African States. Economically we are strengthening Africa. We must accept the fact that we shall experience problems when we enter into a dialogue with these countries, because there are certain powers behind certain African states fanning hate and viciousness against South Africa, and therefore we must not expect a great deal of success to result from every discussion we conduct with these countries. The actions of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister have proved unequivocally that they are achieving a great deal of success, but we cannot expect to be successful with every one of those discussions. We must not panic when certain countries imply that they only want to conduct a dialogue with us in order to jeopardize South Africa’s policy of separate development. That is ridiculous. We have repeatedly stated in this House and outside that our national identity will be preserved. By conducting these discussions with other countries, respect will be generated for each other’s feelings.

Sir, I should now like to come to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said last night. I quote from the hon. member’s Hansard (13th May, page ZZ.1)—

I am glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that. In other words. I can accept the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout believes in multi-nationality. If that is the case … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? The hon. the Minister is a man with long experience in the field of foreign affairs. I want to say this for him that he is highly regarded among foreign representatives in South Africa, and, without a doubt, when he goes abroad, he is a good advertisement for South Africa. What always puzzles us on this side of the House is, however, that a man of his experience believes, or pretends to believe, that our international difficulties are mainly due to the fact that we are misunderstood abroad. I am going to leave alone the charge, which is heard so often in this House—in fact, we have just listened to it again— that the communists are responsible for all our troubles. To me this sort of argument sounds like admitting that the communists are completely outwitting us abroad. This is an awful thing to admit, considering how unclean the hands of the communists are and how little they really have to offer. Surely. Sir, the hon. the Minister must know that it is not merely a case of his Government’s policies being misunderstood in the world. As we know, many countries are represented in South Africa. They are very well represented here, but apart from that, many hundreds of people from all over the world, important people among them, visit South Africa annually and look objectively at the Government’s policies as applied in practice. I see many of the reports, some confidential, which these people draw up, and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister finds these reports on his table. Only a day or two ago Prof. Ned Munger of the California Institute of Technology sent me a copy of a new publication called the “Munger Africana Library Notes”. It is quite a valuable publication, being an effort to make available unpublished reports in the field of current Africana. This particular copy contains the reports of three important people who have recently visited South Africa, namely, Dr. George Kennan, an American who was at one time his country’s ambassador in Moscow. Prof. Leon Gordenker and Dr. Wilton Dillon, of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. These reports are generally sympathetic, but almost without exception, and this applies to them too, one finds that people who come here and look at the picture objectively go away knowing that there are situations in our country which, to use a now famous phrase a phrase which has emanated from that side, “cannot be defended before God and man”. Sir, we are waiting for the day when the hon. the Minister will come to Parliament and tell us that his Government has decided to disarm our opposition and to remove the many unnecessary impedimenta which obstruct our hopes of returning to normal relations internationally, I am prepared to say that I am far more worried about some of the truths that people know about us than many of the lies they believe, because a lie is quite easy to fight against. It is far easier to do so than to fight an ugly truth. As I was preparing a few notes for this debate there was the following report in the Cape morning paper to illustrate my point—

This couple was allowed freely in the little, embattled Rhodesia. There were no problems in Rhodesia about allowing them in. But this is the kind of reaction that people like these get from the South African authorities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister straight out, because this I believe goes to the root of our international problems and it will also be our major problem when it comes to lasting good relations with other states in Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he appears as the representative of South Africa at the United Nations and the representative of the Philippines confronts him there with the report I have just read out, how does he defend his Government? Does he blame the Philippine Government if they condemn our system? Does he blame the Philippine Government if they do not take kindly to our control of South-West Africa? Does he blame the Philippine Government if South African travellers have to sit cooped up on board ship in Manila harbour, as happens quite often, whilst travellers from other countries are allowed to disembark? I have taken the Philippines in this case merely as an example, but almost every country in Africa would have people in exactly the same position as this Filipino woman. Therefore the Government should realize that it may score small advances here and there, for reasons of a special kind, but I do not believe that there will ever be any substantial improvement in our international position as long as we maintain attitudes which insult people merely because of their nationality. One wonders what hope there is of any lasting relations with any African state as long as we in fact say to a Frenchman: “You are welcome in our country, whether your wife is a Frenchwoman or a Pole, but you are not welcome if your wife is a Filipino or an African.” To me. Sir, it is as simple as that, and I must say to the hon. the Minister that we have small confidence in any lasting success if the hon. the Minister really has no plans for an inward-directed movement of fruitful reform in South Africa in the field of human relations.

I said yesterday that we would like to deal with the question of dialogue, because I think that is the question which at the moment commands most of our interest. Our attitude on this side of the House has consistently been that every step in the direction of contact and communication with African states is a good step. Further, that whenever sufficient mutual interests have been established, we should not hesitate to establish diplomatic links and that we should not only welcome Black representatives if they come, but assure them of absolute equality of treatment in South Africa and the full freedom of all our country has to offer. But we believe on this side of the House that there is hardly a chance of our establishing lasting good relations with any significant section of the African Continent unless we are prepared to look the facts honestly in the face and to determine exactly what our position is. Whether the hon. the Minister agrees with us or not, as we see the present picture, speaking broadly, in Africa, every single Black country is opposed to us. There is no country which really likes us. Every country is opposed to the conditions under which Black people have to live in our country, and supports the point of view that apartheid is an outrage. Where they differ is over the question of strategy and approach and the measure of hope they entertain that some changes will be brought about in our country. I am not going to refer to those countries that are geographically closest to us and economically and otherwise so tied up with us that they themselves say—otherwise I would not have said it—that they have no choice but to maintain liveable relations with us. This applies mainly to the L.B.S. countries, namely Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, and to a certain extent also to Malawi.

For the rest, as far as we can sec, opinion and strategy in the Africa camp is diverging and flowing in two directions: firstly, there is what still looks like being the majority direction, namely the direction of those who form the militant core of the Organization of African Unity, I refer to the countries led by countries such as Zambia and Tanzania. They openly believe in the application of coercive measures and that a change in South Africa can only be furthered by force. Mr. Vernon Mwaanga, the permanent representative of Zambia at the United Nations, only a few days ago put it to a committee of the United Nations that “there is no hope of a peaceful change in South Africa”, and that, for that reason, they believe in the application of coercive measures. That is where they stand and we know it. The second group is the group which has now become known as the Dialogue Group. Most prominent in this group, as we know, are President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast, Dr. Kofi Busia of Ghana, a close friend of his, President Bokassa of the Central African Republic and, of course, President Tsiranana of Madagascar, who is already a few solid steps ahead of the others and, as the hon. the Minister told us, will be sending his Vice-President and Minister of Foreign Affairs to South Africa in the very near future. This particular group believes that coercive measures against South Africa have been and will continue to be abortive and that every violent action presents the communists with a fresh opportunity of intervening on the continent of Africa. I think that we should appreciate that especially the President of the Ivory Coast feels very strongly and is particularly worried about this aspect of the situation in Africa. In any case, they believe quite apart from that, that contact and moral pressure, which is also the term used by President Nixon of the United States, are better methods for promoting change in South Africa than isolation or hostile action.

So they have come up with a new approach to the problem—I use the word “problem” from their point of view—of the South. Madagascar openly styles its South Africa policy “the New Strategy'’. This strategy is to establish communication with us with a view to opening up a free traffic between their country and ours and, eventually, establishing a noticeable Black presence in South Africa uninhibited by the country’s apartheid rules. As we see it, the important thing to remember is that all countries in Africa have a certain common objective in respect of the southern sixth of the African continent, namely to see an end to policies on African soil which places Black people in a position of inferiority because they are Black. President Boigny himself has described our policy as “revolting to the dignity of an African”.

In the light of this, I believe, we should not misunderstand the position if we want to get anywhere. We should not confuse the dialogue movement with what we call the Government’s outward movement. As we see it, these are two separate movements, differently motivated and, indeed, in a sense they stand in contrast to each other. It is therefore much too early to interpret one movement as a success or a triumph for the other. The one seeks cooperation on the basis that the apparatus of apartheid must be dismantled, and the other seeks co-operation on the basis that race apartheid can stay.

Obviously we have now reached the point where we feel that something concrete must begin to happen if dialogue is not to become a process of stagnation. Several heads of State, those of the Ivory Coast, Ghana, the Central African Republic and others have indicated publicly their willingness to meet with us. The chief apostle of dialogue, President Boigny, even specified his basis for discussion with us, namely the Lusaka Manifesto. An agenda has therefore also been proposed by those who support dialogue. President Bokassa of the Central African Republic has in fact gone so far as to say that he was prepared to come to South Africa for talks with the Prime Minister and to open full diplomatic relations with our Republic,

The Government has responded to these overtures, but in very general terms. That is what I meant when I said yesterday that we were in fact a little disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not go a little further in responding to these definite overtures. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister again had little more to offer than to once more express his satisfaction with the trend of events. Our feeling is that the time has come for formal invitations if we wish to get anywhere at all,

As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe that it is a matter of the greatest urgency for South Africa to bring about a state of normality between us and the rest of Africa. There is no other way of eliminating the mounting offensive of terrorism against us. Time and again the hon. the Minister of Defence and the chief of the Army stress the fact that there is a growing danger of terrorist offensives against South Africa. We believe that until we come to proper relations with Africa there will be no other way of eliminating this growing threat to our country. There is also no other way of halting any communist advance in Africa. There is no other way of counteracting the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean and in the seas around South Africa. There is no other way but agreement with Africa if we successfully want to combat the new form of terrorism which seems to have stuck out its neck in the form of sea piracy. As long as they have bases along the coasts of Africa which are hostile to South Africa from which they can operate, they will be very hard to eliminate.

