Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport, who handled the Second Reading of this Bill, is unfortunately not here today. I shall therefore have to speak to the hon. the Minister of Transport about a few ideas expressed here by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

In the Second Reading debate my personal objection was that there was a lack of planning in the layout of this railway line to be constructed to provide a rail link with the new harbour area. The hon. the Deputy Minister said we were wrong; that there was not a lack of planning. He said the harbour had to be built in the first place and that an outlet had to be found from the harbour and he then asked what objection we had to it. In the second place, he said that, in any case, five routes had been investigated, which indicated that our accusation that there had been a lack of planning was totally unfounded. Sir, it seems to me as if the hon. the Deputy Minister was altogether wrong. You must bear in mind, Sir, that construction of this new harbour has been going on for a few years now. It seems to me that when one builds a new house and decides to provide for five doors in that house one has to plan as early as possible where one is going to put those doors. Surely one does not finish or half-finish the house before putting in the doors. Let me put the case like this: It seems to me that when a new harbour area is constructed it is of the utmost importance that the Administration should determine as early as possible exactly where the exit route from that harbour and the linkup with the present railway line should be. However, what do we find? Last night a resident of that particular area telephoned me and said that he submitted an application to the Cape Town City Council only six months ago to have certain improvements carried out to his house. The Cape Town City Council, which was involved in this matter, gave its consent. If this person had an extra room and/or an extra garage built, the Railways would have had to incur additional expenses to compensate for this extra room and/or garage. To me the normal procedure would have been for the Railways to have reached a decision as early as possible in regard to the new exit and that it would then have consulted the Cape Town City Council in order to prohibit any further developments from taking place in that area. Apparently this has not been done, because if this had been done, the Cape Town City Council would definitely have been aware of this fact and would not have allowed this type of development to take place there.

What is more, we have been told that there were only five outlets. If I interpret correctly the map I have here in front of me—it is an interesting map indicating the route the railway line is going to take—it seems to me as if the best of these alternatives has been rendered useless because the Railways have waited such a long time before constructing the new railway line. When we look at this map we find that, since extensions to the harbour were commenced, a new residential area called Elbowville has been established right next to the airport. There is no reason at all why the railway line could not have run through that area. But what happened in the meantime? Since construction of the harbour has begun scores of houses have been erected there and the result is that the Railways can no longer make use of that vacant land. It seems to me that all this is the result of the Railways having waited too long, having done nothing and not having consulted the necessary parties in this matter to obtain the particular outlet there. The result of this is that the people now have all kinds of problems and are going to suffer damage.

In the second place, I informed the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Cape Town City Council, the Milnerton City Council and the Cape Provincial Administration were not in favour of the particular route which has now been surveyed. I used the wrong word when I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether “permission” was obtained from these local bodies. I was wrong in that I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was whether the Railway Administration enjoyed the co-operation of the local bodies and whether they agreed that this was the only solution. My information is that they did not agree; in fact, that they were dissatisfied because this particular route was chosen.

In the third place, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to me in regard to the following matter either. I told him that 40 families are going to lose their houses as a result of the new railway line. I asked him: Mr. Minister, do not simply expropriate; that is not good enough because it is very difficult to get houses at this stage. I made a friendly request to the hon. the Deputy Minister to try and get the Department of Community Development to cooperate in an attempt to find alternative houses of more or less the same type in a somewhat similar area. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave me no reply in that respect.

I want to mention another objection. I receive telephone calls from these people now who tell me that they have bonds on their houses granted by the National Housing Commission. The rate of interest on those bonds is 3¼ per cent. Those houses will now be expropriated by the Railways. This man will now have to buy another house and he will most probably have to take out another bond. Where is he going to get his bond from? Will the National Housing Commission be prepared to grant him another bond and, if so, will the rate of interest again be 3¼ per cent or will he perhaps be required to pay 5 per cent to 8 per cent? If he has to pay a higher rate of interest, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of this matter, in the first place, to see to it that these people will receive the best possible service from the Railways in conjunction with the Department of Community Development. In the second place, the hon. the Minister will have to see to it that these houseowners, 40 of them, will suffer no loss when their houses are demolished. The people involved in this matter do not want to stand in the way of progress. They realize that the harbour must be built and they also realize that there has to be an outlet, but they say that since this has to be done now, it is regrettable that they have not been consulted in the first place. In the second place, they now request that they be given the best possible compensation so that they will not suffer any loss. I trust that the hon. the Minister will do his utmost in this regard.

I can understand precisely how the hon. member for Maitland feels about this matter. This concerns his constituency and any member will be dissatisfied when 40 houses in his constituency have to be demolished with a view to the construction of a railway line. I therefore do not take it amiss of the hon. member for putting his case. As far as the planning aspect is concerned I just want to say that planning has been under way for a very long time now. In regard to the construction of the new harbour, a commission of inquiry was appointed which made a careful study of these two schemes, the Rietvlei scheme and the Cape Town harbour scheme. The commission finally came to the conclusion that the most suitable place for the construction of the new harbour was at the Table Bay harbour. From the nature of the case there has to be access, and planning in regard to the various routes which are to serve the harbour has been under way for many years. I agree that the town councils concerned have not been consulted, because this is not the practice. In any case, they will never agree to a railway line running through their area. However, five routes were investigated. Of these five routes this particular route was considered the most suitable. The hon. member was one of a delegation that came to see me about this matter and during that interview the whole of this matter was thrashed out. I think I indicated to the satisfaction of the deputation that this was the only possible route we could use.

But even so he is complaining!

No, the hon. member has every right to complain. It is his voters and his constituency, and the hon. member must plead for his voters and constituency. I concede that. I am sorry that 40 houses have to be demolished, particularly in view of the shortage of housing there is today. If there had been any other way to prevent this from happening, I would definitely have done so. However, I want to give him the assurance that my department will receive instructions to cooperate with the Department of Community Development to see in which way those people can best be given alternative housing. I am giving the hon. member that assurance. Further, I am afraid there is nothing more we can do about this matter at this stage. The new harbour is being constructed in the interests of Cape Town and in the interests of the whole country. When this harbour is constructed there must be a rail link and the only possible route is the one determined by this Bill. I am very sorry about this, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon member for Wynberg spoke for a few minutes yesterday afternoon, and she reminded me of a venomous moth committing relationships murder. She also reminded me of an old nanny-goat I have on the farm. People gave her the name of Katrina: she crawls through every fence; she devours everything she finds on the garbage bean: and every bush she nibbles at, dies. I have seldom listened to anything worse than what the hon. member had to say. She incited the Coloured population

and prompted them against the Whites. If there is one thing I am tired of, it is …

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. member is inciting a population group. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Yes …

It is true.

Has the hon. member for Malmesbury withdrawn it?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

I may not say it, and that is why I say …

Say that it implies.

If there is one thing I am tired of, then it is for Whites …

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must withdraw the words “it is true”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman.

If there is one thing I am tired of, and I think we are all tired of this, then it is of people who put words in the mouth of Coloureds and other persons. I think the Coloureds today are mature enough to speak for themselves.

*Mr. H. VAN Z. CILLIÉ: You do not listen to them.

The United Party no longer needs to sneak for them. The hon. member referred disparagingly to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. I think that any person who sneaks disparagingly of the Coloured Persons Representative Council today, does not know what he is talking about, and is like a blind mole, a blind mole crawling around below the ground without knowing where it is going or where it came from. That is precisely what the hon. member for Wynberg and her Party are doing. I want to say today that what this Council has achieved redounds to the credit of the Government. All praise to the Coloured Persons Representative Council and its executive! In the few years since their inception they have frequently been referred to disparagingly, as the hon. member for Wynberg did again yesterday. We, and I think they as well, can throw out our chests today. Since this Council was established the Coloureds have with the assistance of the Coloured Persons Development Corporation, made enormous progress economically. The Coloureds are acquiring a niche for themselves in the business world. I hope that the hon. members on this side of the House who will speak after me, will prove this statement with facts. The Coloured Persons Representative Council controls education. Does any one want to try to make me believe that a body which controls education does not have a task, does not have any work and can be suffering from frustration? If what that hon. member said is true, namely that the Coloured Persons Representative Council is suffering from frustration, then I say quite definitely that they are too lazy to work. But I do not believe her, because they do have a task. There are more than 500 000 Coloured children attending school, children who fall under the control of that Council. I have the figures here. There are more than 58 000 children attending high and secondary schools under the control of this Council.

And how many apprentices?

Thousands. The hon. member can also get figures in that connection from me, but I do not want to allow myself to be side-tracked now. These people have work to do, and the United Party is standing in their way. The Estimates of the Coloured Persons Representative Council amounted to R82 042 000 this year. I want to inform those hon. members that when I entered the Cape Provincial Council in 1949, the Cape Province Estimates was only R41 million. An amount of R17 million was spent on education for the Coloureds and the Whites. Do those hon. members want to try to make me, or South Africa, or the world, or anyone for that matter, believe that a body spending R82 million does not have powers? That is twice as much as the Cape Province spent 20 years ago. Then those hon. members still poke fun at this body and say that it is suffering from frustration. These people have work to do, and I am therefore asking the United Party to stop standing in their way. Give those people an opportunity to speak for themselves. I think it is a disgrace that that hon. member should go so far as to predict that she sees a confrontation between the Whites and the Bantu and that not one Coloured will stand on the side of the Whites. It is a disgrace. I think she ought to feel ashamed of herself. The one word in the Afrikaans language for which I have the greatest respect is the word “mother”. I think the hon. member should begin to think whether she is worthy of the name of “mother”.

Another argument which is used to a tremendous extent in regard to this Coloured Persons Representative Council is the fact that one-third of those councillors are appointed. The appointment of one-third of the members took place on the basis of the recommendations of a Select Committee appointed by this Parliament. It was a unanimous finding. The hon. member for Yeoville also served on that Committee. Mr. Bloomberg, who was one of the Coloured representatives in this House, moved the motion that one-third of the members should be appointed. The hon. member for Yeoville seconded that motion. Today I want to ask all sensible people, also those among the Coloured population, not to insist that this be changed. It was introduced for the ten year period from 1969 to 1979. I want to ask that we refrain from quarrelling over this. In 1978 there has to be another delimitation for the 1979 election. That will be the proper time to reconsider this matter. We have work for these people. They are finding their feet in the socioeconomic sphere. The United Party has nothing to offer them. Since the day they departed from the common voters’ roll, that party has had no moral basis on which they can offer these people anything. The six representatives they are offering the Coloureds is an even poorer dispensation than the one they had when they were still on the common voters’ roll. Today all Coloureds over the age of 21 have the franchise—man, woman and child. Why should they accept six representatives if they can be placed on a common voters’ roll and win more than half the constituencies in the Cape Province? Surely there is no morality in this matter; surely they can have no esteem or respect for these people. I want to ask why they should return to that? If one wants to talk of bitterness, hatred or frustration in this House, then there was frustration among the Coloured population in the years before 1948. There was frustration in those years because nothing was being done for them and they were being neglected. Under that Party they ended up in places like Windermere, in the Acres and in District 6. Those Coloureds were members of their party. The United Party had branches in Gordonia and elsewhere, of which the Coloureds were members. But a Coloured was never elected. In the Cape Flats the Coloureds were in the majority and here, too, in the old constituency of Castle, the Coloureds were in the majority. However, they were never afforded an opportunity of representing these constituencies. Now that matters are in the hands of the Coloured Persons Representative Council they have the power, and there is work for them to do. People who can spend R82 million, have power. They have the power in their hands, the United Party comes along and puts words in their mouth. I may not use the word “inciters” or “incitement” … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night I was quoting from what the late Dr. Verwoerd said about the Coloured Council in 1961. He said (translation):

†The hon. member for Malmesbury has just told us that in 1978 or 1979 the Government will start thinking about this. But I would like to remind him that the Act establishing this council was passed in 1964. As the Act was passed in 1964, can we have a firm undertaking from the hon. the Minister that they will have total independence and be fully elected and have powers to tax by 1974? On the basis of the hon. member’s argument can we have that assurance?