So, from every point of view it is of vital importance that we come to a proper understanding with Africa. In fact, the road to normal relations with the other major nations of the West, also lies through Africa. The measure of our acceptability to Africa will be the measure of our acceptance by the West. The question is of course how we must proceed. We appreciate it that certain opportunities have opened Up for us. The question is how the Government is going to use these opportunities. We have certain suggestions to make in this regard. We believe that the most immediate step which the Government should take is to draw up a reply, and an honest reply, to the Lusaka Manifesto, in so far as it affects the questions of apartheid and South-West Africa. Whatever the hon. the Prime Minister himself might fee! about the Lusaka Manifesto, I do not think we should continue to under-estimate the impact and the importance of this manifesto. President Nixon of the United States called it a “statesmanlike document” and he “warmly welcomed” it in these words. He was one of several heads of State who spoke of some of the commitments laid down in that document as guidelines to be followed in respect of policies in Africa. Yesterday we received reports that both Kenya and Nigeria stood committed to the Lusaka Manifesto. The same applies to Ghana. As I have already said. President Houphouet-Boigny himself has proposed that the Lusaka Manifesto should form the agenda for talks with Pretoria.

We feel that the Government should reply by way of a positive act; it should reply by way of a Pretoria Manifesto. The Government continually claims that its policy of separate development or apartheid is in fact a policy of liberation for all and not of domination. If this is so, and if the Government really believes that its objectives can bear honest scrutiny, I want to urge them, in fact I want to throw it out as a challenge, that they publish a Pretoria Manifesto. In that manifesto they should set out clearly and unequivocally the principles underlying their policy of human relationships together with their objectives in respect of the future citizenship status and position of each of our population groups, the Blacks, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Further they should re-enunciate in it clearly the Government’s undertaking to the United Nations “to eliminate all forms of political inequality in South Africa”. Then they should go further by indicating clearly in the manifesto what practical steps are being taken to implement this undertaking which was given to the United Nations. Finally the Government should set out its objectives for South-West Africa and its determination to settle the dispute by applying the policy of self-determination in South-West Africa in a manner which will be consistent with the accepted meaning of the term. I know that the question of South-West Africa is a matter which the Ivory Coast in particular is interested in, as that country is a member of the United Nations special committee dealing with dependent countries and peoples.

Having done all this and having set up the Pretoria Manifesto, the Government should offer this as an agenda for dialogue, coupled with an invitation to the leaders of the dialogue entente to visit South Africa personally and to come and see for themselves. We know the hon. the Prime Minister well. I want to hand this to him, he is a most effective politician when his platform is a party political one, but frankly, I have had another look at his letter to President Kaunda as it was printed in Hansard. Therein he, the Prime Minister, tries to explain “the basic philosophy underlying the policy of separate development". I am sorry to say so, but this is far from a masterpiece. I must say that if that is the sort of thing which is going to form the basis on which he hopes to convince men like President Boigny, a person whose second home is Paris, I would say that he should not even try it.

You know, it is really terrible to say such a thing.

Yes, I do not think that the Prime Minister’s effort in explaining his own policy was very successful. [Interjections.] Anyhow, that is my opinion. I do believe that a much better job could have been done and that the occasion was a very important occasion on which it could have been done. The opportunities which have opened up for us are to be welcomed, but it is necessary that we should warn that it could be very dangerous for us if it should misfire, because many eyes in Africa are turned on men like President Houphouet-Boigny. However, many big guns are also trained on him. I am not so sure that we are as well aware of the dangers that will come to South Africa if the effort at dialogue should fail, because this will be used as proof by the militant group of the Organization of African Unity that there is no hope for any sort of agreement and arrangement with South Africa. That is why we believe that we should go all out to ensure that the efforts of the dialogue group do not fail. As I have said, should it fail, it will enormously strengthen the hands—which none of us wants to see—of those who preach force. It will be used as proof that force against us is the only answer.

It appears to me that we stand to lose more than anybody else if the dialogue efforts were to come to nought. Therefore I want to say frankly to the Government that I think they should stop pretending that there is nothing which requires reform in our country in the field of human affairs.

I listened to the hon. member for Rustenburg. Resolutions of the United Nations constantly emphasize the point that there should be full respect for the national and cultural identity of peoples or distinct ethnic groups within any country. There is no problem for us in respect of wanting to maintain our identity. Nobody is against that. But we will have to become a people with good neighbours, not only without, but also within. Dr. Anton Rupert recently expressed his concern about what he called “the powerful stranglehold of anti-South Africanism in the world”. To think that that obstacle will be overcome by just doing nothing internally is, I think, extremely unrealistic. I want to agree with Dr. Anton Rupert that, the forces pitted against us are so formidable—and I use his words— “that there is no more time for pettiness”, and that we should seriously consider what we can do to remove attitudes and situations in our country which form an obstacle to better relations with other countries.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s entire speech, as far as I am concerned, amounts to only one thing: he wants the Lusaka Manifesto to be accepted in South Africa. He says that we must look at the realities here in South Africa. He says be is not afraid of the lies that are being spread in the world and that other people are believing, but that he is afraid of the truth about South Africa, of which we cannot prove the opposite. Why does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not tell us exactly how his party envisages changing the internal structure in South Africa? When I read the Lusaka manifesto, it struck me that the countries who signed it at the very beginning accepted the fact that conditions in their own countries were not such that they could also defend them at all times before the world. They also state pointedly that they are just trying to gradually rectify the conditions that are not justifiable in the eyes of the world.

Here in South Africa there are two views that are diametrically opposed. The National Party accepts the rights of every person to govern himself and to have even possible opportuntiy for development. That is what the entire policy of the National Party is based on. The hon. member says that we shall not be able to convince other States that we are moving in the direction of the least possible discrimination. I would rather adopt the view that Dr. Verwoerd was being sincere when he wrote, at the time, to Sir Robert Menzies in Australia and told him that as the policy of separate development in South Africa developed in all its consequences. discrimination in South Africa would become less and less necessary. Discrimination as a method for preventing irritation between various races will become less and less necessary. With what it has thus far done, the National Party has to a very large extent succeeded, here in South Africa itself, in obtaining the goodwill of the Bantu leaders and also of a considerable proportion of other non-White leaders. If we have succeeded in convincing these other peoples in South Africa of our honesty and sincerity, we will have that much more hope of also being able to convince the African states that South Africa is sincere in its endeavour to let justice prevail here in South Africa for everyone. I do not think that one inevitably has to accept the fact that as a result of statements being made by President Boigny and others, to the effect that the Lusaka Manifesto must be the basis of discussion in any dialogue between us and them, that this is the only reason why there is any interest whatsoever in a dialogue with South Africa. I believe that it is their honest opinion that they hope they can convince us that we must accept the principle of equality between people as quickly as possible. I think they are realistic enough to realize that there are other considerations that are perhaps of much greater importance at this stage, not only to them, but also to us. It has been shown here that even President Nixon, in his latest policy statement to Congress on 25th February of this year, said in respect of that figure that it is in the interests of the states in Africa, which have now got over their birth pangs, that here in South Africa and in the rest of Africa this Continent should be prevented from becoming the battlefield of clashing ideologies and group interests of the big powers in particular. I think that President Boigny and others will agree with him when he says that possibly this Continent’s biggest need at this stage is for the greatest possible amount of assistance to be given for allowing the development that can take place here to do so as rapidly as possible. Thus employment opportunities will be created for the masses that are today, in fact, only doing a small amount of work in Africa. In this way there will be a higher standard of living for all peoples in Africa.

Against this background I want to allege that there are much bigger considerations than the mere ideological questions that will be relevant when we are holding discussions with other Black states in Africa. I just want to point out that several thinkers and writers, attached to the various United Nations organizations, all people whom I believe to be honest and sincere in their views that the standard of living in Africa must be increased, all come to the conclusion that development can only take place if bloc formation or regional co-operation takes place here in Africa. Even someone like Mr. Ewing, who has been working in the United Nations for years and who is at present staying in the Congo, recently wrote a book in which he worked out a complete plan of how this regional co-operation should take place. My only criticism about this thinking is that most of these people proceed from the assumption that bloc formation can be successful in Southern Africa without South Africa being a part of that bloc. I therefore want to indicate briefly this afternoon that it is not possible to achieve much by means of regional co-operation in Southern Africa if the Republic of South Africa is not a part of that bloc or region. In the first place it is clear to us all that even in spheres such as tourism, where there were recent consultations in Malawi and where that country took the lead in obtaining cooperation in connection with this industry. South Africa should actually form the nucleus of such a plan. South Africa has a much better infra-structure than any other peoples here in Southern Africa. South Africa has much better means of communication and other facilities than these countries; South Africa has the capital with which to be able to pay more than other countries for the advertising that has to be done in the rest of the world. Without South Africa, it would not be possible to make a success out of even such an industry, which ought to be developed relatively easily on a regional basis. I therefore want to allege that if one investigates every industry that could possibly be established in any of the States here south of the Equator, South Africa must, of necessity, form a part of such a plan. It is clear to me that even our practical leaders, who have a knowledge of development throughout the world, must, of necessity, realize that in this process, in which not only capital must be contributed, but in which practical knowledge, in particular, must be furnsihed for these undertakings, South Africa must he an essential part of that plan. I mention here by name someone like Mr. Anton Rupert who recently announced that the National Development and Management Foundation intends to form a bank via Luxembourg for the economic development of Equatorial and Southern Africa. Recently an article appeared written by Mr. G. K. Helleiner, the Director of Economic Research at the University College of Dares-Salaam, in which he claimed that the most important item lacking for development in all these states in Southern Africa, Tanzania included, was the lack of private knowledge or “know-how”, as it is called, in establishing industries and having them succeed. I therefore think that this latest step, with its origins here in South Africa, is probably a milestone for projects still to come and on which the prosperity of this region, of which we form a part, will be built in the future. [Time expired.]

I want to start by referring to the so-called outward policy and by making the point that as far as this outward policy towards Africa is concerned, there is in fact no difference in principle between the policy of the Government and the policy of the Opposition. It is mainly in respect of the implementation of that policy, the way in which that policy is being carried into effect, that differences in fact exist. In regard to the attempts at an outward policy, it was in fact this side of this House, the United Party, that realized many years ago already that we have a role to play in Africa; that Sotuh Africa must play its full role in Africa and that it had a large contribution to make towards solving the problems of Africa. It started as long ago as 1929, when Gen. Smuts went to Oxford to deliver the “Rhodes Memorial Lecture”, on which occasion he made an appeal to all the powers who had interests in Africa to try to co-operate and find methods by means of which it would be possible to solve Africa’s problems through joint action. That lecture led to the African Survey of Lord Hailey, famous throughout the world; as well as Dr. Worthington’s book “Science in Africa”. Their expositions of the problems led in due course, after the Second World War, to the establishment of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa. As you know. Sir, in due course that commission developed into a reasonably effective body, but because a considerable number of African states became independent, South Africa was out in the first instance and subsequently a few of the colonial powers, after which the organization collapsed. At present there are only a few remains. I have mentioned these facts because I want to explain that this outward policy and this feeling that we have a contribution to make in Africa, emanated from both sides of this House as well as from all sections of the population who reflect on these matters. Therefore, there is in fact no argument about this. In the past, however, there were arguments. For example, in 1962, when Sir Abubakar Balewa asked whether he could visit South Africa, the Leader of the Opposition recommended strongly to the Government that he should be invited to come here. However, the Government refused to invite him, firstly, because he had criticized South Africa and, secondly, because he was an uninvited guest who had not submitted his request through diplomatic channels. It was the late Dr. Verwoerd who adopted that attitude, and Balewa was not invited. That decision was supported by several members still sitting in this House.

That was not the actual reason an invitation was not extended to him.

Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville was one of the members who opposed the visit. He was one of the persons who were not in favour of a visit from Abubakar Balewa, The reason Dr. Verwoerd gave at the time, and which was supported by those hon. members, was that Abubakar Balewa had criticized South Africa, that he had invited himself and that he had not applied through diplomatic channels, For these reasons those members opposed the visit We are very pleased to see that a change has taken place.

Although a new dialogue is probably going to take place, we doubt whether it will in fact lead to a change, unless a change of standpoint takes place on both sides as well. I am purposely saying “on both sides". It is not only we who are going to persuade them to accept our point of view, nor they who are going to persuade us to accept their point of view. Concessions will have to be made on both sides. There will have to be a general adjustment and a compromise.

Sometimes it is said, especially on that side of this House, that South Africa will never be able to satisfy the extremists; in other words, it is not worth while making any concessions as nothing short of complete capitulation is expected of us. It is true, of course, that the extremists, those who adopt that standpoint, expect much more from us than we are able to concede, but diplomacy is not concerned with those extremists. There are many countries —and these are the important countries —which in fact want to see an improvement in our relations with Africa, with the U.N.O. and with the world, and which will be satisfied with much less than what the extremists ask of us. In other words, if we were to make the minimal concessions which those countries, our friends, expect of us, we would already have achieved something and have made progress. If, to some extent, we were able to satisfy our friends, the reasonable countries seeking an improvement in relations, we would, because of that satisfaction, also succeed in neutralizing our enemies, the extremists, to a large extent.

Now, what are the very changes we will have to make? When we discuss foreign relations and our internal policy under that Government, we are always inclined to state our policy ire terms of the homelands policy, separate development, multi-nationalism, etc. Now I want to make the statement in this House that those arguments do not get us much further overseas, and i shall mention cases to prove this. What foreign countries actually look at is not our peasantry in the reserves. They do not have much interest in that problem. They know it is a low priority. What they actually look at, is our urban Bantu. They also look at our Coloureds, and especially at our Indians, Chinese and other Asiatics. A very large section of the world is interested in these very people and they are especially interested in the problems of the people trying to adjust to the modern urban society. I want to furnish a few examples. Recently Mr. Newson from the Department of State paid a visit. He wrote a very sympathetic report and appealed to the Americans to try to obtain better relations with South Africa by means of communication. He pushed aside matters such as isolation and violence and said there was only one thing; there must be communication. He went on to say—

Now, there is no point in discussing separate development with Mr. Newson, or with the American Department of State or with the American Government. The whole question is concerned with these very key points he mentioned here. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke of the possibility of a Pretoria manifesto, and I want to suggest very seriously to the Government that if they were to think of issuing such a manifesto one day, as a basis for co-operation with the African States … [Time expired.]

I find it very interesting that hon. members opposite always try to discuss our foreign problems in the light of development along individual lines. I think hon. members on this side have adequately informed the world of how we see our problems in the light of our policy, but I think the world would he very interested to know how our problems would be solved in terms of their policy. So why do they fail to tell the world: If we were to come into power, we would handle matters in such a way and solve them in that way. I just want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that development along individual lines is the policy stated by the leader of this party and not the policy he tried to state.

Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister indicated to this House how in recent times various leaders of African states had repeatedly emphasized the desirability of dialogue with South Africa. For a considerable time President Banda of Malawi has been the fearless pioneer in this regard, and he definitely deserves the honourable mention and high appreciation of South Africa. During the past months, an African leader who is not so well known in South Africa and who is from a country situated considerably further away from South Africa, distinguished himself because of the level-headedness and objectivity which he has revealed in advocating the desirability of dialogue with South Africa. This leader is, of course the man with the difficult name of Houphouet-Boigny, the President of the Ivory Coast. It is realized everywhere that this breakthrough in favour of dialogue with South Africa among African leaders places us in South Africa before challenging opportunities to wider contact with Africa. It is also an indisputable fact that such contact is extremely necessary and desirable for the further development of Africa in the interests of peace and the prosperity of the people of Africa. It can be concluded from several of President Boigny's statements that he is in fact concerned about the peace and prosperity of Africa. Unlike President Kaunda and the Organization for African Unity, however, he does not believe the story that the peace of Africa is being threatened by the White peoples of South Africa. President Boigny has referred with considerable anxiety and alarm, however, to those African States which have closer relations with Red China and Russia. It is clear that he is trying to warn these states that there is great danger of an Asiatic imperialism for Africa and that it may disturb the peace and prosperity. It is essential for Africa to take note of the difference in approach of these two African leaders. President Boigny, the sophisticated statesmen, believes that above all Africa needs peace and that this peace is being threatened by the infiltration of Russian and Chinese imperialists. In order to resist this threat so that Africa may be developed in peace, he believes that everybody in Africa should co-operate, whether they be Black patriots of Africa or White patriots of Africa. At the risk of personal unpopularity in his own ranks, he says that the Whites of Southern Africa are Africans as well and that they therefore have a particularly important role to play in the development of Africa. For that reason he says there should be dialogue and good relations between Black and White Africans.

As opposed to this, we have the opportunism of President Kaunda and of the Organization for African Unity. President Kaunda’s main aim seems to be to gain honour for himself. As long as he may be chairman of the Organization for African Unity and as long as he may possibly become chairman of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, he shouts hate and revenge at South Africa in public, because he thinks that that is the popular thing to do. But secretly he tries to keep open a back door because he knows that friendship and co-operation with Southern Africa is of great importance to his country and his people. The shortsightedness of President Kaunda and the Organization for African Unity and their inability to place the interests of Africa above their own blind prejudice, are, however, best illustrated by the decision taken earlier this year at the eighth session of the meeting of the Freedom Committee held at Moshi in Northern Tanzania. It was decided, inter alia, that the Cabora-Bassa project should in future be the primary goal of the liberation struggle in Africa. Therefore the destruction of Cabora-Bassa is made priority No. I for all terrorist activities in Africa. The liquidation of the White Governments in Southern Africa, which first served as objective No. I, is made subordinate to this. Without any doubt, this decision of the Organization for African Unity, with President Kaunda as its main spokesman, is the most negative, the most shortsighted and the most foolish ever taken by this organization in the eight years of its existence. This organization seems to think that because it has failed hopelessly to perform any positive deeds whatsoever in the interests of Africa and the people of Africa, it should prohibit and thwart any other organization as well from performing any positive deed for Africa. The Cabora-Bassa project is in fact the largest, the most imaginative and the most comprehensive project ever developed for Africa and the people of Africa. It will bring immeasurable benefits to the whole of Central and Southern Africa and also to a large part of Hast Africa. It will change the lives of the people in those regions of Africa radically. It will bring about major improvements in the standard of living of every individual, regardless of colour, race or political convictions. The hydro-electric project will establish an inland lake 150 miles in length and will generate 17 000 million kilowatt-hours of power per year in comparison with the 10 000 million kilowatt-hours of the Aswan Dam. But this is only the first stage. More dams will be planned below Cabora-Bassa so that the whole Zambesi valley for 290 miles from there to the Indian Ocean will eventually be able to generate 50000 million kilowatt-hours of power per year. This will be the cheapest electric power in the whole of Africa.

But the generation of power and large-scale industrialization are not the only prospects. In addition the scheme embraces the development of 50 000 square miles of African soil on which the people of Africa can hardly make a living today. More than 6 million acres will become irrigable agricultural land on which crops such as grain, maize, fruit, sugar and cotton will grow luxuriantly. Timber will be planted on a further 600 000 acres so that a large-scale timber industry will be established in Africa as well. In addition, the Zambesi will be navigable from Tebe to the Indian Ocean. A new harbour will be built and an iron ore industry will be established there as a basis for further industrial development.

This, in broad outline, is the Cabora-Bassa development scheme. It is this gigantic development scheme for Africa and the people of Africa which President Kaunda and his organization have earmarked as the primary target for destruction. Their terrorists must ensure that no progress will be made with this work. It is difficult to understand how on earth this scheme can be labelled as a conspiracy against Africa and a crime against humanity. How President Kaunda and the Organization for African Unity can describe it as a racial, imperialistic and oppressive plot against Africa, goes beyond any normal logic. But it is clear that the Cabora-Bassa project is being condemned only because it is a project initiated and tackled by White Governments of Southern Africa, backed by international consortiums. If this scheme had been initiated by Moscow and Peking, the same as the Tanzam railway line, President Kaunda would have blessed and welcomed it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Algoa did a service when he emphasized today the virtues and the advantages of the Cabora-Bassa irrigation scheme. I had the privilege two years ago at the U.N. to hear some of the violent attacks upon this scheme from certain parties not without peculiar interests. It was quite clear that they were even willing to deny advantages and progress to the people in that part of Africa in order to serve their ideological ends and in order to further their hostility to those who govern the Southern part of Africa.