In the meantime 12 years have passed since the promise was made by the late Dr. Verwoerd.

The executive of the Coloured Representative Council today has no more functions than that of a rubber stamp—nothing else, and hon. members know that very well. When this matter was referred to in this House by the present Prime Minister in 1967 he said the following:

*There is no denying the fact that the change-over to full control by the Coloured Representative Council is overdue, and this has done the Coloured community a great deal of harm in the past few years.

Now I want to say something in regard to the University of the Western Cape. After 12 years of its existence many questions are being asked about this by the Coloured community itself and in this regard it must be remembered that these questions concern the policy of the Government itself, which provides that every race is to be placed in the position where it can serve its own community. After 12 years there are still no signs that this university is in a position where it can avail itself of suitable qualified Coloured persons.

Name them.

There is no doubt about it that many such persons are available, and hon. members know it. With the establishment of this university the idea and the promise was that the Coloured student and lecturer would be given the opportunity to enjoy to the full the privileges which they would have enjoyed elsewhere in this regard, in fact, many more. After 12 years the question must be asked: To what extent has this thought, this promise, been kept? I ask this of the hon. the Minister. It is most deplorable that only two permanent lecturers have been appointed up to now. There are 75 members of staff at the moment, and of these two are Coloured persons who have been permanently appointed and five are temporary appointments. That is all.

It is very interesting to compare the position of the non-Whites at the other universities with the position of those at the University of the Western Cape. As regards the Bantu at Fort Hare, there are 12 permanent appointments, with two professors. At the University of the North there are 17 appointments, two senior lecturers and one professor. At the University for Asians in Durban there are 46 appointments of this kind. Normally the senate of any university in the world consists of professors and other heads of departments. This is not the case at the University of the Western Cape, however. Hon. members know that. Only White professors and heads of departments sit on the senate of that university. Once again these facts run counter to the basic idea of the Government that the Coloured academic would, as promised, be able to realize himself to the full at this institution. This just means that the institution does not serve the purpose for which it was established, i.e. to do full justice to the Coloured person in the academic field.

But, Sir, what about the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself? In 1971 they decided unanimously (translation)—

†The hon. the Minister was challenged in the Other Place on this issue last week. He told the hon. Senators in the Other Place that this idea was under serious consideration by the Government, that they were seriously thinking of turning it into a fully elected body, which we told them it ought to be in the first place, and that they were considering granting them powers of taxation. But there is no firm commitment, Sir, It is the same waffling we have had over the years. For how long must these people wait for meaningful executive powers?

*And then, Sir, what about the slogan of equal pay for equal work? The Minister declared in this Parliament last year that the Government was endeavouring to narrow the gap between the salaries of Coloured people and Whites. We accept that, Sir,

†But what kind of progress have they made in this direction? Let us just take the teachers on their own. In December 1971 the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs announced an average increase of 18 per cent, which brought Coloured teachers’ salaries up from 54 per cent to 72 per cent of those of White teachers. Having administered Coloured education now for seven years, the Government has not yet even brought the Coloured teachers’ salaries up to the 80 per cent ratio in regard to White salaries which existed at the time of the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces in 1964. So there has been no progress. Virtually, the situation has deteriorated.

*Sir, what about job reservation? The Opposition of the Coloured community to this policy is well known. We have pleaded over the years in this House for the abolition of this restriction. It is essential for the prosperity of the whole country. The Coloured people, who live in the same geographic area as the Whites and who are citizens of South Africa by birth, should certainly not be discriminated against in this way. On 31st May last year the Prime Minister himself made the significant and important statement in this House that there are no inferior people in South Africa. But what does this statement mean when our loyal and faithful Coloured fellow-citizens are discriminated against in this way?

†The hon. member for Malmesbury is quite right in one respect, although I regret having to pay him any tribute of any kind; I know him too well. There is no doubt that the greatest single concern to all Coloured political parties in South Africa today is the appalling sociological and economic state in which the majority of their people have to live. Included here is the lack of adequate education, the insecurity of life under the Group Areas Act, the mass removals without community interests being taken into consideration, inadequate wages, and so on. The point here is that the Coloured Representative Council and their executive have only the trappings of power and nothing else in this regard. The executive has no power to alter by one cent or one rand the allocation of funds in its budget from one specific public service to another; the Government does it all for them. The executive has no say whatsoever in drawing up its own bud get for its own people, nor has it the power to decide where their needs are greatest; the Government does the whole lot for them, and the hon. member knows that very well.

During the past year the Federal and the Labour Parties have voted together unanimously on a number of issues; they have gone to the Government with these requests, only to be told over and over again: “The matter is receiving attention,” and then nothing is done. They have passed unanimous resolutions on the question of housing, the powers of management committees and real local government, which they have not yet been given, discriminatory legislation, equal pay for equal work, the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act, pensions and allowances, compulsory education, an amendment to the Masters and Servants Act, the abolition of job reservation, sport, travelling facilities for them on the railways … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg had something to say about all sorts of things, without really saying something worth saying about anything. I just want to say this in general in regard to the points mentioned by the hon. member. She spoke of the University of the Western Cape and referred to the fact that the number of Coloured persons who have been permanently appointed as members of the teaching staff is still relatively small. She also referred to the salary gap and several other matters. I just want to tell her that there is one lesson which the world has taught us on the international level over the past decades, and particularly in the period after the Second World War, and that is that you cannot help a people to get ahead merely by showering it with a large amount of financial assistance or various political or other advantages; you can only help a people to make progress by helping it to help itself.

That is what they want.

I say you can only help a people to make progress by helping it to help itself, and that is not so easy. You do not achieve that by suddenly granting the people political power which they have not known. That is why the democracies in African states collapsed one after another. What the hon. member really wants to advocate for the Coloured population is this: Give the people a large degree of political power and sovereignty overnight. What will happen then is what happened in Africa; the democracy, which she is, after all, supposed to plead for, will collapse.

In twelve years you promised them that.

The hon member says 12 years. She has no idea of this. It took a people such as the British more than 12 centuries to develop their political system and keep a democracy going. Actually there are very few nations in the world today that are capable of this. It is a matter of concern to us that the Coloured population should develop in a planned and responsible way. Therefore certain restraining control measures have been retained by the Government in the granting of wider political rights to this population. Amongst other things there is the nomination of a considerable number of the members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. We must bear in mind that a people does not develop as rapidly as the world wants peoples and nations to develop today. It simply is a long road, and for this the modern world has paid a very high price in the era in which we live. A country such as America, which is a rich country and which is able to render great economic assistance to many countries, has had to admit this to its cost on more than one occasion. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member, in regard to the appointment of Coloured people on the staff of the University of the Western Cape, that this, too, is part of the problem. These people do not have a long and profound academic past. If there are only two permanent appointments today, or only five temporary appointments, I want to tell the hon. member that this is simply because people with the necessary qualifications and ability are not yet available.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member may sit down; she has talked enough nonsense. I want to tell hon. members: The fact that more non-Whites have been appointed at other institutions which she mentioned here herself—at the University College of the North and at Fort Hare, for example—proves that this is our policy in principle, and that where the people are available, they are appointed. But if they are not available yet—and responsible people among the Coloured population would probably admit this if one should go and talk to them—it cannot be done. When they are available, however, they will certainly be appointed, just as soon as they become available. That is our policy and we can foresee that there will be dozens of Coloured professors and lecturers at the University of the Western Cape within a few decades. The hon. member with her 12 years story can forget about it now; we do not want to listen to it; it is simply cheap propaganda she is trying to make in order to create the impression that we begrudge the people that promotion. I repeat that they will get that promotion when they have proved that they are ready to render that service. We do not want to boist inferior lecturers upon the Coloured students at the University of the Western Cape; we give them the best people available. If Coloured people are not available yet, we give them White members of staff so that we can give them the best possible guidance. If this had not been the case, hon. members opposite would have tried to call it an inferior institution.

Allow me, Sir, to move on to things other than the points raised by the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to say that if we look at the reports on the activities of the Department of Coloured Affairs, the activities of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the activities in regard to the education of the Coloured people, surprising progress has to my mind been made. There was a time some years ago when we felt that the money which was being spent on Coloured education, particularly in respect of high school education, was perhaps not being spent well enough. But in the light of the progress that has been made I just want to mention a few figures to the House. For the junior cetificate examinations there were 5 089 entries in 1964. Of these 53,6 per cent passed. In 1971 the number had risen to 10 478, but what is particularly interesting is that the pass rate had risen from 53,6 per cent in 1964 to 67,5 per cent in 1971. In other words, the standard of education of these people is rising. This is proved by the number of passes in the junior certificate examination every year. The pass rate of 65 per cent out of 10 000 in 1971 is a tremendous improvement on the rate of 1964. Then I just want to mention a few figures in regard to the senior certificate. In 1964 there were 1 344 entries, with a pass rate of only 44,3 per cent. In 1971 the figure had risen to 2 243 entries, with a pass rate of 63,4 per cent. So there was a rise in the number of passes from 44 per cent in 1964 to 63,4 per cent in 1971. Sir, I think we can pay tribute to the teaching staff for this. They certainly had a great task in raising the standard of teaching to this extent. We have reason to pay tribute to the inspectorate and the directorate of Coloured education, and to all who are charged with this service. I think these people realize today that they face a tremendous task and that there are tremendous possibilities which they can develop profitably in regard to the future of the Coloured population. If we bear in mind that there are 451911 pupils in the Coloured primary schools today—almost half a million people who are being taught—and if we think of the possibilities which this offers, we realize that that department has a very important task and that it can do very fruitful work with a view to the future. [Time expired.]

Sir, the remarks of the hon. member for Piketberg amounted to nothing less than a total vote of no confidence in the leaders of the Coloured community. Sir, it is no good any longer promising the Coloured people that in due course they will be given a fully elected council and more lecturers and things of that kind. The hon. member’s suggestion that there are fewer academically qualified members amongst the Coloured community who can take up posts at their university than there are amongst the Bantu people, is just not true, and the hon. member knows that.

Give me the names.

I have a list here that I can show the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister knows jolly well that these people no longer believe in the promises which have been coming from the Government over the years in this field. I want to say that the Coloured people are deeply distressed at the lack of confidence which this Government has shown in them for some time. The crux of the Government’s whole political dilemma is simply whether they are ready, with us, to make the necessary evolutionary leap towards a real sharing of power and of our economic gains with people of colour in the Republic. That is the crux; that is what it really amounts to, and neither that side of the House nor this side of the House can afford to hedge about and to hang back or to drag its feet over these matters. There are too many significant rumblings, particularly in the cities, for us to continue along those lines. Either we face the realities in the Republic and take these people along the democratic road with us as participants and as friends and as allies, or we face each other with fear and hostility, whatever the hon. member for Carletonville may say, and a sense of mounting crisis—take it or leave it. Sir, none of this Government’s pious platitudes are going to wash any more, either with the Coloured people or with anybody else. For far too long we have sat in the seats of power here dictating how the other two-thirds of the people in this country shall run their lives. I want to say that this party’s plan for consultation around a table—not just ministerial edicts or patronage—and our plan for a devolution of really meaningful power, and our plan for a relaxation of authoritarian centralized control, leaving local communities to make local decisions for themselves, are the only possible answers at this time. The present tension must be relieved and relieved soon. In conclusion, Sir, let the country be warned of the perils ahead for us if only prejudice and fear and this business of dragging our feet over the sharing of power with people of colour, are to remain our guide-lines indefinitely, as seems to be the case under this Government.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg pretends to be terribly concerned about the unfavourable disposition on the part of the Coloureds towards the Whites in South Africa.

Yes, I am very concerned about that.