However, I do not wish to extend upon that thought today; I want to say something today about the problem of defending South Africa under the present Government in other parts of the world. I want to admit that I have limited experience of this, but I think the hon. the Minister should realize that when his political opponents face audiences and individuals in other parts of the world, they have a difficult task, because we do differ fundamentally from the Government in many of its attitudes and its policies. Yet, as South Africans, we are determined to see the very best possible interpretation is given to events in South Africa. I can say that it has been my experience and the experience of many others with whom I have discussed this matter, that there are two grounds upon which one can defend our country, South Africa, anywhere in the world today with success. The first is that one can affirm the sincerity of the Government in its attempts to find a solution for the problem of colour in South Africa. We may differ very strongly on the success, the practicability and the wisdom of this policy, but when our detractors from overseas allege in their propaganda that the Government is dishonest, insincere and deliberately deceptive in seeking to find a solution along the lines of what they call separate development or separate nationhood— whatever the name may be, because it changes from time to time—then our hackles rise and we can defend the Government and the people of South Africa against such insinuations. The other basis upon which we can defend South Africa is the fact that there still is in South Africa, although it may be limited in some respects, an essential and lively dialogue between South African and South African on what the solution is to our problems. I am confident that as long as we can go through the world as South Africans, no matter what our internal differences are and as long as we can use the very fact that those differences exist and exist on an organized basis, then the world has to think about South Africa again. Some of the sweeping generalizations they make about us cannot then be sustained. I think that the hon. the Minister and many hon. members on that side of the House will agree that here we have two weapons which even opponents of the Government can use in defence of South Africa.

That is why I regret the attack which the hon. the Minister made upon me yesterday, so deeply. He made this attack in reference to an article I wrote in the Argus on the 7th of this month and which appeared under the heading “Dialogue at home too”. The hon. the Minister may attack me for that article, he may differ from me; that is part of the dialogue which I believe to be one of the greatest virtues we still have in South Africa, and I will never resent it. For him to suggest, as he did yesterday, that I was taking my cue from an enemy of South Africa—and he mentioned Emperor Haille Salassie—I think is going a bit too far. I think it is unworthy of the hon. the Minister to say such a thing. Then he ended off his criticism of me—and he is fully entitled to criticize me—by suggesting that I wrote this article either in ignorance or else with a complete disregard of the truth, which means that I lied. That also surprised me. I think I should put on record in this House what my argument was in this particular article. I want to do this because I am not going to retract one word of it. I started with the words “It is good news that Prime Minister Felix Houphouet-Boigny is taking the lead among the political heads of independent African States to initiate contact and discussion with the South African Government because we are worried about our isolation. I wish the Government well.” Then I said that South Africa could play an important role in Africa by making our administrative, technical and scientific experience available to our near and distant neighbours, I said that they could become valuable friends if they used our resources for their own urgently needed development. Was there anything wrong with that? Of course, there is nothing wrong with that.

Carry on.

I went on and said the fact that we were facing virtually united criticism from many states of Africa was embarrassing some of our friends. I added that it would be better if there were also a dialogue amongst the African states about South Africa. Then I pointed out— as the hon. the Prime Minister has conceded—that some of the states who wanted to have a dialogue with us, did so in spite of the fact that they disapproved of our internal policy. They would in fact like to modify our internal policy through the dialogue. There is nothing wrong with that. Then I added—

That is the point of view of this side of the House. We are grateful and we congratulate the Government on any progress they make towards establishing a dialogue with other countries of Africa, Then I went on and what I said then was apparently what upset the Government. I said we would like to have a more “real dialogue” with; our own non-White peoples in South Africa because we had a many-faceted problem in this country. Our problem is not only our relations with the other states in Africa. Our problem to a much more immediate degree is our relations with our own people of different colour in South Africa. I admit at once that we are all looking for a solution according to the light that we have received. The Government is looking for a solution; the hon. member for Houghton is looking for a solution; we are looking for a solution; and far he it from any one of us to be so arrogant as to claim that we have the omniscience to say today that our belief is the final and true answer to our problem. Unless we have an effective, or what I call a real, dialogue with our own non-White peoples …

That is happening every day.

That is the very point where we differ. Unless we have a real dialogue with the people and the representatives of the people with whom we want to evolve a system of peaceful relations in this country that will last, we are not doing our duty. That, I want to repeat to the hon. member for Rustenburg, is the difference between us. The Minister himself gave a list of consultations by the Prime Minister and others with the non-White leaders in this country and called that dialogue. I admit it is dialogue, but it is not real dialogue.

What is “real dialogue”?

You do not conduct a dialogue with, for instance, the Indian people, if you talk only to a body which is appointed but not elected by them. That is not my idea of a real dialogue. You do not conduct a real dialogue with the Coloureds if you discuss matters only with the executive of a body in respect of which the will of the majority was frustrated by the appointment of Government nominees. I do not call that real dialogue. [Interjection.] My hon. friends opposite may think it is real dialogue, but I differ from them and I claim the right to do so. I shall continue to differ from them. You do not conduct a true dialogue with the African people if you consider that the tribal people, the people who have not yet broken their tribal bonds and have not yet accepted our money economy, alone represent the Black people of South Africa. That is, we believe, to live in a world of fantasy. That is the difference between us, and that difference will continue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville will pardon me for not interfering in the dialogue he is conducting with the hon. the Minister. At the start I think it is necessary for us to refer to the opening words of the hon. member for Von Brandis, who took part in this debate a little earlier. The hon. member said the United Party’s standpoint has always been that they believed we had a role to play in Africa. But what role does the United Party envisage we should play in Africa? I want to state this afternoon that this role they envisage, is best reflected in the words of Gen. Smuts in this same House in 1945 when he said, inter alia, 1he following about this matter—

He continued in this vein. But then he said—and this is significant because I want to maintain that this is still the attitude of the United Party today—

This is still the attitude of the United Party today, an attitude of letting matters take their own course. If it does not work, they are prepared to go further and to say; “We are prepared to sacrifice and sell the White man”. In this regard we have had a very clear example this afternoon.

Substantiate your argument.

Yes, I am going to do that. This afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout shamelessly disparaged the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa and placed him in juxtaposition to the Prime Minister of one of our northern neighbouring states, namely Kaunda. He played off our Prime Minister against that Prime Minister. He placed our Prime Minister in a bad light against that man, a man who has been proved, not by us, but by African states to be an extremely unreliable leader. He now becomes the great man in relation to our Prime Minister. This is the proof on which the hon. member for Turffontein asked me to substantiate my argument. The United Party says we should simply let matters take their own course and if this does not help, we shall simply sell the White man to the Blacks of Africa. The kind of speech made today by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not serve to promote the success of this dialogue which is being conducted so successfully by our Prime Minister with our neighbouring states. It does not serve to contribute towards the success of this. In these circumstances, the Government is prepared to continue without their support as it has done in the past; it will continue to achieve success with that. As opposed to the attitude adopted by the United Party, the National Party Government has since the earliest times stood for stability and peaceful progress in Africa, in spite of the diminishing power of the West in Africa. I can furnish proof in this regard as well but there is no time for that. This has always been the standpoint of every successive National Party Government; therefore it is not something which originated recently. We feel that not only is this policy of the National Government of vital strategic importance, but also that under the leadership of the present Prime Minister and that of our very capable Minister of Foreign Affairs, this Government is achieving success in Africa,

It is precisely in the light of the success achieved in this field that I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and the Committee to a very strategically situated island. It is an island which, politically and economically, forms an inseparable part of the great African continent. I am referring to that beautiful island to which the hon. the Minister also referred yesterday, namely Mauritius, situated to the east of Madagascar. I say it is a beautiful island because it has a wonderful variety of flowers. This imparts beautiful colours to that island. There are the poinsettia, the frangipani, the bougainvillaea, etc. However, it is not only the flowers which attract one to that island. The island also has extensive sugar plantations, a fact to which I shall refer again later. However, it is an island which has great problems as well, problems which originated as a result of the carelessness and neglect by the people who were in power there before 1967. It was an imperialistic power which did the same there as they did in all the other African states over which they had control. In 1967 they left Mauritius to its fate. Overpopulation is one of the great problems of this small island. There are 750 000 people living on that little island while 90 per cent of its economy is dependent on the sugar industry. We know that the production of sugar is considerably higher than the demand for it. This fact creates certain problems. That island is fertile; it can produce that sugar and other things as well. For example, its rainfall is between 40 in. and 400 in. at certain places but sugar alone cannot assure it of a stable economy. This is one of its problems. It is true that it has had some tourism in recent times, which has helped a little. There is tea, to which the hon. the Minister referred yesterday, but all these things are not sufficient to bring it to its feet in the economic sphere. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for some assistance to be given to this island, something which is perhaps slightly more substantial than the aid to which the hon. the Minister referred here yesterday. These people are pro-Western. For example, as the hon. the Minister said yesterday, they are not opposed to the sale of arms to South Africa. While their Minister of Foreign Affairs was a guest here in South Africa, he referred to the fact that they were anti-communistic. Furthermore, I can inform you. Sir, that we have landing rights for our aircraft at Mauritius en route to Australia. They are favourably disposed towards us and any form of economic help we can give them, will eventually mean that we would be helping ourselves. Hon. members may perhaps rightly ask in what way that aid could be given. I want to ask whether greater use of the tremendous labour potential cannot be made locally, i.e. on the island itself. Is it not possible that some of our raw material may be exported there, so that it could be processed there and then be imported here again? In saying this, Sir, hon. members must not presume that we have any imperialistic plans in that regard. We want to say to them that we are in favour of the freedom they have achieved and that what we really want to do must serve only to help them further along that road. [Time expired.]