But how can I, and we in this House, take the hon. member seriously, how can we believe that she is concerned about this if she deliberately encourages that unfavourable disposition with her irresponsible utterances? How can we believe this of the hon. member and of other hon. members on the opposite side of the House while they are so negatively disposed that they do not have one single positive thing to say about all the good which has been done for the Coloureds during the past years, but only create among them the feeling that they have been wronged, as if the Whites are constantly humiliating and wronging them? She is, in other words, deliberately through her actions causing this disposition, about which she says she feels concerned, to deteriorate further. I want to ask the hon. member if she thinks for one moment that the United Party policy of six representatives for those people in this House will immediately improve relations between the Coloureds and the Whites in this country? Does she think that such a gesture would have this result? I do not think there is any fairness anywhere in that system. I do not think it is in any way fair to say to a group which comprises two thirds of the total number of Whites in South Africa that their political future lies in their having six people who will manage their affairs in this Parliament. I think it is an immoral policy and that frustration lies at the root of it. An agitation for political rights in this country lies at the root of such a policy. I think we shall have the unsatisfactory relations, which we had and which we knew in our days under the policy of the United Party, over again in this country. I do not want to confine myself only to the hon. member. As I have said, what is a shortcoming in her and what is a shortcoming in the Opposition, is that their approach is so negative, and that they create among these people a feeling of having been wronged, instead of their being positive as well and accepting responsibility together with these people, and saying: “Look, this is being done; take note of it and use these things which are part of your course of development and which are being placed at your disposal, and work out your own salvation with them.” [Interjections.]

And incite the Coloureds.

Order! The hon. the Chief Whip must withdraw that. It is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

I should like to try to say a few positive things today. Other hon. members on this side of the House will rise and specify the positive things this Government is working on to improve the so-called unfavourable disposition which supposedly exists, and which is being entirely exaggerated. I could mention many of these things, but I do not have the time. 1 should like to refer to one section of the activities of the Department of Coloured Affairs, a section which is not frequently discussed here since there is no political gain in it for the Opposition. That is why they never discuss it.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer questions when I have such a short time at my disposal.

I should like to refer to the development and the expansion of the rural areas of the Coloureds. It is only under this Government that development in the rural areas of the Coloureds has taken place. During the past two decades dramatic development has taken place in this regard. These were bleeding to death, were becoming depopulated. There were few subsistence possibilities for the non-Whites there, and there was an even bleaker future for them in the areas. As a result the inhabitants left those areas in ever-increasing numbers and came to the cities. It was particularly the younger generation which moved away, and only a few old people were left behind in those areas. Consequently it is no wonder that we subsequently found that agitators had a field day in some of those areas. Today subsistence possibilities for the Coloureds in these areas are being created to an increasing extent, and numerous Coloured who would normally have moved away from these areas and would have created even greater problems—social and accommodation problems—here in the cities, are now remaining behind in those rural areas because there is a means of livelihood for them there. I do not have much time, but I should nevertheless like to make mention of a few things briefly to indicate what dramatic work has bene done by the Department of Coloured Affairs in this area during the past few years. On 1st April. 1952, there were 10 areas with a total extent of 691 846 ha. On 1st April, 1972, 20 years later, there were 21 areas 1 667 356 ha in extent.

Is this the new Bantus tan for Coloureds?

That hon. member is being ridiculous. Between 1910 and 1952, i.e. over a period of 42 years, an amount of R57 754 was spent in the areas from State funds. In the 20 years from 1952 to 1972 R2 607 591 has been spent in these areas to create subsistence possibilities there for the Coloureds. During the past 10 years alone 926 km of boundary fencing and 2 840 km of paddock fencing has been erected. The number of boreholes increased from 10 to no less than 590 in these areas. In 1964 there was only one irrigation scheme in the entire country which had been set aside for Coloureds. Today there are already five. During the past number of years no fewer than 834 000 trees have been planted by the Coloureds themselves in these areas, while the previous tendency was simply to destroy the trees. Since 1962 a start has also been made in these rural areas with proper town planning. Today there are already 15 towns and two town extensions planned in the areas. The income of the councils from the sale of agricultural produce in the areas has increased over a period of 10 years from R192 000 per annum to R743 000 per annum. The joint income of the councils has increased over the past 10 years from R50 000 to R200 000. These are not very great amounts which I am mentioning, but I am simply mentioning them to indicate what progress has been made in this regard during the past decade. These are things the hon. member for Wynberg does not take any notice of, and to which she never gives any attention, because there is no political gain in it. This is upliftment work which is being done. It is being done in order to keep the people in the rural areas where they can make the best livelihood and so that they may avoid the ever-increasing problems in the cities.

Before my time expires I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to libraries. As a result of an interdepartmental committee of inquiry which reported in 1965 it was resolved that library services for the Coloureds would be furnished by the provinces on a parallel basis. I think it is time we considered conferring library services to the Department of Coloured Affairs itself. I think this creates possibilities for them. Many of the young people leaving universities, who have received a training there, could also find employment in this sphere. There are increasing numbers of people with university degrees and training, for whom employment opportunities have to be created. Therefore 1 hope that the local areas will be developed at an accelerated rate for the non-Whites so that they may have their own councils and their own city councils. These people should be used to serve their own people and to accept responsibility. Then there will be no frustration. Hon. members of the Opposition are always trying to live on the grievances which exist. Are there not grievances among the Whites as well? Are there not grievances among any ethnic group? Why is the hon. member for Wynberg always trying to encourage those things and to cultivate among these people a feeling that they have been wronged? It is in the interests of everyone in this country to seek to achieve better relations among people and not to fan the unsatisfactory relations which do exist, as she does. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I request the privilege of the half-hour? I listened attentively to the hon. member for Parow. He boasted here of what has been done in the rural areas of the Coloureds over the past 10 years or so. The hon. member’s figures are quite correct, for the figures he quoted to the House here, he took of course from the report of the Department of Coloured Affairs. The point which should really be made, is that if the hon. member were to look at what has happened in the sphere of agriculture of the Whites in the rural areas, he will find that over the past 10 years just as much fencing has been erected, just as many gates have been put in, and just as many dipping troughs have been built. In other words, I want to say to the hon. member that his argument means that the development which has taken place in the Coloured rural areas was not unique. It happened in the other rural areas as well. As the settlement areas of the Coloureds improved, so did those in the White areas. The hon. member for Parow asked: “If it is the case that under United Party policy the Coloureds will be given six representatives here, how will this alter the whole spirit of things in South Africa?” He asked how this would improve the so-called frustration which there may be among these people. The Coloureds had representation in this House before. They were so satisfied, in spite of the fact that they had Whites as representatives in this House, that they declared themselves in favour of the retention of their representatives in this House with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence at the time, in 1967. That is the reply to that hon. member. But I want to put another question to the hon. member. If this will not improve matters, why did the hon. member for Piketberg say last year that the Coloureds could just as well have representation in the Senate?

That is not what he said.

If the hon. member for Piketberg has said that, is it wrong of the hon. the Minister of Defence, Mr. P. W. Botha, to say it? He said it two years ago at his Party’s congress in East London. He also held out the prospect of …

This is another piece of second-hand nonsense.

The hon. members must listen now. The hon. the Minister at the time held out the prospect of the nominated Coloured representatives in the Senate at the time forming the nucleus of the representation of the Coloureds in future. If the representation which the United Party advocates will not reduce the frustration, why did the hon. member for Piketberg say what he said?

He did not say it.

To tax the hon. member for Parow on a further point, I wanted to ask him why the late Dr. Verwoerd wrote to Sir Robert Menzies and held out the prospect of the Coloureds in fact being able in due course to have their own people in this House to represent them ? If it were not …

Where did you find that?

I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I have the letter here, the letter which appeared at the time in Die Beeld. Dr. Verwoerd’s reply to this point was very clear. The hon. member for Malmesbury is now trying to be piously ignorant by saying that he does not know about this letter which appeared at the time in Die Beeld. If the hon. member wants it, I shall quote it to him. Dr. Verwoerd said (translation)—

Here it was stated very clearly. This is a revealing letter, written to Sir Robert Menzies, by the then Prime Minister of South Africa. He mentions this letter from Dr. Verwoerd in his latest book. Now the hon. member for Malmesbury is pretending not to know anything about this letter which appeared. But the hon. member for Malmesbury made another mistake as well. He said that this side of the House was in favour of at least 20 members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council being nominated by the Government.

Yes.

The hon. member says he is aware of this. I am telling him now that if he glances through the debates conducted in this House he will find that when that legislation was before this House, the United Party proposed that all these people should be elected members.

I am talking about your motion on the Select Committee. Deny it.

If the hon. member would glance at that report he will also find that one of the proposals made by the United Party was that that Council should be fully elected. Here sits the hon. member for Yeoville; he was a member of that Committee. The hon. members are saying that it is we who are now trying to exploit this frustration or a sense of grievance among the Coloureds and encourage it further. But it is not only the United Party which says that there is a form of frustration and sense of having been wronged among the Coloureds. Surely the hon. member for Parow ought to be aware of the memorandum submitted by the chairman of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Council to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Is the hon. member not aware of it? I just want to quote from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 22nd February this year. This report read as follows (translation)—

Then follows this significant sentence:

Now that hon. member wants to pretend that it is the United Party which says this. It is the chairman of the Executive who says this. That is the whole point. If we are sitting in this House, must we not take notice of an opinion of this kind? Is this not then our own personal experience when we speak to the Coloureds from time to time and negotiate with them? I experienced this only three weeks ago when I had the honour of talking to about 16 prominent Coloured businessmen from Uitenhage. After that meeting there was no doubt in my mind that there is in fact frustration among these people. Because certain steps have been taken over the years, and are still being taken, those people feel that they are being deprived of their rights and that there is no place in the sun for them in South Africa. It is not for the United Party to fan this frustration; it already exists. There is no thing so fraught with thorny problems as in fact those matters with which the Department of Coloured Affairs has to deal. One will inevitably have a great deal of sympathy for the Secretary of this department and his officials, and also the officials of the Administration of Coloured Affairs. The criticism which we on this side of the House express and which has been expressed so far is influenced by only one objective, namely that we want to create better relations between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. Our criticism has no other objective and no other basis. What we also realize is that there is an ever-increasing number of problems among the Coloureds, problems which are gaining momentum. The urgent need to find a solution is growing stronger all the time. This is essential for future relations between us as Whites and them as Coloureds. We must today consider, and I think it will pay this House to consider the major problems confronting the Coloureds. The principal question which we, in my opinion, should ask first, is whether there is any estrangement today between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. Is the natural rift which may exist as a result of differences of colour closing or is it becoming wider? If there is bitterness among the Coloureds, why did it develop, and what can be done about it? I believe that this House could spend its time meaningfully if it would give attention to these few questions. To my mind the principle group among the Coloureds today, the group where there is in fact this estrangement between them and us, and where there is in fact this feeling of bitterness, is among the élite or the so-called leaders’ class. I believe that they are the people who need constant encouragement from the Whites in South Africa. They are the people whom we will need most in future to be able to accomplish a socio-economic upliftment among the mass of the Coloured people. These people must not be deterred from the course advocated by the Whites in South Africa. I believe that this is the group of people most affected by discriminating forms of legislation. That is why we find that the chairman of the Executive complains about matters such as the differences which exist in the salary scales of male and female teachers, that there has been no closing of the gap—on the contrary, that that gap is today even a little wider. It is among these people that the feeling exists that the income of Coloureds is not approaching closer to that of the Whites, but that the gap is becoming even wider. In this regard I just want to mention a few figures, quoted some time ago by Mr. Franklin Zonn when he addressed a conference at Grabouw last year. He said at the time:

Here it is very clear that while these people previously earned 42 per cent of the income from industrial development in South Africa, this figure had by the year 1970 decreased to 26 per cent. Consequently one has to find a feeling of frustration developing among those people. I want to mention another figure. Let us, for example, consider the number of apprentices in the years 1969 and prior to that, and compare it to the position among the Whites. In 1969 there were 35 961 registered White apprentices, as against an aggregate of only 1 429 Coloureds and Indians. Since then the position has improved slightly, but we are nevertheless very far from closing that gap. In other words, if we want to develop South Africa and make the best use of our human material—the Coloured is a natural artisan—-here is conclusive proof that the difference between the training of Coloured artisans and White artisans is a considerable one. Here we could create wonderful opportunities for these people by improving the facilities for them, so that it would be possible to train more and better artisans among their people. When the leaders’ group among the Coloureds, the intelligentsia, the people who have to uplift the poor, see this kind of thing happening in practice, surely one must expect a form of friction and frustration to arise among them.