Sir, it may perhaps serve a useful purpose if I react at this stage to certain statements which were made here and questions which were put to me. In the first place I want to refer to the idea expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we should start training non-Whites who should subsequently enter the Diplomatic Service and act as ambassadors and diplomats. As hon. members know, as many non-Whites as possible are being trained for various posts in the administration of their own affairs in their areas. There is still a large backlog, and the training of diplomats is not possible at this stage. The facilities are not there, and there are quite a number of other matters which should receive priority, in view of the large backlog.

The hon. member expressed disappointment at my not having said something more concrete in regard to the possible dialogue with Africa. But, Sir, this is a very delicate matter. I said everything which in my opinion should at this stage have been said by me as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the light of the confidential information at my disposal. I do not know on what the hon. member bases his conclusions that the ball is now in our court and that we must react now. My statement yesterday evening actually amounted to a plea that we should not cloud the issue with unnecessary speculation and untimeous, wild statements. Surely no one expects the South African Government to noise abroad everything we do or do not do and everything we are planning. Surely to do that would be very clumsy. The hon. member for Von Brandis will confirm that that is not the way diplomacy is conducted. After all, one does not lay all one’s cards on the table when the situation is such a delicate one. All that hon. members are doing by continuing to discuss this matter, is to make President Boigny’s task more difficult.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout again had quite a lot to say about our policy of separate development and its application. He maintained that the multinational character of our country was not being brought to the attention of the outside world. But surely that is not correct.

I did not say that.

Of course you did.

That is what I deduced from what the hon. member said.

I said it was not reflected in our staff abroad.

Is that the only objection the hon. member has?

You make a great point of it, but it is not reflected in our staff abroad.

It is not reflected in this Parliament either. We as Whiles are governing this country, while we are leading the non-White peoples living in this country to self-determination, to some or other form of self-government, and until such time as that comes about. South Africa will be represented abroad by those who today comprise the Government of this country. A country is represented abroad by those who are in power, and no country which is not sovereign is represented abroad. If the hon. member thinks that we should appoint non-Whites in our overseas missions, then I must remind him that this has been tried by others, but without success. The hon. member himself used the expression “stooges”. That is precisely what would happen if we were to employ non-Whites in that capacity. I must remind the hon. member that virtually every important visitor to South Africa pays a visit to the Transkei and to other homelands, to the educational institutions for the Coloured and other non-White peoples, and must in fact take thorough cognizance of the multi-national character of our country.

The hon. member accused me of attributing the opposition to our policy solely to a misconception of it. But that is not the case at all. I realize that there are many other reasons as well why criticism is being levelled at our policy. I realize, perhaps more than anyone else, how much criticism there is in the world, of separate development, or rather the caricature of apartheid, presented there, and how much opposition there is to it. But we are prepared to pay that price. We are not striving after popularity. Our purpose is to ensure the survival of the White people as well as the other peoples in South Africa. Popularity is not what we are seeking. No nation in the world has ever voluntarily relinquished its right of survival. May it never be said of us that we were the first nation in history that was prepared to do so. The hon. the Opposition seems to think that the solution to our population problem and the effect it has on the outside world, as the hon. member for Yeoville rightly admitted, lies in compromise, in concessions. We on this side believe that the solution lies in our policy, and that the progress we make with its application will be the solution to that particular problem.

Your entire policy is a concession.

We do not think these onslaughts will continue. We think that the unfavourable aspects, the way in which our policy is sometimes applied, which people do not like and which we ourselves do not like, will gradually diminish and that the positive side of our policy will become more and more apparent. That will not happen as a result of a watering down of our policy, but as a result of the consistent application thereof. I want to say that I agree with the hon. member when he states that more criticism is being levelled at what may be termed the so-called exceptional cases, and that less and less criticism is being levelled at our broad policy. As far as criticism is concerned, our broad policy is receding into the background more and more. These exceptional cases cannot simply be eliminated overnight. They are due to the fact that the policy has to be applied by fallible human beings. They are the result of errors of judgment made by people. They are due to the fact that people who have to exercise their discretion, do so incorrectly. Sometimes they are due to discourtesy or sheer rudeness. The Government has through legislation restricted the points of friction which can be caused, and which can lead to these situations, to a minimum. In actual fact those exceptional cases are already very few in number. We in the Government do not tolerate anyone who acts in a manner that may lead to friction. We take strong action against such persons. Even if there are foreigners who are guilty of conduct which can lead to friction between the various peoples, we take action against them. Sometimes the matter is then taken further by the representatives of the countries from which the persons in question came. When that happens, we often have very frank discussions with the ambassador of the country in question.

I recently had a long and very frank discussion with the American ambassador in regard to the cancellation of certain residence permits of American citizens in this country. I trust that after that discussion he has more clarity on the matter and possibly a greater appreciation of our actions. However, there are those who are not interested in our actions and in our motivations. There are those who will not be satisfied until the policy of one man, one vote is applied in this country. Neither apartheid nor a race federation nor the franchise on the basis of merit will satisfy those people, as the hon. member for Yeoville said in this House in 1969. Hon. members who return time and again with accusations against apartheid would do well to read that Hansard of the Transvaal leader of their party to see what he said. I shall give them the reference.

Sir, sometimes we too become enmeshed in the snares and toils of international power politics. Sometimes we are not judged according to our merits. We are condemned in the light of how those actions affect the broader political objectives. In this world South Africa is proceeding with great circumspection and trying to find its way and is in fact succeeding.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to a visa case and to an alleged statement made by a representative attached to one of our missions abroad. I know about the case. I know that this visa was not refused. It was not possible to refuse it, because there was no application. All that happened was that information was requested. The applicant was told that the application would have to be referred to South Africa and that the decision would have to be taken there. The person in question then decided not to submit an application. Where the story has its origin, I therefore cannot say.

It is the reasons given to him as to why he could not come.

No, he was never told why he could not come. The application was never dealt with. I deny that allegation of his; my people never said that to him. Our representatives did not say that to him. All that he was told was that if he made application they would not be able to give him an immediate reply; it would have to be referred to South Africa.

To return to the matter of the dialogue, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the objective of certain Africa leaders, as appears from their public statements, to break down South Africa and our policy of separate development. I already discussed that in my introductory speech. I pleaded that we should view those statements in their true perspective. I do not think I should say anything further about the matter.

Reference was again made in the debate this afternoon to the Lusaka Manifesto. I referred to it in this House two years ago as well. I mentioned and emphasized its positive aspects, but now I must add at once that there are certain parts of the Lusaka Manifesto which cannot be reconciled with these positive aspects. Unfortunately that is the case. It is also true, I admit, that the Western powers are inclined to emphasize the positive aspects of the Lusaka Manifesto and to close their eyes to the negative part. There are quite a number of leaders in Africa who also fix their gaze on the positive, constructive parts and ignore the other parts. But I think our position in this connection is quite clear. The hon. the Prime Minister and I have already stated our attitude in regard to the dialogue as completely as I think we ought to state it at this stage, for we have dealt with our willingness to conduct a dialogue with African leaders and I do not think I should say anything further about it at this stage.

The hon. member for Von Brandis correctly stated, and one appreciates this, that both parties are in favour of the outward movement. But then he went too far. He tried to get the credit for it for his party by referring to the fact that Gen. Smuts had moved outwards in 1929, but he is an ex-member of my Department of Foreign Affairs, and I am sorry to say that his memory has failed him in this regard, for the outward movement actually began in 1927, when the late Gen. Hertzog established the Department of Foreign Affairs. Without it the outward policy would not have been possible, and of course this policy is not limited to Africa alone, but applies to the rest of the world as well, [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Yeoville. Just as in 1969, when he made a good speech in this House, he started off on a high note, and I want to thank him for the positive contributions and the observations he made here. It is true that it is stated in the article that the Opposition welcome the developments in Africa and that they are in favour of the dialogue idea. But now he comes along at this critical stage, one of the most important junctures in regard to our relations with the outside world which we have had in many years. This is a juncture at which everything which is said in this Parliament by us on this side, by the hon. members on the opposite side, by me and by the hon. the Prime Minister, is being most closely scrutinized Now the hon. member comes along at this juncture and blazons it abroad to the entire world that there is no true dialogue here among us. That may be his opinion, to which is entitled in a free, democratic country, where we conduct a dialogue on matters in regard to which we disagree. But it so happens that it is not the opinion of the large majority of members in this House.

Numbers have nothing to do with the truth.

Why the hon. member made his statement at that juncture and why he related it to the development of the dialogue in Africa, is beyond my comprehension. I am truly sorry that he found it necessary to refer to the matter in that way.

You ought to be sorry that you did not yourself …

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to South Africa's programme for the enrichment of uranium. Before I come to his question in this regard, I would like to reiterate what has on previous occasions been categorically stated by the Prime Minister, namely that as far as our programme is concerned, South Africa is interested in uranium solely for peaceful purposes. The hon. member has put two questions to me in connection with the peaceful uses of atomic energy; firstly he wanted to know what progress had been made in connection with the non-proliferation treaty and secondly what progress has been made in establishing safeguards. These two questions are, of course, interrelated as indicated in the Prime Minister’s statement when he dealt with South Africa’s uranium enrichment project in this House last year. The hon. member quite rightly last night quoted this part of the Prime Minister's statement. To deal with the non-proliferation treaty first: According to our latest information just over 100 countries have signed the treaty and approximately 55 have ratified it. At this stage we should be guided more by the number of ratifications. Only when a country has ratified the agreement, does it become a party therto. The treaty came into force on 5th March last year, after the required 43 countries including the three depositing powers, namely the U S.A., Soviet Russia and the United Kingdom, had ratified it. Amongst the ratifying countries are the three already mentioned and Canada, Formosa, Denmark, Ethiopia. Greece, Mexico, Sweden, Ireland. Finland, Norway, Botswana, Poland, Austria, New Zealand, Iraq, Swaziland, Iran, Peru. Malaysia and Czechoslovakia. A number of countries important in the field of nuclear energy either as producers of uranium or in technology have so far not taken any action in regard to the non-proliferation treaty. Among these are Australia, Brazil, India, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, France and Communist China.

Coming to the second question concerning what progress has been made in establishing a pattern of safeguards, I may mention that the committee which was established by the Atomic Energy Agency for this purpose recently submitted what may be called “guidelines” for future safeguard agreements with member states. These guidelines were subsequently approved by the Executive Board of the Agency and will now be considered by the general conference of the Agency. I must stress that these are guidelines only and not the text of control agreements to be concluded with member states. When this matter was considered by the board, South Africa’s representative reaffirmed once again our standpoint that the question of our future possible accession to the non-proliferation treaty would be assessed once the controls to be applied had been formulated in the text of actual draft agreements and once it was clear whether there was to be any differentiation between regional groups and individual states.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When the hon. the Minister deals with the non-proliferation treaty and the short list of countries, including Australia, France and South Africa, which are not yet participating in the non-proliferation treaty, may I ask whether any of these countries have actually signed the treaty without ratification?

No, they have not.

*The hon. member for Von Brandis as well as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke of a Pretoria manifesto which we should issue. This idea was also raised by a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, viz. Prof, Mike Louw. I already referred to it in the debate last year. I pointed out at the time that what ought to be included in such a manifesto should in fact already be crystal clear to everyone. Our Africa policy is clear. It has been repeatedly stated. I really do not know what the hon. members envisage including in such a manifesto. The possibility that we could explain our policy in respect of South-West Africa in such a Pretoria manifesto was mentioned. In regard to that as well, there is probably no uncertainty in the world.

This has reminded me that I must comment on and rectify a certain matter arising from a report which, appeared in the Sunday Times on 25th April of a speech made in South-West Africa by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I do not want to discuss South-West Africa in this debate. I think we have rightly avoided that subject in the past. At the moment we are of course awaiting the opinion by the International Court. I also hope that the fact that I am now going to refer to this report will not lead to a discussion of our case which is before the International Court of Justice and the merits of that case. But I am forced to try to rectify certain matters which emerged from this report. I do not know whether the report is correct. Firstly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout alleged, according to the report, that the plebiscite which the legal team proposed before the court would amount to a rejection of the Odendaal Report because, according to that proposal, all the inhabitants of the area would vote together and not as inhabitants of the separate homelands. That is how the report reads. I have it with me. But that is by no means the presumption in regard to this plebiscite proposal which was put to the court. The plebiscite proposal implies precisely the opposite. Its object is to determine whether the inhabitants want the South African Government to continue to administer South-West Africa, as we are doing at the moment, according to the recommendations of the Odendaal Report. Our administration is based on the development of the various homelands. They will have to decide whether they want us to continue with the administration according to the Odendaal Report or whether they prefer the U.N. administration, which wants to administer the Territory as an integrated whole.

But they vote on a unitary basis.

Yes, I am coming to that. A further object of the proposal made by the legal team is to prove that the accusation that South Africa’s administration leads to the suppression of the inhabitants of South-West Africa is completely unfounded, by affording the inhabitants an opportunity of choosing for themselves. According to that Press report the hon. member for Bezuidenhont said uhat it implied that both sides would have to put their case, which in turn implied an invitation to the U.N. to come to South-West Africa and put its case there or to participate there—I do not know what they must come and do there. I now want to inform the hon. member that this entire proposal of South Africa in regard to a plebiscite is still under consideration by the court. That is why I do not think it could serve any good purpose if we were to discuss it now, I say this in the light of the fact that South Africa’s representative said in the court:

In other words, nothing has been decided yet, nothing concrete has been proposed yet; no details have been proposed yet. Therefore I do not think it would be a good thing if we were to discuss that matter now.

As the hon. the Minister knows, an election was in progress and this statement was made from the Government side. We were simply participating in the debate.

It is a great pity the hon. member could not resist the temptation, but I am coming to that. I want to go further, because the hon. member also made other statements to which I must object. The fact of the matter is that the U.N. was never mentioned in this plebiscite proposal. It was to be a matter between South Africa and the court, if the court accepted it. I want to repeat, therefore, that the plebiscite proposal does not mean or presuppose that the Government’s policy is a deviation from the Odendaal Report, The second statement which was attributed to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout related to the status of South-West Africa. According to this report the hon. member alleged that there was or might be a change on the part of the Government in respect of its attitude to the status of South-West Africa. To prove that, the hon. member quoted a phrase I used at the U.N. when I referred to the “separate international status” of the Territory, This same matter was also raised in this House by the same member in 1967, I want to quote in full what I said at the time. I am doing this for the record and for the information of the hon. members. The hon. member asked at the time whether the statement I had made at the United Nations was not inconsistent with my statement in this House on the separate international status, identity or character of South-West Africa. I used all three these words. There are no inconsistencies, and I want to quote from Hansard of 1967 (column 4575 of 20th April):

That is not all. According to this report the hon. member sought further proof for this statement of his. He found it in the memorandum issued in 1968 under the title “Decisions by the Government on the Financial and Administrative Relations between the Republic and South-West Africa”. To prove his statement he quoted the following words:

If one reads the entire sentence, however, it is a completely different matter. That is what I want to do. I quote further—

All that this means is that these readjustments did not amount to incorporation. I hope the impression created by this report in the Press is not correct. If it is wrong, I hope the hon. member will correct it. The hon. member said that he was speaking at a political meeting. Now I find it very regrettable that a particularly contentious matter such as this, in spite of the fact that I had already given an explanation four years ago in respect of the second part, should have been broached at a public meeting.

There was a lively debate in progress on the matter in South-West, and your party was also discussing it.

The hon. member can rectify the matter very easily. I would be glad if he would do so.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the two statements made by the hon. the Minister, and I must say that I agree with part of what he said in his last reply to the debate, namely that no point would be served by issuing a Pretoria minfesto on South Africa’s general policy. I do not think there is any merit in the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for reasons which I will give in a minute. I note that the Minister however is favourably inclined to issuing a Pretoria manifesto as far as South-West Africa is concerned. I think that could probably be useful, because there is a good deal of misunderstanding about South Africa’s attitude. So much has gone on over the years—I think it has all been lost in the flood waters of cases, arguments and decisions that have been handed down. But I cannot see any point in issuing a Pretoria manifesto as far as our general policy is concerned. Pretoria has done nothing but issue manifestos. Every statement is makes on general policy could be called a Pretoria manifesto. The point is that the Government has convinced itself that it can present an ethical solution to the racial problems of South Africa. It presents this ethical solution almost as if it is replying to at least the first part of the Lusaka manifesto. The first part of that Lusaka manifesto stated—

That is precisely what this Government thinks it is doing. It believes that it is, as the hon. the Minister has said this afternoon, leading the non-White people towards their own identity and fulfilment in their own homelands, and eventually to their own government. But this statement of faith, this ethical concept, which was issued in fact long before the Lusaka manifesto came into being, for that was only a couple of years ago, has been issued year after year since Dr. Verwoerd first framed this ethical solution. But it does not wash; it is no good. Sir. It does not help us in the outside world—because however much the Government may protest that it is its desire to give men equal rights in their own homelands and that it is against discrimination because it is going to allow the African people to realize themselves in their own homelands, the world is left with the stark reality, with the fact that more than half of the African people live in White South Africa. It is on those people that attention is focussed. I am now speaking about those eight million Africans who are living inside the so- called White areas of the Republic and also of course the two million Coloured peple and the 500 000 Indians. Until the Government comes forward with an answer to this, there is no point in issuing manifestos.

We have a better answer than your party.

I do not think you have. You talk about “one man, one vote” in the homelands, but the eight million people who are never going to put a foot in the homelands have no vote of any value whatsoever. I think that if today on gives the Africans a free choice of whether they would accept being citizens in a multi-racial South Africa where all discrimination has been removed, with rights in this Parliament on a qualified franchise basis, represented on a common roll by people of all races, they would accept it because the other part of the policy is always forgotten, namely that of opening the opportunities to acquire the qualifications. This choice has never been given to the Africans. They have been told what the Government offers them and that is what they are stuck with. The hon. the Minister is now taking a different attitude to the Lusaka manifesto from that which he took two years ago. I raised this Lusaka manifesto question during the Prime Minister’s Vote and the hon. the Minister referred me to a debate which had taken place in this House in May, 1969, I took the trouble to look up the reference he so kindly supplied to me. Interestingly enough there were only two references there. One was a speech made by the then member for Krugersdorp who eulogized the Lusaka manifesto almost as if it was an expression of National Party policy. He was thinking in term of each African homeland with its own government and not in terms of a minority White regime in South Africa at all. He was convinced that we could put over this idea to the African states. The hon. the Minister’s reference was very brief indeed and occupies less than a page in Hansard. He had only favourable comments to make about the Lusaka manifesto at that stage. He pointed to the modesty with which the African States had presented themselves and he pointed to the fact that they did not want to replace White racialism with Balck racialism. He mentioned this in passing and went on to say that they would rather “talk than kill” and that they would rather have a peaceful solution to Southern Africa’s dilemma. It is not only South Africa that concerns them but also Rhodesia and the Portuguese-occupied territories in East and West Africa. Today he had a very different attitude. Today he says, correctly, that one must not only look at that side of the Lusaka manifesto and that there are other less favourable aspects of this manifesto. This is precisely the point I want to make. We must not start things we cannot finish. The Minister must remember that the African states with whom he wants dialogue—this hideously overworked word—are all coming in terms of them interpretation of the Lusaka manifesto, which is if Peaceful negotiation does not work and if they cannot persuade the South African Government of the error of its ways and that it must change its attitude towards the Black majority and race discrimination inside White South Africa, not in terms of the homeland policy, then they would have no alternative but to back the liberation movement. Surely this is also the real message of the Lusaka manifesto, namely, that unless we are prepared to make meaningful changes, they are all going to turn their backs on us. It is not only the Zambian president and the president of Tanzania, but also those people who have spoken about dialogue with us who are coming to talk in terms of the Lusaka manifesto. I hope that this fact is fully realized, because to start raising expectations can often be a very dangerous thing, because if those expectations are not realized, the hostility towards South Africa will be greater than it has ever been before. The President of the Ivory Coast made a very interesting statement the other day. President Houphouet-Boigny stated in an interview that “we should invade South Africa with out diplomats”. He said:

I wish that were true; I wish it were as simple as that. Sir: If we had a handful of Black diplomats—because 30 or 40 people really represent a handful in a country with a population of 21 million people if we had a handful of Black diplomats who were allowed all the privileges of White citizenship in South Africa, that would mean the end of apartheid. It will not, and I hope that the hon. the Minister realizes that this dialogue is not going to be a simple matter of explaining his interpretation of the Lusaka Manifesto, namely that South Africa indeed is not practising race discrimination, that White South Africa is not a minority Government because there are X numbers of White people outnumbering the Zulu race, the Swazi race, the Basotho race and so on. It is just not going to work. Sir, I see our dilemma of policy in Africa as something much more complicated than that, because we are trying to do two mutually incompatible things, two completely incompatible things. On the one hand we talk about increasing contacts and diplomatic relations and so on and on the other hand South Africa is taking the part of the White régimes. This has been its policy all along. It is supporting the Rhodesian régime, which is very much objected to in the Lusaka Manifesto.