The same applies to the application of the Group Areas Act. Here I should also like to mention certain figures to the hon. the Minister. Let us for example consider the number of Whites that have been moved, and the number of Coloureds that have been moved in terms of the Group Areas Act. So far 69 000 Coloured families have already been moved in terms of the Group Areas Act, while only 1 318 White families have been moved in terms of that Act.

From where?

Who lived in the slums?

Surely it is rather strange that the bulk of the people moved in terms of the Group Areas Act have been Coloureds and other non-Whites, while the smallest number moved have been Whites. [Interjections.] Whether this was right or wrong, whether this was as a result of slum conditions or not, they are the people who have been affected the most. [Interjections.] It is this group which has been affected the most by the application of the Group Areas Act. After all, we had this experience in Port Elizabeth where, with the development of Gelvandale and other Coloured areas, the South End removal took place simultaneously; people who already had houses were moved to areas where a shortage of houses did in fact develop again.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense, but then he never took the trouble to read the Cleary Report. If he had read the Cleary Report he would find that what I have now said is quite true. This is one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister had that trouble last year, as a result of over-crowding and the fact that there is a shortage of housing. Nevertheless, those people were moved in terms of the Group Areas Act.

Who was moved out of a house and did not receive a better house?

Sir, I did not say anything about better housing. Is that not the hon. gentleman’s responsibility? What happened there was that people who already had houses, were moved to other areas … [Interjections.] There was a removal of people who already had houses. In Gelvandale, as a result of the normal influx or increase of the Coloureds, a housing shortage had already developed, and as a result of the removals in terms of the Group Areas Act, the position was simply aggravated. Every time it has been the Coloured race group in South Africa which has been affected to a greater extent than any other race group. Then those hon. members are surprised that there should be a sense of having been wronged and of frustration among these people. Then they are surprised to see the Coloured leaders, the teachers, the best educated people, siding with those with whom we should not like to see them side.

Hon. members want to hear further examples from me. Let me refer again to the chairman of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. How many resolutions have not already been submitted to this Government, to which they received virtually no reply from the Cabinet or the Government?

Mention one or two of them now.

The Hansard of the Coloured Persons Council are filled with the resolutions which they submit every year to the Government, and all that happens is that they receive a polite little letter from that hon. Minister in which he states: “It is under discussion, and is being considered”, and very little happens in regard to those proposals. Then those hon. members want to know why problems and frustrations among those people develop. There is for example the question of the inspectorate of Coloured education. How many inspectors does that hon. Minister have today? I think he has in the region of 50. May I ask him how many of them are Coloureds? I do not think more than five or 10 of them are Coloureds. The hon. the Minister knows that that is also a point of friction. If it is their policy that the Coloureds should take over more and more of their own affairs, and should serve their own people to an ever greater extent, then surely by this time there ought to be more people available who could be appointed as inspectors of education. Why should this be in the hands of the Whites?

Sir, I want to refer to the latest report of the Department of Coloured Relations, for the period 1st April 1970 to 31st March 1971. Let us now put those hon. members’ assertions to the test. They say that there is no sense of frustration and of having been wronged, and what there is, is fomented by us. They say they are doing everything in their power to help the Coloureds. Let us now glance at page 2 of this report. There I read in paragraph 1.5:

Then I proceed to quote from paragraph 1.6:

1 274 White units were once again appointed and made available to the Administration of Coloured Affairs. That is the very point I want to make. A former Prime Minister said that within 10 years there would be a full-take over. If that is still the idea of the hon. members—apparently the hon. member for Piketberg has now rejected it—I want the hon. the Minister to explain to us what his priorities in this respect are, and how long it is going to take before, for example, more university staff will be appointed who are Coloureds; how long it is going to take before the Coloureds, for example, can take over the educational inspectorate, and how long it is going to take before the Administration of Coloured Affairs will also be fully in the hands of the Coloureds. Sir, if the hon. gentleman can spell out a future pattern for us, then he will to a large extent be able to eliminate the frustration which there is among the Coloureds, and give them satisfaction. He will be able to do this only if he is able to say to them: “Look, this is my programme for the next few years.” The hon. the Minister ought to have such a plan. When he became Minister of Coloured Affairs, we were friendly towards him; we told him that we hoped that he would with his moderate approach make a success of his portfolio. In the beginning we did not criticize him very much, but the hon. gentleman has been in charge of this department for a few years now, and he should now take this House, as well as the Coloured Persons Representative Council, into his confidence and spell out for us how he sees the future of the Coloureds. If the hon. gentleman does not do that then he must not expect relations between us as Whites and the Coloureds to improve. The Coloureds accepted the word of the hon. the Minister; they did not doubt his word. They tell him every day that they will try to make a success of the Government’s policy of parallel development. But, Sir, if there is no progress, then the Coloureds will have to adopt another policy. The hon. gentleman therefore has an obligation not only to the country, but also to his own party to spell out carefully for us how he sees the future of the Coloureds. Sir, last week the hon. the Minister made four admissions in the Other Place which, in my opinion, are illuminating. The first admission he made was that the Coloured Persons Representative Council ought, in due course, to become a fully elected council. Secondly, the hon. the Minister admitted that the Coloured Persons Representative Council ought to have proper powers, including the power of levying taxes, etc. He also envisaged that the link which exists today between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Cabinet will in due course chage; and the most important admission the hon. gentleman made, completely contradictory to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said previously, was that the Whites and the Coloureds would have to walk the same road together. Since the hon. the Minister made these four important admissions in the Other Place last week …

They were not admissions.

… I hope he will take the House into his confidence and sketch for us very clearly what the future holds for the Coloureds. Sir, our standpoint is that the existing link between us and the Coloureds, by means of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Cabinet Committee, is not effective enough. In addition, I do not think it is fair to this Council that the hon. the Minister and the members of the Cabinet should be the only people who can be consulted in this respect. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not begin thinking now in terms of what we have proposed so many times before, namely that there should be liaison between a permanent statutory committee appointed by us and a permanent statutory committee appointed by the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I think that the hon. the Minister should begin thinking in that direction, for I think that there are hon. members on this side of the House who are just as interested as hon. members on that side in knowing how the Coloureds feel about matters, and I think that we, too, can make an important contribution, just as hon. members on that side, towards improving relations between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, I have a very short time in which to react to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He made quite a number of statements here, and I cannot reply to all of them, because I do not have the time to do so. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to some of the points. The hon. member denounced the Government for its policy. Sir, it is ironical that the hon. member propagates things here which, according to him, should be done and which would cost millions extra, while hon. members on that side are saying in the rural areas that we are doing too much for the Coloured people and that we are toadying to them. To me this is ironical; it is a double-hearted attitude. In any case, Sir, it is my duty to reply to what the hon. member said. I do not have the time to state my own views here, as the hon. member for Wynberg did in her caustic attack on the Government, on certain aspects of White/ Coloured relations. The hon. member for Wynberg said things here about which, considering her own record, she would, if one were to hang a mirror in front of her, blush far more than the average young lady of under 18 does when she gets her first kiss.

She is no longer capable of blushing.

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park spoke about White/Coloured relations. He said, too, that the position of the Coloured people had improved remarkably. I also say that their position has indeed improved remarkably. It is quite correct that at one stage there were four Coloured representatives here, but the evidence we received was not that the Coloured people were satisfied with their services; our evidence was that the Coloured people wanted to retain them here because they had been led to believe that this was all they had and that they should retain their representatives here in Parliament. But as regards real benefits which could arise for the Coloured people from their representation here, many Coloureds said that they were not satisfied.

The hon. member referred here to views expressed by Mr. Treurnicht and Mr. Botha on the possible representation of Coloureds in the Other Place. Sir, these are matters which are in fact discussed because we, as a party, afford our member the opportunity to speculate from time to time, but this is not party policy. Mr. Botha took the Senate as his point of departure at the time and said he felt the time had arrived for reform, but he said no more than that. Dr Verwoerd, in his letter to Sir Robert Menzies, mentioned the question of Coloured representation in this Parliament as one of the possibilities we had to investigate in the future. He did not set his personal seal to it. Dr. Verwoerd was a wide-ranging thinker he considered all aspects. He thought about these matters day and night and had a balanced approach, and accordingly this was an aspect which had to be considered, as hon. members on that side are now considering it. However, we on this side feel that it will not be a good thing, and Dr. Verwoerd also rejected it. It is not necessary to argue about the question whether the members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council should eventually all be elected members. We are agreed on that. But in the initial nomination of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, we had to deal with political realities.

No government will allow itself to be destroyed by a party which, even before the election of the council, said that it was going to enter the council with the express purpose of destroying it. Do hon. members on that side think that the National Party is politically so stupid as to appoint persons who are going to destroy that body which it created for the Coloured people? I have proofs that they said so. Therefore hon. members on that side may as well forget that idea. One must take political reality into account; it is something we simply have to face. We find proof of this in the history of the entire world during the past 100 or 200 years. We have thoroughly examined the matter of the frustration that is mentioned, the memorandum of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. All the aspects of the matter have been noted.

As far as memoranda on frustrations are concerned, the following should be borne in mind. Hon. members are supposed to know about the many deputations that sometimes come to see one with memoranda that speak of frustrations, and hon. members will be able to testify that such memoranda must first be valuated in the light of the particular information of that deputation, for example, whether or not there is ignorance of certain matters, and whether or not the information is correct. This evaluation will also depend on whether one has a balanced judgment. This matter was discussed around a table and not passed off in a high-handed manner. A consensus of opinion was subsequently arrived at between us and the leaders of t^e Coloured Federal Party, the Coloured Republican Party, and the Coloured People’s Party. However, the leaders of the Coloured Labour Party believe that they can stand aside, can merely initiate boycotts and can refuse to negotiate with the lawfully elected government of a country. Yet they think it will get them somewhere.

There is a sense of frustration among certain of the élite, the so-called élite, of the Coloured people. However, there is also a sense of deep gratitude among the members of another section of the élite, the right-thinking people. It is true that there is a sense of frustration, but it is mainly as a result of ignorance, lack of understanding, external factors and the fomenting of supposed grievances and through a political kingdom being held up to these people as being the be-all and end-all—just as Nkrumah of Ghana held it up to his people, but where did he end up? This political kingdom is held up to the people before they are fit to play their part in all spheres. We are seeking better relations. Of course we are all seeking better relations. Nor do I find it astonishing that we differ in our search for better relations. However, in this period of multiple race relations problems, enormous responsibility is required of us. I want to appeal to the hon. the Opposition, in its discussions with Coloured leaders, to stop drawing a dividing line between the Federal Party and the Labour Party, and to stop collaborating with those people who have specifically declared themselves against the Government, against the Whites and against the policy of group representation, against the policy of the creation of a separate nation for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] I have the proofs here. Who are the people with whom they co-operate?— Mr. Curry, who wants to serve under a Black government. He does not mind that; they must only be one community, and there is nothing wrong with a Black government. The hon. members of the Opposition had a meeting with the Coloured Labour leaders in Durban, but it was not stated what they discussed.

We have discussions with all the people! [Interjections.]

Wait a minute. When you wanted information about what was going on in the Department of Coloured Affairs in regard to housing, you did not come to the department, which could give you all the information, which would have taken you to those places so that you could form a balanced opinion. The hon. members did not come to the department so that they could form a balanced opinion. No, they placed themselves under the supervision of Mr. Curry of the Labour Party and he took them to Macassar. Two weeks later I had to learn there that some of the people who had co-operated in that transit camp, where hundreds of people who previously lived in shacks are now living in 528 reasonable houses, do not want to cooperate and are stubborn. The hon. members must stop adopting this irresponsible approach, must stop collaborating with people and wooing them …

Do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

They must not collaborate with people who believe in one thing only, in just one word—integration. By this “integration” these people mean social mixing and biological amalgamation. [Interjections.] These people understand it better than all of you. The hon. member for Wynberg had so much to say today. Her speech yesterday evening, to my mind, was a matter of playing to the gallery. She mentioned how we were to conduct ourselves towards these people and how we were to foster goodwill. Then she mentioned all the things they do in terms of their approach. Has this hon. member forgotten that she recently learned a few lessons in America? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has been devoting his attention to certain political aspects in relation to the Coloured people I want to deal with another aspect of our relationship to and with the Coloured people and that is the matter of education.