Are you against it?

The hon. member knows that I have always been against the U.D.I. government. South Africa is also supporting the White régime of Portugal in Africa. Those just happen to be mutually incompatible because all the Black states are against this. This is the difficulty which is now facing other nations outside Africa. They see this conflict developing and they have to make their choice as to whether they are going to come in with White South Africa and thereby find themselves aligned on the side of minority regimes like Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonial governments in Angola and in East Africa, as against the whole of Black Africa. These are the problems which are facing the other countries. We have the same things that we had in microcosm in the sports policy. In other words, do they allow South African teams to come over and to compete and thus apparently align themselves with White South Africa against their own Black Commonwealth nations? It is very difficult to start something, Sir, unless you are prepared to complete it, and this is what we have done in the case of the sports policy. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton always takes delight in putting forward the standpoint of international ideology. I want to tell her that she may rest assured that our standpoint is an ethical one and that we shall continue to put it forward without making concessions, but it is also a fact that we are making progress slowly but surely and that we shall eventually have the co-operation of the world and that they will recognize our honesty.

Sir, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Von Brandis said here. He said he was referring to a report of Mr. Newson, of America, in which he said that America was looking at the urban Bantu and that this was the crux of the matter on which they judge us. Sir, I want to tell him that that is not all; there are many other views held in America. The same Mr. Newsom made a speech at the North Western University in Illinois. There he put forward four standpoints the U.S.A. could adopt towards South Africa, but he went further; his basic standpoint was that legislation in South Africa is based on discrimination which is a problem in the U.N. and the world at present; that it is a system which carries within itself the seed of enormous racial explosions and which may mean problems for America. He then continued and said that there were four ways open to the United States to follow in South Africa. The first way open to America, is the one of accepting apartheid; the second is the isolation of South Africa; the third is deliverance from the situation, in other words, the elimination of apartheid; and the fourth is communication with South Africa. The first way, that of accepting apartheid, he rejected on three grounds. He said that if America were to accept the situation here, it would not be consistent with its own efforts of maintaining racial harmony within that country; secondly, he said that if they were to accept this situation, the United States of America would lose its bona fides among the African states. Thirdly, the United States would not be in a position to offer effective resistance to communist infiltration in Africa and America would then have associated itself with the White states in Southern Africa. The second way, i.e. the elimination of apartheid he did not pursue, because he said it entails violence and that this may endanger world peace. The third way, i.e. that of isolation, he also rejected. To him isolation means the severing of all diplomatic relations as well as prohibiting any investments, and this he rejected by virtue of the fact that if the U.S.A. withdrew from here, other investors would move in to take its place here. He then dealt with the fourth way, i.e, communication with South Africa, and he said that he accepted it. They want to communicate, with us, but emphasize that communication does not mean lifting the arms embargo; it does not mean the acceptance of the domestic situation of apartheid either. He says it only means that the two parties would then know what they are talking about.

Sir, this speech is very interesting. I believe this gives us the actual standpoint adopted by the State Department; it also goes to show how people jump at nonessential things and do not see the essential things, and how they elevate the nonessential things to major policy formulating factors. I believe these misconceptions are marring relations between our two countries. It actually promotes communism and weakens the position of the United States even here in Africa. I am quite sure. Sir, that the relations between our two countries will improve greatly provided a few matters are faced more realistically. The United States, whether she wants to admit it or not, is today destined to be the protector of the Christian world, because of the enormous power it has in all spheres. If the United States of America were to go under, communism would dominate and suppress the rest of the world. Today communism is moving step by step towards Africa, in Africa and around Africa, and if Africa should go under, America would come under great pressure, because one of its flanks would he completely exposed. But, Sir, it is also true that if South Africa should go under, communism would role up Africa as it would do with a pan-cake, but as long as the Republic remains standing, Africa will also be able to remain standing. I believe the time has come for the United States to make a reappraisal of its attitude towards South Africa, and for the beautiful example set by prominent Americans, as well as the American Ambassador, Mr. Hurd, to be followed. Mr. Hurd, for example, emphasized points of agreement between our two countries when he addressed the press at a meeting in Johannesburg on 23rd November. He pointed out how much the two countries have in common. Mr. Newsom may for example put it to the American people that we are two nations which are really devoted to the Christian way of life; secondly, that the domestic political circumstances within South Africa and within the United States have no bearing on one another—one cannot compare the two; thirdly, it may be put to America that our domestic legislation is not based on discrimination in respect of colour and race. Our legislation is based on the preservation of the individual identity of all nations—it is the basic foundation of our legislation. I believe that if the American people realize these things as we do, if they know that we are striving as sincerely as they are to do the best for our people, and that we want to uplift our people and assist and guide them towards self realization they will realize that separate development is not the danger to world peace which people make it out to be. These are not only our words; we have heard here today that President Boigny himself emphasized that communism is more dangerous than separate development. Separate development is our way of life. It is our way of doing things. It is not something which is exported, and more and more states in Africa accept the fact that it is South Africa’s domestic affair. If they accept that this is not a barrier to cordial co-operation between us and them, why should America then regard it as a barrier? I believe that it is an exaggeration to say that America would lose its bona fides among the African states if it cooperates with us.

Surely it is also the stated policy of the United States that if there are nations striving for their own realization and independence, they should be assisted in achieving that. Therefore, our policy must from the nature of things and exclusively be acceptable to them. I believe time is running out. I believe the hand of the clock for the Christian people in the world is pointing to ten to twelve. To those of us who adhere to this tenet, time is running out. Knowing the American people as I do, I believe that if they are aware of all these facts they will believe that there must be closer and more co-operation between our two nations. I believe we should be able to agree to differ with each other but that we have to realize that the security of South Africa is the security of the United States of America too. Whether we want to do so or not, we shall be compelled to rely on each other in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that I agree with him that communism is a great danger and that we must stand firm. I just want to express the hope that he is correct in saying that when the dialogue starts, the African states are sure to accept the domestic situation in South Africa and our domestic policy. I hope this will not be an obstacle. All of us in this House believe that the Department of Foreign Affairs is a very important department, and that the hon. the Minister occupies a key position. It is the aim of everyone to strengthen South Africa’s position internationally. However, it is the Oppostion’s role—and I want to emphasize this— to scrutinize the policy and the actions of this hon. Minister in the field of foreign affairs, and if we see dangers for South Africa in his and his Government’s policy, it is our duty to sound a note of warning.

The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that in the modern world of today it is necessary for him to give his Cabinet a clear, firm and very decisive lead as regards international affairs. It is not correct to leave international affairs to politicians. It is the field of a statesman, and therefore I want to declare that South Africa’s position in relation to the rest of Africa will, in the last resort, depend on its relations with Africa. Consequently we were amazed that the hon. the Minister had not vetoed the unfortunate action of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of President Kaunda. This hon. Minister knows that international negotiations are strictly confidential. We all saw on the photostatic copy of one of the letters sent to our hon. Prime Minister by the President of Zambia that it was clearly marked “Secret”.

Did you see the letter?

I referred to the photostatic copy. This hon. Minister is aware of the fact that innumerable irritating and even flagrant incidents occur between countries, but he is also aware of the fact that a sophisticated Prime Minister does not play petty politics with serious international affairs. The hon. the Minister knows that the leaders of the world handle these matters with gloves and do not look for banner headlines, in their own press particularly, in the hope of perhaps gaining just a small political advantage. I am sorry to say that this whole piece of play-acting of the hon. the Prime Minister is a consequence of the decades of brain-washing and propaganda which resulted in the superior and arrogant attitude typical of this Government. [Interjections.] This behaviour towards President Kaunda is just a projection of the Nationalist Party’s line of action in respect of our own non-Whites in South Africa. You all know that the President of the Ivory Coast has intimated that he wants to conduct a dialogue with South Africa, as have other leaders of Black Africa. Sir, you will be able to confirm that the main theme in the council chambers of Black African countries will be the following: Be careful of the Government in Pretoria, for if you fall into disfavour with them, they will reveal your closest secrets.

Disgraceful!

In the second place I want to say this. The relations between South Africa and the future independent states to be created within our borders if this Government stays in power long enough will be South Africa’s most important relations with other states. And the debacle of the Minister of Bantu Administration in respect of Chief Matanzima is another matter that should have been prevented by this hon. Minister. These are the two areas in which he has failed to prevent our relations from being clouded by politicians. He should have used his influence in this connection in order to have statesmanship prevail.

While listening to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I once more gained the impression that the Opposition got such a hiding during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and that they became so aware of the fact that they struck a poor figure during that debate, that they are now trying to come along wih a rearguard acion in connection with President Kaunda. They now come along with stories they subsequently learned from the Press. The Press told them how they should actually have conducted themselves here in the House. Now we hear things such as those we have just heard from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I regret to say that these matters were also mentioned this afternoon by front-benchers of the Opposition. It amazes me that these gentlemen allow themselves to be used as lackeys of the English- language Press.