I believe that in the uplift of the Coloured people one of the greatest needs is the one of education. There is at the present time not only a great desire but also a tremendous urge on the part of the Coloured people to raise their standard of living. They as much as any other group are determined that their standard of living will rise. I believe that in any approach in our relationship with the Coloured people emphasis must be placed very squarely on the question of education and yet more education. If we hope to place the Coloured people in a position where they will be able to become fully involved in the build-up of the great industrial development that surely lies ahead of South Africa, great emphasis has to be placed on the extent to which we can provide educational facilities for them. I believe that probably the most important task that we have is to give these people the education that will enable them to play a full part in helping our White industrialists to build up our export trade, which is probably the most important challenge which lies ahead of us. At the present time one of the most serious problems facing the country is a serious shortage of artisans. Amongst the Coloured people we have a tremendous labour force, which, if properly handled, can in fact provide a great deal of the artisan force which is so urgently required by our industrialists. This of course means educating the Coloured people to the highest possible level.

I want to deal with one particular aspect of education for which I believe the Coloured people have a very special aptitude, viz. technical training. In this field there is a lamentable shortage of facilities. I would be interested to know from the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with my contention that there is in fact a lamentable shortage of facilities for training Coloured artisans. As a result of the shortage of facilities there is also a lamentable shortage of trainees in this particular field. I have figures which have been provided to me by the Department of Coloured Affairs, figures which are indeed interesting to look at. At the present time in South Africa there are only 33 Coloured apprenticed welders and 105 apprenticed electricians. In the field in which we are making the greatest progress, namely that of carpenters, there are 1 023. But in regard to the particular field which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister, namely that of motor mechanics, there are, in the whole of the country at the present time, only 124 motor mechanic apprentices.

This is why I say there is a lamentable shortage. It is not because the Coloured people do not want to offer themselves to be trained; they simply do not have the place where to go to get the training that is so urgently required. The result of this is, as the figures I quoted here indicate, that there is a tremendous shortage. The figure falls far short of what is potentially possible. It falls far short of the potential or the need for these people. What is interesting is that sometime during the session I saw an advertisement which appeared in one of the English-language newspapers. It said: “Wanted Urgently: Coloured and Bantu operators, carpenters, welders, blasterers, electricians and mechanics.” It is headed “Wanted Urgently”. I have just given hon. members the figures to show how few of these people are in fact available to fill these posts that are urgently required to be filled. In this case it was with the Department of Water Affairs. The extraordinary thing is that when I asked this question of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, he gave a detailed answer of the position, but the last paragraph of the answer reads—

The point I am making is that the Department of Water Affairs, like many other departments, urgently need these people. Somebody put the advertisement in by mistake, but the need for the Coloured artisans and Coloured people is no mistake whatsoever. So I say there is this urgency to improve the training facilities for Coloured artisans.

The matter I want to discuss more pertinently with the hon. the Minister this afternoon is the question of making training facilities available for Coloured motor mechanics in Port Elizabeth. I mention this particular area because the motor industry forms a very vital part of the economic life of that city. I would imagine that this should be a very good place to make a start. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that at the present time we have there a technical college for Coloured people. That technical college at the present time is only probably half occupied. There are several halls that are available and which could be used for establishing a technical training school for training Coloured mechanics. I want to inform the hon. the Minister also that the need for Coloured mechanics is so urgent that the motor industry there is prepared to make a very big sum of money available, in the region of R5 000 or R6 000 at this stage, for providing the equipment for the training of those Coloured people who wish to follow a profession in the motor industry. I know that the hon. the Minister will have a problem. At the present time, under the Apprenticeship Act, it is not possible to have a Coloured mantrained by a White journeyman. I realize that there is this problem. It is a serious problem, but I think we have to find ways and means of circumventing this problem. My suggestion to the Minister is that if we can establish a training school of this kind for the training of Coloured mechanics, they should attend this school on the same basis under the Training of Artisans Act as we have at Westlake in the Cape Peninsula. At Westlake they do intensive training, in this case they do mechanical training. When they have completed the course they go out to work in the workshops as trainees. Then they become eligible to do their trade test in due course. In this way it will be possible to establish a nucleus of trained Coloured mechanics. I know that ownership of motor vehicles amongst Coloured people is increasing by leaps and bounds every year. I can see no reason at all why, through the Coloured Development Corporation, sums of money cannot be made available to potential garage owners to establish garages in the Coloured areas and employ these mechanics. That would give a base for training future Coloured mechanics in terms of the Apprenticeship Act. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter serious thought. I hope that he will find time during the recess to visit Port Elizabeth and see what can be done there. I believe that if we can establish this, if we can make it possible for Coloured mechanics to be trained extensively, we will not only be doing a service to the motor industry in South Africa, but we will also be doing a great service to the Coloured people, who need this higher skilled employment very urgently. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the previous hon. speaker will in due course be answered by the hon. the Minister on certain of the matters he raised. I shall therefore proceed with my argument. I was reminding the hon. member for Wynberg of what she encountered and learned in America last year. At the North Western University she tried to make a speech, but the militant Black students simply did not allow her to do so. She was terribly amazed that her White lady friend’s reaction was as follows—

I was making no overtures at all.

Now I should just like to tell the United Party that that is what is going on today among the Black students, the Coloured students and the Indian students, the future leaders, because the Black students have now also contaminated our Coloured universities with the new idea of “Black Power”. Last year, Barney Pitiyana, a former chairman of the South African Students’ Organization, wrote the following—

Then I also want to quote what Steve Biko, a subsequent chairman of SASO, said. These are the people who are today determining the policy of the Black students, the Coloured students and the Indian students. They are the intellectuals. He said—

It goes on in this vein. Then he says—

These are people who are at liberty here—

There we have it now: Integration, but subjugation to the Black man. This is what these people are aiming at. It is the antithesis of the homeland story. Now I just want to tell that hon. member that she does not have a realistic approach to what these people really want to do.

Then I just want to say something—and I think it is only fair—about this homeland idea that we sometimes hear from particular quarters. The Government rejects this idea because it is of no practical importance and is by no means capable of being implemented in practice. It is not National Party policy and anyone expounding it, whether subtly or otherwise, is not expounding policy. It started with Dr. Verwoerd. He was the first person to reject it. In 1963 he rejected it in unequivocal terms. I quote from the book Verwoerd aan die woord (p. 603) (translation)—

I want to say this to both sides now, so that hon. members may know it.

Say it to them.

Not to them. This is the policy of the Hertzog Party and the Hertzog Party is the United Party’s ally when action is taken against the National Party. In other words, it is an extension and a further development of the United Party’s policy of double-dealing and double-heartedness. I know my time is very short, but I think the policy of parallelism of the National Party is well-known. Many people try not to understand it, many cannot understand it, and those who do not know how it operates, reject it summarily, especially if they are in any case opposed to the party as such. The hon. member for Wynberg said, “There are no normal channels of communication any more”. Surely she heard that we created the liaison machinery in 1971. It started with liaison between the Prime Minister, together with the Minister and myself, and the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. We have extended it this year. This year these people brought forward their own ideas, because we told them they should tell us how we should make contact with their people on a broader basis so that we may know what their grievances are and what they want to say. They then came forward and had the privilege to put their problems to each Minister and to exchange ideas on an equal basis on the problems their people have from day to day. In other words, how can the hon. member say that the general channels for communication are not there any more? Does the *hon. member know that about a week ago we received a deputation of about 20 people from Natal? They came to see us and they were not really Government sympathizers. For the first time this system is beginning to function. Those people were very satisfied when they left, because they finally acknowledged that the National Party was honest with them. We do not give them representation in this Parliament, but we give them the human right any person has to submit his needs to the highest authority, so that attention may be given to them. If the hon. member wants to say that the problems of these people do not receive better attention than they did ten years ago, he is completely off course. Ten years ago the representatives the Coloured people had here were largely anti-Government, which gave rise to agitations. It will be the same with the six who are to sit here under United Party policy. It will create White resistance, nothing else. If things are as they sometimes are in the Coloured Persons Representative Council, because people do not prepare themselves well, it will create White resistance. It does not create White resistance now, but White sympathy, because these people do not come forward with extraordinary demands, but with demands which closely affect their daily problems. I do not want to go into the progress which has been made in these 12 years. To refer to Dr. Verwoerd is, in my opinion, sacrilege in the sense that the hon. member said Dr. Verwoerd promised to do certain things, while he promised nothing of the kind, but only said that he would like to see us make progess and to transfer the matters affecting these people personally, to them within ten years. The position is that the matters affecting them intimately were transferred to them last year. That was done within ten years. In other words, we achieved that goal. There are still shortcomings in many other respects. Over here we have the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who admits that he still has very many problems in regard to housing. However, we are proceeding, and proceeding very rapidly, to provide this housing. However, do hon. members on the opposite side take into account the fact that the urbanization of the Coloured people is taking place at a much faster rate than it is humanly possible to provide housing for them? Are you fair when you express opinions and pass judgment on that? Our ultimate object of peaceful co-existence is the same as that of the vast majority of Coloured people, who, with us, today desire ultimate peaceful coexistence. We shall achieve this with the right attitude, even if we should sometimes have to exert ourselves to the utmost to show understanding in more than one respect for ignorance or for precipitate demands when these occur. Demands will be made and there will be some frustration, but we shall solve these things by means of consultation and by exchanging ideas with each other irrespective of the spoke-in-the-wheel methods, irrespective of foreign influences, and irrespective of the wrong things influencing these people from the outside in order to incite them against us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since it is the Department of Coloured Affairs’ primary object to facilitate the development of our Brown people, to uplift them, to improve their standard of living—and, Sir, what a big task do we not have in this respect as far as the general masses of our Brown people are concerned!—there are many means one can employ to achieve this object. In the first place there is education. There are several hon. members here who mentioned education, and I shall not go into the matter further. That is perhaps the most efficacious means. Then there are the health services, which are also absolutely essential. In this respect I should like to say that we shall have to speed up activities aimed at establishing a medical faculty at the University of the Western Cape where we can train Coloured doctors; because the position that has now arisen no longer makes it possible for our White doctors to meet the needs of the Coloureds and the Whites. Another means of upliftment is accommodation. I believe that decent accommodation is absolutely essential if one wants to live decently. I know very well that this department is not responsible for the building of houses. The Department of Community Development does that. But in the process of supplying housing, which is not merely a question of the erection of the building, this department is nevertheless involved at so many points that I should like to say a few words in that respect.

Firstly, I want to thank the Department of Community Development for what it has done for the Coloureds in that respect.

You don’t mean it.

I mean every word I am saying. This department has done so much for Coloured housing …

Come to Natal and have a look.

I shall also be telling the hon. member something that his people said at Oudtshoorn. This department has done so much for Coloured housing that the other population groups are reproaching us because too much is being done for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] While the United Party is now getting angry about this I want to tell them something: During the recent election at Oudtshoorn I went along to canvass for votes for the National Party.

Oh, my!

Yes, and I am proud I could do so. The result proved that we did some good work. I went to more than one person, asking whether the United Party had already been round. The reply was: “Yes, they have been.” My next question was: “Did the United Party state their policy on the Coloureds to you?” “No,” was the reply, “we were only told ‘look at what the Government is doing for the Cape Coloureds’”.

That is not true.

I encountered such people; I can take the hon. member to them.

Prove it.

You have my word for it.

That is enough.

That is the kind of propaganda the United Party makes when it wants votes, and wants to retain votes, in the rural areas; but other than that the United Party never pays any attention to the Coloureds. In the past it has had a lot of time; the United Party had many years in which to show their true interest in the Coloureds. What did they do? Their interest went as far as selecting a flashy car on polling day, and then the United Party women from the Peninsula and elsewhere drove them to the polls. When they had finished voting, they took them back and allowed them to return to their hovels; then they were satisfied with them; then the United Party had done its work for them. But there was no further interest. Their interest in the education of the Coloureds only went so far in the past as to have them establish evening classes to help the Coloureds to sign their names, because if they could sign their names they could go onto the voters’ roll and vote for them. They had no further interest in whether they could read or write.