However, I want to make a few further remarks here. I want to state that there is a growing awareness, not only among our people in the leadership group, in Parliament and among our intelligentsia, but also among the masses, at all levels of society, including our factory workers and merchants, that we are a part of Africa and that we must take up and maintain our position in the statehood of African nations. It is not only in the political sphere that there is this growing awareness, but also in the international commercial sphere. I maintain that there are two factors, in particular, that are going to force us increasingly in the future to think in terms of our position in Africa and Africa alone. This is, it would seem to me, the approaching entry of Britain into the European Common Market, which is going to create many problems for us as far as the development and exploitation of our present markets in Britain are concerned. The other aspect, which is going to have a considerably adverse effect on us, and which is going to make us increasingly more dependent on Africa as our commercial hinterland, is the ever-increasing freight. Freight has increased in recent times by almost 20 per cent, while it is predicted that in the near future—in the next five years—it is going to increase by another 50 per cent. I now maintain that our lines of communication are actually becoming longer and more expensive because of the increased costs, in spite of this century in which everything has drawn closer together. It is therefore my view that we are going to depend increasingly on our relations with Africa.

Fortunately there is also an awareness among our Black African neighbours that we, White South Africa, are also a part of Africa. We can trace this back to the remarks President Boigny made recently, but also, for example, in the Lusaka Manifesto where it is expressly stated—

We therefore find that even among these peoples there is an awareness of the fact that we are not only colonial settlers, but that we belong to Africa.

The political and economic position of our neighbours in Black Africa is also of the utmost importance to us, A relationship with an unstable friend can be frustrating. Good relations—and it will suit us all the more to have good relations with Black Africa—can only be arranged with stable countries. It is therefore in our interests for the independent Black Slates to be politically and economically stable. In the past decade we have seen the evolution —or revolution as some call it—of the emerging Black States, and we have seen how they have established their political basis. Let us make no mistake, the Black political leaders of Africa are competent; we must not underestimate them, much less the strength of their countries. It befits us as White Africans, if I may use the term, to display the necessary respect towards those Black leaders.

However capable these leaders may be, I must say that they are going to be confronted increasingly by the problem of the promotion of economic activities within their country’s borders. They are going to be confronted increasingly with the supplying of sufficient food, employment opportunities and generally better living conditions for their people. This is going to set them a tremendous challenge in the future. If the leaders do not succeed in letting the economic growth keep pace with population growth, this must lead to unemployment, poverty and even famine. Such a situation must give rise to undesirable political instability and I maintain that that is not in our interests. One is then grateful to note that, after a period of initial unrest and even economic chaos, a measure of stability has come to many of the Black African States, with a measure of progress in countries such as Ghana and the Kinshasa Congo. Unfortunately it is also true that the economic growth rate in numerous African States is particularly low and has not kept pace with the population growth. Only a few countries could keep their heads above water to any extent. I want to quote a few facts that are mentioned in The Economic Commission for Africa and African Economic Indicators, 1968. Only a few countries, for example Libya, Mauritania, Malawi, the Ivory Coast, Gabon, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone evidenced an increase of 3 per cent or more in their production per capita. In Tunisia, Egypt, Togo and Mauritius the growth rate was more than 2 per cent, but less than 3 per cent per annum. In nineteen African countries the economic growth rate was less than I per cent per year, and in 13 of these countries per capita incomes decreased. With the exception of South Africa, there were only two countries in 1966, i.e. Libya and Gabon, where the income per capita exceeded R220 per year. In five countries the per capita incomes varied between R140 and R220, while in 18 African countries it was less than R70 per capita per annum. As far as the population growth is concerned, I can just mention to hon. members that Tanzania, for example, maintained an economic growth rate of about 5 per cent per annum during the 1964-’69 development plan period. However, since the country’s population increased by 2,7 per cent and prices evidenced an increase of 2,5 per cent per annum, the real income per capita. decreased, or at best stagnated. Hon. members will therefore see that these countries are faced with a tremendous problem. South Africa is sympathetic towards them in their problems. Like them, we also had to wrench ourselves free from a colonial economy that was more intent on administrative and military objects than on economic ones. We made our adjustments. Like them, we also had to wrench ourselves free of an agriculturally-bound economy and we had to develop into an industrial economy. Like them, we must also struggle with the urbanization of our population. We are also equipped with the necessary experience, in my opinion, to give these countries the necessary guidance in this sphere. This guidance is also, in my opinion, an extension of our African policy.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with a question which I raised last night and was unable to complete. I appreciate his consideration in replying fully to this question.

I hope he will forgive me, therefore, if I refer to what might be described perhaps as his “ivory tower” approach to certain questions which are in dispute between the Government and the Opposition, I believe it is correct that discussion of certain international affairs should be quietly conducted. I am sure the Minister and I might perhaps prefer to use more subdued language than my colleague chose to use a few minutes ago; but this is a matter of how one is involved. I think it is perfectly fair for the Minister to say, where he holds responsibility for the conduct of diplomacy, where he is privy to a great deal of confidential information, that he himself must naturally guard his language very carefully and behave with the discretion which becomes a Minister of Foreign Affairs.

So far as the Opposition is concerned, there are of course matters of public interest and matters of dispute. While we may agree to observe our due share of discretion in dealing with these matters, and while we do feel that there are certain matters which require some adherence to the ancient, time-honoured and well proven rules of diplomacy, we nevertheless, as an Opposition, feel that we are rendering a service to the State, to South Africa’s image abroad, and, in fact, to the task which the hon. the Minister has to carry out abroad, by showing ourselves to be a lively, informed and critical Opposition.

It is because I believe in this and also because I believe these time-honoured rules of diplomacy should be observed that I also have my reservations—I say so frankly—about the manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the Kaunda correspondence. I believe it is most important to the conduct of diplomacy that confidences should be preserved. I believe that one runs great risks and encounters dangers, and whatever the provocations might have been—I believe they were great —whatever the temptation might have been to cut Dr. Kaunda down to size, and I believe it was a great temptation, I think one must still think twice and three times before one departs from these basic and well tried rules, because most often in the history of diplomacy that has led to disaster.

We do not have all the information at our disposal. It may be that an objective can be achieved which cannot as yet be foreseen, but I would be surprised if, indeed, this attempt to discredit a man who, whatever his weaknesses and his faults, occupies a key position in Africa, can in the long run succeed as an act of diplomacy. I say he occupies a key position in Africa, because Zambia is a country which finds itself situated between that cluster of states in Southern Africa which, for various reasons, co-operate closely with South Africa, and various constellations of other states to the north of Zambia which take various other attitudes towards South Africa. Zambia does occupy a strategic position in the geographic sense, and Dr. Kaunda as its president, and as the president also of the Organization for African Unity, occupies a key position in another sense as well. Now, I am not at all convinced that what has happened, will in fact cut down Dr. Kaunda to size or that it will diminish his authority. It may well be, and one is relieved to find that certain statesmen in Africa—I think particularly of President Houphouet-Boigny—have not so far been deterred from seeking dialogue. I do not want to take this matter any further than that, except to express this reservation about the way in which it has been handled.

We favour dialogue and we wish to see it succeed. What then are the elements most necessary for its success? First of all, I want to say that a dialogue cannot succeed if it is the intention of each head of State to use his powers of persuasion to such an extent that he believes he can override the opinions and policies of the other. If each head of state who comes to South Africa came here convinced that he could persuade the South African Government to abandon its policies, to change them and to accept those policies which are pressed upon him, the dialogue can obviously not succeed. If on the other hand, we in South Africa were to engage people in dialogue but prove ourselves to be entirely intractable in a discussion of our problems, I also believe we will be unlikely to succeed. It will be like the old scientific conundrum of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

I would say that we could find a great deal of other common ground. I have already referred to certain areas in which dialogue about our own policies was possible; areas that are sensitive but amenable to improvement. I want to come to another common interest, namely the defence of Africa against communism. This is obviously a matter of concern to many African states. I would say that that could form the basis of a good deal of close co-operation and of mutual interest. It is necessary, however, that when we deal with communism we should deal with the realities of communism and not with its myths. Communism is not a generic term to describe everything of which we take an unfavourable view in Africa. I do not accuse the hon. the Minister of taking this line, but one has heard it in this House and also elsewhere. I think it is a great mistake not to make distinctions between the various causes of danger and unrest and the various potentials for dissension in Africa; and to damn them all with the common generic name of communism.

What do you understand by it?

I would like to suggest another matter which I hardly need to raise, because it is already very much in the mind of the Government, namely the question of technical aid. This I believe will be a great source of common interest and there is really no point in emphasizing that.

Another point I would like to mention is that of South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister has asked us not to go into the question which is under discussion and I do not propose to do so. I would merely like to make the point that South-West Africa is in fact an issue which will form a major problem to South Africa in its foreign relations for many years to come. I believe the real question as far as South-West Africa is concerned, in spite of what has been said and is said, is not a choice between South Africa and the United Nations. It will eventually be a question of a choice between South Africa, the status quo, and independence. Whether we take the United Nations into the picture or not, the real choice before the people of South-West Africa is whether they wish to continue under and with South Africa as at present, in an evolutionary form, or whether in fact it would best suit their purposes and the purposes of the rest of the world, and in fact bring peace to that area and peace in our international relations in respect of that area, if in fact the people were to feel that independence is the best solution. Before I sit down I want to make a suggestion as to what kind of independence it ought to be. I believe that in Southern Africa we have a great many problems to solve, problems of various kinds; and that it is possible within this area for the component parts, the territories of Southern Africa, to have constitutions and forms of government of various kinds. I believe nevertheless that it is possible for them to work together in ever increasing prosperity and amity in a form which may loosely be described as a common market, an economic community, in Southern Africa. I think we must all think very hard about such a solution to the problems of Southern Africa. It would be wrong to force people into one mould or to try to do so. It would be wrong to force our points of view and our policies on each other. Within such an area of common prosperity and economic union, I believe we would find that in our differences we would have very much more in common.