Were the universities closed to them?

That hon. member must not say anything about the universities. When we established the universities for them, and created an opportunity for the Coloureds who could otherwise never have obtained any university training, those universities were regarded as “bush colleges” by them. It was then said that the Coloureds were mentally prepared in advance for being inferiors and that they were being sent to inferior institutions.

As far as the question of housing is concerned, I want to reiterate that the Department of Community Development has done a tremendous amount for Coloured housing. On reaching many of the cities and towns one sees massive housing schemes being built for Coloureds. It is something that cannot be compared to anything we have ever had before. In particular I want to mention some of the smaller towns, for example Mossel Bay. Anyone who is interested—I would be glad if the hon. member for Port Natal would just take the trouble—must go to Mossel Bay and see what is being done there as far as Coloured housing is concerned.

Mossel Bay is a fine place, but the member is not much good.

If he were to have a look at Mossel Bay he would be able to eliminate some of the ignorance he is displaying here.

In spite of the efforts the department has made to provide housing, we nevertheless still find ourselves always falling far short and we find we do not have enough houses for the Coloureds at the moment. With this Committee I should like to look at the reasons for that phenomenon. Why do we still have this back-log and the shortage in spite of the colossal attempts that have already been made to put this matter right? There are two reasons in particular. I hope I shall be able to touch upon both of them. The first reason is the tremendously high birth-rate that we have amongst the Coloureds; the birth-rate is so great that we can also speak about a Coloured population explosion. I think the growth rate amonst the Coloureds is at present set at 3,2 per cent.

It is the highest in the world.

It is double that of the Whites. I believe it is the highest in the country, and I think the hon. member for Carletonville is right when he says, by way of an interjection, that it is the highest in the world.

Except for Mexico.

A growth rate of 3,2 per cent means, in reality, that there is a doubling of the population within 14 years. This is something really formidable. If one compares it with the present growth amongst the Whites, where a doubling of the population takes place once in 38 years, one can see that this matter is somewhat out of proportion. I believe, in the first place, that the rapid increase in the Coloured population is responsible for the housing need. At Stellenbosch and other places semi-detached houses are being built for the Coloureds. As far as that is concerned, I believe that in the case of a Coloured family with 12 children it is essential to give such a family two houses, because one house cannot accommodate them.

If we are to solve this problem there is only one thing to do, as I see it, and that is for us to tackle family planning here at a very high level. We must do something positive about it; we must give it a very high priority, because otherwise this problem is not going to be solved; it will only get worse in future. I believe that everyone—Coloured leaders, Whites and anyone else in the country—who really has the progress of the Coloureds at heart, has a part to play. It is a difficult matter, because to a certain extent it affects the state of mind of the population group …

Frustration.

No, it is the opposite of that. It is a state of mind that one must try to get close to and overcome. To sum up: We want to tell the Coloureds that it is so much better for the Coloured family to have four children, who can be brought up nicely and properly, than to have eight children and to live in poverty, the children being poorly brought up, with everything that entails. If one has a good look at this matter one cannot but say that it is in everyone’s interests, particularly in the interests of the Coloureds, to realize that smaller families are worth so much more as far as they are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay was much better at speaking about the question of the development and the upliftment of the Coloureds than about the question of party politics as far as the Coloureds are concerned. He told us that in his day the United Party allegedly wooed the Coloured electorate.

Definitely.

He says “definitely”. He ought to be old enough to remember how a Nationalist Party member of the House of Assembly was brought into this House by the Coloureds.

That really is an old story.

The fact that it is old. Sir, does not make it any the less true, and the hon. member realizes it too. Up to a few years ago the Nationalist Party was as anxious to get the votes of the Coloureds as any other party. [Interjections.] I now want to leave it at that. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about that; it is no use doing so. We are living under a brand new dispensation, and the quicker the hon. member realizes it, the better.

This afternoon we spoke about the upliftment of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Parow told us about everything that is being done for the Coloureds. I do not want to tell him he was at times being funny speaking as he did about the trees and the wire fences; I am glad this has been done, but it does not mean much, because this was normal development in the rural areas. There was talk of the education of the Coloureds, which I shall call the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds. We can argue about whether we are doing sufficient, too little or too much upliftment, but there is one fact the hon. the Minister must agree with me about, i.e. that the higher one uplifts the people socio-economically and the higher one pushes up their level of education, the greater becomes their desire to have a say in those matters relating to their destiny. It is specifically here that we find our hon. friends opposite shying away; they know they do not have the answer or, if they have the answer, they do not want to give it to us. Those are the facts. To tell this Committee and the people: “We do not know; we must leave the future political dispensation of the Coloureds to our children”, is surely nonsense. To say, like the hon. member for Piketberg, that we want to give political rights to the Coloureds overnight, is the same brand of nonsense, because I can tell him that on a larger scale they are giving political rights to the Bantu overnight. He ought to know that for a 100 years the Coloureds have shared the same political ground with the Whites in South Africa. He surely knows this. I say again that we can argue about that, but this we cannot argue about: The higher the Nationalist Government uplifts the Coloureds socioeconomically, the heavier and more strictent will be the demand for a voice in those matters relating to their destiny. We cannot escape that fact. Where do my Nationalist friends stand now? They are the people who base their whole national viewpoint, their so-called relations politics, on the statement that “what I myself have, I do not begrudge others”. To that we must add the development of an individual state, because they do not want political integration. The hon. the Deputy Minister said there is no such thing. We surely know there are important people in that party, people like the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, who now still believes in a Colouredstan. I have an idea the hon. member for Waterberg is not very far from that viewpoint either, and I do not blame him. That hon. member comes along and states his point, but where does the Government stand? It does not have a point to state, and therefore it states bashfully: “We do not know”. Sir, this afternoon I want to frame it in these terms: The Nationalist Party does not have many choices left. When it comes to the relations politics in South Africa, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, it does not have many choices left. On the one hand one has the policy of apartheid, as one finds in the Government’s approach to the Bantu, with an individual State area for the Bantu where he can realize himself politically. On the other hand one has full integration. Those are the two poles which, throughout the years, have been put to South Africa as the only alternatives. The Government has already told us that it cannot follow the Bantu line as far as the Coloureds are concerned; the Government has already told us that it does not want intergration. What remains then?

Supremacy.

What alternative remains? None, except the way the United Party has been proclaiming throughout the years, and that is that the Coloureds and the Whites must meet the future together.

With six M.P.s in this House?

Sir, that hon. member now comes along with the story of six M.P.s: I have an idea the hon. member for Worcester was a teacher, in spite of the fact that he is a leading figure amongst the Rapportryers.

You speak of a new dispensation. Do you think that six MJP.s for the Coloureds under your dispensation is enough?

The hon. member wants to come and tell me that six M.P.s do not mean anything …

You are discriminating.

… but six M.P.s are better than nothing. Incidentally, why did his noble leader of a few years ago, the late Dr. Verwoerd, specifically promise the people that the four Coloured representatives would remain here? The hon. the Deputy Minister says it was not a promise. Of course it was a promise that they would remain here. Sir, I just want to add this: I am convinced that the Nationalist Party knows there are only three alternatives. They do not want the Bantu line for the Coloureds; they do not want integration, and what remains is the United Party line, but they do not have the courage to tell the public that some time or other they will again have to steal the United Party’s policy. Sir, the time will come when hon. members on that side will see that I am right. They want us to vacate our policy so that they can move in. That is all they want to do. We shall not vacate our policy; we shall be sticking to our policy, because it is the only alternative that remains. The hon. the Minister owes this House a reply as far as the future of the Coloureds is concerned. It is not good enough to come along and tell me that my children must work it out. He is the person who is responsible for 2 million people in South Africa. He is responsible for 2 million Coloureds that are members of Western civilization, and when he says he does not know where they belong, then, as the English would say, “he is very definitely begging the issue,” and the quicker we realize it the better for South Africa. Sir, the hon. the Minister is a man of many plans. A moment ago we heard here about Oudtshoorn, where he had a plan for everything.

He ran away from that.

Yes, but he will not get away with it today. Some time or other he will have to indicate the plan to us, and this is where he can do so. Sir, socio-economic upliftment does not mean everything; it does not do any good for hon. members on that side to laugh at our six Coloured representatives, because that idea was endorsed in the past by leading thinkers on their side. It was even proposed that the representatives could be Coloureds. Sir, one can uplift the Coloureds socio-economically just as much as one wants to, but one would find, in the course of time, that the frustration amongst the Coloureds, as a result of the lack of political representation in this House, would be so extreme that it would even impede the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, and that is what we in South Africa must guard against. We want balanced development, and the way the Government is carrying on now it cannot satisfy anyone.

What difference would six representatives make?

I cannot believe that anyone in this House can stand up and speak of political honesty if he tells the Coloureds: “I am prepared to give the Bantu their own country and their own independence, but I am placing you, the Coloureds, on the road to nowhere.” [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Maitland is truly a political acrobat of great dexterity. For ten minutes he has succeeded in not saying what he wanted to say. Our difficulty throughout this debate has been that little of a positive nature has been said about Coloured policy from the Opposition side. Sir, that is the position here in the House and it is also the position outside the House, and therefore it is difficult for hon. members on this side of the House to discuss the positive aspects, of which there are so many today. I venture to say that the Afrikaner Nationalist has an extensive and special understanding of the Coloureds’ aspirations, their problems and the various shortcomings that still exist today in the Coloured community. I think that this is demonstrated practically from time to time, as has again been the case with this action on the part of the Mission Trust. Sir, in earlier years my people were also impoverished, and many opportunities were closed to them, and therefore we can understand the Coloureds’ frustration. [Interjection.] Sir, the post has already arrived from Port Elizabeth; perhaps the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central’s speech is in his letterbox. He may go and fetch it and make his own speech, and then there will be no need for him to sit and make that noise in one of the back benches. We also had a group of people in our own ranks who were, economically speaking, at the top of the ladder, people who looked down on the ordinary impoverished Afrikaner who sought escape in the English social and cultural structure. Sir, I do not want to mention those people by name. Perhaps I should mention only one of them, because in the process there were probaby also Van Breda’s, just as there were Van der Bijl’s and Cloete’s, arch-jingoes who are today still jingoes who do not share in the emotional wealth of the Afrikaner. That specifically is the great problem as far as Coloured nationhood is concerned, i.e. that there is also a top layer amongst the Coloureds consisting of people who are not prepared to reach down to help up the less endowned members of their race, but would much rather, like my predecessors, perhaps, seek their escape in the White community. It is specifically for these Coloured jingoes in that community that the hon. members for Wynberg and Newton Park are acting as spokesman today. Today I specifically want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said yesterday evening. She said—

And that is the hon. member’s definition of the Federal Party.

It is an insult. [Interjections.]

Order!

She then follows this up with her definition of her own political playmates and states it as follows—

Do you see how the hon. member is trying to play the groups off against each other? Do you see the contempt with which she refers to the “working class who are normally divorced from the whole business of politics”. This is typical of what her hon. colleague, hon. Senator Horak, does with his reference to the “deep platteland”. Her object is to try to create a gulf between various Coloureds. And it is specifically this hon. member who yesterday evening, in the dying hours of the debate, came along with a very pious definition of what “citizenship” actually means. Speaking very good Afrikaans, she told us the following—

That is S. P. Cillié’s definition.

I want to ask the hon. member whether she accepts the implications of that definition as she stated it. Does she accept the implications?

Why should they be second-class citizens?

The hon. member is saying, in other words, that she accepts the implications of that definition of citizenship. She accepts them in the full context, as she herself and the United Party see the question of citizenship. What are the implications of this definition as seen in her context? It surely implies joint political rights. Is that correct?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: Is that not true?

It surely means that if one wants to exercise joint political rights there must be a common voters’ roll and it means there should not merely be six representatives elected on a group basis. It surely means that there should be freedom as far as residential areas are concerned—mixed residential areas. It surely means that there must be mixed schools. Does the hon. member for Wynberg accept this? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Do you not?

Order!

Do you see these empty phrases that we have to put up with? Here a definition of citizenship is given in great piety as if that is her standpoint, but when one points out the implications she is simply not prepared to stand by those implications. These are empty phrases that are so typical of the hon. member, in particular, and of her party. It is actually an attempt to put separate development into reverse gear. Our problem is that with her humanistic view, and her simplified over-emphasis of human rights, she is not only making ill-use of the Coloureds for her own political arguments …

Rubbish!

She is also doing the Coloureds a disservice, a basic disservice. It is also the same problem caused by the hon. member’s kindred spirits at the university of Cape Town and similar universities. I am speaking of the vociferous minority, who are abusing that small group of Coloured students at the university of Cape Town to try to break down all existing orders whether it be the Intervarsity, or any other matter at any other level. I specifically want to confine myself briefly to this small group of students still present at the open universities. Statistics indicate that for the 1970 academic year there were still 223 Coloured students admitted to open universities. 121 of these 223, i.e. 54,2 per cent, took a degree course in medicine. At the University of Cape Town alone there were 84 students out of a total of 167, or about 50 per cent enrolled for the same course. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Marais Viljoen, declared as far back as 1969, in the discussion of this Vote, that progress was being made in the establishment of a medical faculty at the University College of the Western Cape, and that the spade work had already progressed. In the meantime there have been quite a few complications. The University of the Western Cape has grown, not only as far as its number of courses are concerned, but also with respect to its student complement. The number of students has increased from 164 in 1960 to 975 in 1970. The university has also grown in status, from what was initially called a “bush college” by the Opposition. to a fully-fledged university with a exceptionally high status. I am now of the opinion that there are enough students for the establishment of a medical faculty. I therefore seriously want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that a medical faculty be established at the University of the Western Cape. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has referred to certain figures of enrolment at the University of the Western Cape. He pleaded for a medical faculty to be established there. I will during the course of the short time permitted deal with other figures concerning the University of the Western Cape which I believe deserve very serious consideration. Firstly, I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the living conditions of those people who fall under his portfolio. I know that the provision of housing falls within the ambit of activity of another Minister.

Inactivity!

Somebody here said “inactivity”. I will not argue that one, Mr. Chairman. I should like to discuss with this Minister the human aspect. Surely he cares about that. I cannot believe that he does not. I heard the hon. the Deputy Minister refer to the question of conditions at Macassar. I wonder whether he is really satisfied with those conditions as they existed two months ago when I was there. I have no reason to believe that—these conditions have improved greatly since then. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that these are conditions under which people should live— more or less in the veld? Let us take the housing complex as it stands. There are 528 houses, housing approximately 3 000 inmates. When we were there there were 14 taps and we watched the inmates queueing for water to cart away to their homes, in whatever vessels they had. There was no possibility of land-ownership; there were no telephones. The bus service is inadequate and the bus stop was almost a mile away from the centre of the community. There were no street lights, no sewerage and no stormwater drainage. There were no shopping facilities unless one can call a mobile van a shopping facility. The nearest amenity was the bottle store in Firgrove. There were no internal doors in the houses and no ceilings. The people whose bedrooms happened to be directly in front of the kitchen of the neighbour have to make their own arrangements to get rid of the smoke that wafted into their bedrooms. There were unsatisfactory locks about which the residents complained bitterly, because they could get locked into their homes, but they could not always lock their homes against people who wished to enter.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister also, whether he is satisfied about the Bellville transit camp. We had a brief look at that. I understand it to be a temporary measure. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether these extremely primitive conditions will continue as they have, I believe, for the past five years.

Then I would like to invite the hon. the Minister to come to Durban to visit the Wentworth housing complex, particularly the Durenta Road area, and Greenwood Park. His colleague, the Minister of Community Development has been there. I plead with this hon. Minister to come and let us show him some of the conditions about which we complain with justification.

I now wish to refer to Government Notice R600 of the 14th April this year. It deals with an amendment to the regulations arising out of the Coloured Persons Education Act. I refer to the new amendment which says—

I assume that this regulation is intended to apply to State-aided schools, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has received and whether he has had time to study the memorandum submitted to him on behalf of the Roman Catholic, the Moravian, the Methodist and Anglican churches. They have asked the Minister to receive them for discussions urgently. They claim that the situation is extremely critical in regard to their finances and in regard to the part they play in providing educational facilities for the Coloured people. They claim that the rent grant for example is not covering redemption and interest. They say that the borrowing sources have raised their interest rates and it makes it impossible for them to meet their commitments. They claim that many of the buildings which are being used, are 40 years and more old. They say that the rent grant which is allowed in connection with these older buildings is calculated on the basis of the cost of the erection of the building at that time. That is more than 40 years ago. They claim that the f per cent increase which was allowed a few years ago is completely inadequate. They suggest that a 2 per cent immediate increase is necessary to put the position into perspective. They are concerned about the compensation which may be paid to them in respect of schools which have been closed down because of Group Areas Act pronouncements. They talk about a lack of communication between the administration and the managers. They say that in many instances letters which have a bearing on the affairs under which the schools operate, but that those letters are not shown to them and they are not made aware of their contents. They claim that some letters from the managers are completely ignored; they claim that there should be better liaison between the inspectors and the managers. They claim that the time has come for the cleaning grants to be re-assessed. They say that there is an unsatisfactory situation in regard to the appointment of teachers. They say that the managers’ recommendations are not always taken into consideration and they claim too that boarding allowances are inadequate.

In the few minutes left to me, I wish to refer to the question of education. I notice with satisfaction that the total amount due to be allocated to the CRC this year amounts to R86 million, which is R10 million in excess of the past year’s allocation. However, I find extreme difficulty in getting details in regard to the globular amount which is allocated by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council for education. The library here is unable to help, and only as late as yesterday, they indicated that they do not receive documents which would disclose the amount. Incidentally I ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible for the library of Parliament to have these facts at its disposal. It would appear that the funds for education are inadequate and that the results are disappointing.

Now I want finally to deal with the question of the University of the Western Cape, because there particularly I believe we need some form of investigation. It should be a broad and in-depth investigation. In the last 12 years, from 1960 to 1971, the number of new enrolments has totalled 2 843. From this figure a mere 361 degrees have been awarded over the 12 years, and 428 deplomas. This makes a total of 798, out of 2 843 new enrolments, who have completed their course. What happens to the other students? Why is there such a high fall-out rate, and what becomes of them? One can well ask this question because one has only to examine the figures of the senior certificate examination. I quote the 1970 figures where 2 004 Coloured students entered the senior certificate examination and only 424 gained matriculation exemption. This is the total number out of a school population enrolment of over half a million pupils. Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that the Coloured Persons Education Council says that anomalies that exist in the scales, and the difficulties arising therefrom, give rise to bitter dissatisfaction, disappointment and frustration on the part of the teaching corps? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on the speech of the hon. member for Berea. I think the hon. the Minister will reply to him. I want to dwell for a moment to the speech the hon. member for Wynberg made yesterday evening. She made a dangerous speech that is loaded with dynamite. She said—

I say this is the kind of speech that ought not to be made in this House. What is being said here is that when there is a confrontation in South Africa, no Coloureds will stand with the Whites. I ask the hon. member whether she is seeking a confrontation. This speech is aimed in that direction. I ask the hon. members on that side whether they agree that if a confrontation were to take place not one Coloured would stand with the Whites of South Africa.

What do you say?

That hon. member knows as well as I do that the Coloureds and other non-Whites will stand with the Whites in South Africa as a result of the honest policy being adopted by this party.

There was also talk here of incitement. Other things were also said. I want to refer to the University of Cape Town, where non-White students are also studying. There was also talk here of unrest amongst the students at the University of the Western Cape. In Personality of 15th January, 1971, there is an article in which the universities of the Western Cape are asked the following question—

The reply was—

It seems to me the hon. member for Wynberg belongs on the left wing of the United Party. In that article the following question is also put to the students of the University of the Western Cape—

Then there is mention of the Black Sash, the Institute of Race Relations, the Civil Rights League, etc. I say again that that hon. member belongs to the United Party’s left flank.

But I want to come to another point. Here today we have had individuals belittling the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Every speech made by a member of that side of the House was in disparagement of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I shall tell hon. members why this disparagement took place. It is because the hon. members opposite regard the Coloureds as an appendage to the Whites in South Africa. They regard the Coloureds as an appendage, and that is why they want to give them representation in this House. They do not regard the Coloureds as a people with an individual identity, but as an appendage of the Whites, and that is why they want to give them representation in this House. The Coloureds do speak the same language as the majority of us in South Africa. It is also correct that the majority of them are adherents of the Christian faith and that they also, to a large extent, have a democratic view of life. To a large extent they also share our Western outlook. But does this make them a part of the Whites in South Africa? No, Sir, Does it make them an appendage of the Whites in South Africa? Look at America and look at Britain. Look at the Americans and the British. They speak the same language, the English language. They are predominantly Christians. They also predominantly have a democratic view of life and they both share a Western outlook. Can one now say that the British are an appendage of the Americans, or that the Americans are an appendage of the British? That appendage theory of hon. members opposite has an unsound basis. There was also talk here of a feeling of frustration amongst the Coloureds, frustration amongst the élite Coloureds because they have been taken out of the hovels in which they lived. Who are the élite amongst the Coloureds? The élite are the teachers, the doctors and others. They had to live in those slum quarters, but they were taken out of there and placed in better areas, and better accommodation was given to them. However, it is now being said in this House that this intelligentsia is dissatisfied because of its removal from the slum areas to better areas.

The hon. member for Maitland advocated here the socio-economic development of the Coloureds, and we agree wholeheartedly with him. There is not one of us in this House who does not agree with him; it is indeed the policy of this Government. Does he think, however, that if there are six Coloured representatives sitting in this House it would contribute to the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds?

Yes.

In what respect would six Coloureds here contribute to the socio-economic development of the Coloureds? As hon. members on this side of the House have already indicated, it will only create frustration and be a source of dissatisfaction, and there could never be any socio-economic development in that respect. To tell us that socio-economic upliftment comes from giving political rights to people in this House is untrue, impractical and actually completely immoral.

Why?

It is immoral because those people are being bluffed into believing that they would thereby be uplifted socio-economically. It is a bluff. I cannot put it any other way. The Coloureds of South Africa, the Brown people, are being bluffed by the United Party because they are being led to believe that there will be six representatives for them in this house.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that certain important problems must be solved. Will those problems be cleared up by bringing six Coloured representatives into this House?

Those are not the only problems.

Now we come to a new field, because there is now another new proposal.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to confine myself to the provision of community facilities for Coloureds in Coloured areas. The hon. the Minister must excuse me if I refer in particular this afternoon to the Coloured area at Boksburg. To begin with I immediately want to say that I think that as far as the community facilities for Coloureds are concerned, we do not begrudge them the same facilities the White community has. The Coloureds are settled at Boksburg on a regional basis. The present position is that the Boksburg municipality carries all the responsibility for the development and the provision of those community facilities for those Coloureds. As I have already said, it is a residential area for all Coloureds from the East Rand. At the moment there are between 12 000 and 13 000 Coloureds settled in that area, i.e. Reiger Park. If Boksburg alone benefited from the 12 000 Coloureds settled there, this would have created no problems for us there when it came to carrying, accepting and meeting that responsibility in full as far as the provision of those facilities is concerned. The fact is, however, that more than 50 per cent of those Coloureds are employed by employers in other local authorities without their accepting any responsibility for the accommodation of the Coloureds or the provision of the necessary facilities for them. The present position is that the Boksburg Municipality’s Coloured Account is evidencing a considerable loss, in fact so much so that over the past year a loss of more than R100 000 was registered without any help being forthcoming from any other body. To make the problem worse, when the Coloureds were resettled at Boksburg and it was decided that this would be a Coloured area, it was decided to create a pleasure resort at Reiger Park for all the Coloureds of the entire Witwatersrand. Initially, when the decision was taken, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm on the part of other local authorities. Other local authorities even made contributions to the establishment of such a big pleasure resort. Unfortunately that is as far as it went, and at present Boksburg alone is saddled with that problem. I honestly think it is unfair that this should come from one local authority in the light of the fact that it serves a larger region and that, with the position as it is at present, virtually the whole of the East Rand benefits from the Coloured labour. The contribution those Coloureds make to those facilities is minimal, because there is only a very small portion of that Coloured community that owns property there and consequently pays direct rates and taxes from which those services can be furnished. The vast majority live in sub-economic houses for which they pay no rates and taxes. I want to ask where the solution to the problem lies in order to relieve that unreasonable burden that has been placed on the Boksburg Municipality and to obtain a more uniform distribution of that burden.

Mr. H. VAN Z. CILLIÉ: [Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not have his father-in-law at hand to help him. he would do well to listen to me. because then he could perhaps also learn something more.

In the first place I want to suggest that it would be a good thing if a levy could be imposed on each of those Coloured families exclusively for the provision of those facilities. I think this would also perhaps result in greater appreciation on their part for what has been established. Another alternative I am thinking of is that a levy can be imposed on the employers, perhaps similar to what we recently approved here in Parliament in respect of the transport services of the Coloureds. There are many of the employers who already supply those facilities to their White employees. For the same reason they can, I think, also supply those facilities to the Coloureds in their own residential areas.

Another alternative is that funds can be made available by the provincial administration for those services. I can tell you that representations have already been made to them, but without any success because the provinces only provide for services similar to those for extra-municipal areas.

The last alternative is that the necessary funds should be provided by the Treasury. It is not only a Boksburg problem; I foresee that problem also cropping up for other municipalities where Coloureds are going to be settled and where Coloured areas are to be created. Assistance must come from somewhere. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have us find a formula for the solution of that problem.

And now, Sir, to come to the United Party men. The hon. member for Wynberg said here yesterday evening that she regards all persons that are bom in South Africa as being South African citizens by birth, but that they do not all have the same citizenship. As far as she is concerned full citizenship means, as she also put it, that they have full political and other rights. Did I understand her corectly? I think she repeated the statement this afternoon. I now want to ask her something: Let us now have an honest answer. If they were to come into power, she told us today, they would firstly repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. They would remove it from the Statute Book

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, she has had her turn. Now I want to ask her, in addition, to state something very clearly. I am now speaking about White/non-White relations. If they were to come into power, would they remove the Immorality Act from the Statute Book? Would they do away with the Group Areas Act, so that people would obtain accommodation on a voluntary basis? I think we must have clarity about this, not only for the sake of the Whites, but also for the sake of the Coloureds, so that the Coloureds will know where they stand as far as the United Party is concerned, so that they will know whether Bantu will again be able to settle in Coloured areas, as was the case when they were still in power?

The hon. member for Turffontein was so eager to ask questions. Now I want to ask him something; let him now give us a straight answer. He asked whether a Coloured could become Secretary for Defence under the National Party Government. My answer is: “No.” He asked whether a Coloured could become Prime Minister under our rule; my answer is: “No”. Now I want to ask him: If they were to come into power, could a Coloured become Prime Minister of this country? Now he must give us a straight answer. Anyone else can do so; perhaps the next speaker. Let them give us straight answers to those questions, so that we know. It seems to me the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is going to stand up—will he now give us a reply to those questions? I think it is in the interests of the Coloureds and of the Whites that we obtain answers to these questions. [Time expired.]

Sir, it is a very easy little question the hon. member has just put, i.e. whether a Coloured person would become a Prime Minister. The question is whether Whites would elect a Coloured person as Prime Minister. What is his reply to that? Will the Whites elect a Coloured person as Prime Minister, yes or no? This is the answer. It is a ridiculous question, and there is the answer. The answer is simply this: If he thinks the Whites will elect a Coloured person, then they will elect one, and if they do not want to elect him, then they will not elect him; it is as simple as that. Sir, the hon. member for Krugersdorp said there were people here on this side who regarded the Coloured as an appendage. There is no one sitting on this side who has said the Coloured is an appendage of the White. We do not regard the Coloured as an appendage of anybody. We regard him as a South African. The only thing we say is that in his own interests and in our own interests we want to co-operate with him in the political and economic spheres.

And only six representatives?

Criticism was levelled here at the proposal of the United Party that the Coloureds should be represented here in this Parliament by their own people But, Sir, here we are sitting, in this day and age, a small group of Whites together; for the whole of this afternoon we have been conducting a debate here on what we think the Coloureds think. It is so ridiculous. Surely it is obvious that if even one Coloured person had been sitting here, one who was worth his salt, one speech by him on what the Coloureds thought and felt and what their problems were would have been worth more than 90 per cent of the speeches that have been made here. Furthermore, we have had a very unrealistic debate here on the question of whether the Coloureds feel oppressed and whether he is embittered. Sir, there ought to be no room for difference between us in this regard. The only thing we as Afrikaners need do is to place ourselves in the shoes of the Coloureds. Say the Afrikaner were in the shoes of the Coloured and the Englishman were in a dominant position of power. One cannot imagine how other people feel unless one puts oneself in their shoes. Bring me one Afrikaner who would place himself in the shoes of the Coloureds and who would subsequently be satisfied to have the English ruling here and making and breaking as they liked.

They did do so.

Very well, but what did we do? Sir, would we not be rebellious? Would we be satisfied? It is totally unrealistic. We would have been as rebellious as one could possibly be and we would have done everything within our power to overthrow the existing set-up and to ensure that justice would be done to us. The Coloureds feel exactly the same. We need not debate this point; it is a fact, because we would have felt like that. Sir, the point at issue here is not progress. There is progress amongst all; there is progress amongst the Whites and we do not deny that there is progress amongst the Coloureds, but this is not what the struggle is about. The struggle is about justice. Is there justice at present? This is the question to which hon. members on that side must reply, not to the question whether there is progress. This is where hon. members on the opposite side are being hopelessly unrealistic. The hon. member for Tygervallei quite rightly said here that there was a time when our people—he was speaking of the Afrikaners— were excluded from opportunities; and now we are doing the same thing to other people, but he sits there and is perfectly satisfied with it. Now he is doing to other people what he did not want others to do to us.

Sir, I want to exchange a few words with the hon. the Minister. There were reports in the Press that the Labour Party was preparing a campaign against the humiliating aspects of apartheid. They had a large supply of placards printed bearing the words “This is petty apartheid”, and according to the newspapers, they intend putting them up on a large scale at places where they feel humiliating practices exist. [Interjections.] I understand that there are certain firms that have asked to be given time and for the campaign to be held in abeyance by these people until such time as they have introduced certain facilities which do not exist at the moment. I know nothing more than this. I do not know what methods they intend employing and consequently I am unable to judge them. But I think that one may have sympathy with the motivation thereof. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he thinks of this campaign. I want to tell him that if this kind of campaign really were to get into its stride, it could cause much bitterness between White and non-White, between Coloured and White. I think that the Government has a duty in this regard and that the Government ought to take the initiative. We, the White people, must take the initiative, and we must remove humiliating practices which hurt the Coloureds. We must not wait until they bring pressure to bear on us; we must take the initiative and remove those things as rapidly as we can. There are many private businesses— banks, building societies and other institutions—which implement all kinds of small apartheid practices which are not prescribed by law, and I think these things should be abolished immediately. The businesses should see to it that they get rid of these humiliating practices, where they are not obliged by law to implement these practices. Sir, the hon. the Minister passes as a reasonably enlightened man, and I should like to hear what he has to say about this matter. And if he is not an enlightened man, then he is at least a good Afrikaner, and we know that an Afrikaner is sentitive about any kind of contempt of his rights or his language or his national personality. An Afrikaner is very sensitive about anything which humiliates him in his opinion, and in recent months we had examples of this in the newspapers of the National Party and here in this Parliament, where the accusation was levelled that there were people in this country who were unsympathetic towards the Afrikaner. Sir, one thing which always disappoints me is the fact that there are Government supporters who are very quick—and let me say here that if an injustice is done to my people or my language or my national personality, I myself get on my hind legs—to object if they believe that they are humiliated as Afrikaners, but who do not care tuppence when Coloureds and non-Whites in general are humiliated, and who even try to defend it, by all kinds of signs reading: You are not good enough to travel in this lift with us; you cannot enter through the same door as us; you cannot buy your requirements at the same counter as us. Things of this kind hurt, and we should like to know whether the hon. the Minister approves of these things or whether he will do something to remove these practices. I want to go further; I do not want to dwell on these practices only.

How far are you prepared to go?

I have already said that so many times here. If only that hon. Minister would get up and say that he was prepared to abolish apartheid in lifts and at counters and at entrances, then he would already have progressed a long way. It would be a very good start.

Hypocrisy.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister entitled to use the word “hypocritical” with reference to the hon. member?

Order! If the hon. the Minister used the word, he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Is the hon. the Minister not ashamed of a man such as he using such words? I want to tell the hon. the Minister: The time has really arrived when an end should be put to wasting human material in South Africa. We do not have the time to dawdle. In this country —and at the moment we are speaking of the Coloureds, because that is the debate we are conducting—each child should be given the same opportunity, the same opportunity in every respect, to receive education. Just as the White child receives education, so must the Coloured child. We speak of uplifting people; one cannot uplift people if one applies humiliating practices against them. One can give a man all the education in the world but that education is not going to make him into a man with self-confidence if one applies practices Which humiliate him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just resumed his seat, set off at a tremendous pace. He issued a challenge to the hon. member for Boksburg by asking him whether this Government would elect a Coloured person as Prime Minister. That is the question he put, and the answer is: “Of course not.” That is not our policy. It may be that party’s policy, but it is not the policy of this party. A Coloured person will, once they have developed sufficiently, be elected as head of the Coloured population on the strength of his virtues.

The contents of all the speeches made on the other side amount to the Coloureds not being given their rightful share in our economic development. The speeches made by everybody opposite amounted to this. The hon. member for Newton Park explicitly said that they were subject to frustrations.

That is what the chairman of the executive committee said.

I want to speak this afternoon as a practical person who has observed certain facts. Three weeks ago he questioned 16 Coloureds; I want to tell him that I spoke to the chairman of the garment workers’ union three days ago, and I am not afraid to mention his name here. It would perhaps not be the correct thing to do, but I shall give his name to the Minister. I asked him openly: “Are there bad feelings between the Coloureds and the Whites?” Do you know what his answer was? He said: “Sir, there are no bad feelings on the part of the educated Coloured person towards the Whites, but such feelings do exist on the part of—this is how he calls them; it is almost not a nice word to use —the ’skollies’ towards the Whites.” Then he went on to mention another important point, which was only touched upon briefly this afternoon, namely that propaganda was being made in the Coloured residential areas. Those people, who are going about unemployed, are the victims of such propaganda. They are asked: “What do you earn?” Then they say: “No, I do not earn anything; I am not employed.” When they are asked whether they have applied for work and whether their names appear on the unemployment list they say: “No, my name does not appear on that list.” That is what is happening, and those hon. members should not adopt the standpoint that the Coloureds in general are a frustrated people, for this is not the case. I want to prove that there is employment for every Coloured person in the Western Cape. I am referring specifically to the Western Cape now, for this is where the majority of the Coloureds are to be found, but in the interior the position is exactly the same.

I shall take the case of the building industry as an example. By whom is the building industry controlled at present? The building industry is exclusively in the hands of the Coloureds. They are the people who lay bricks; they are the people who do the plastering; they are the people who do the cabinet-work; they are the people who lay the tiles. Those skilled jobs are all done by Coloureds today. Who is the present holder of the record for laying bricks—a White or a Coloured person? It is a Coloured person, who earns R20 000 per annum as a bricklayer. This is an artisan. I want to mention the case of a young, uneducated Coloured man at the H. F. Verwoerd Dam, who had the necessary intelligence and started doing carpentry at the dam. I asked him: “Johnny, what do you earn?” His reply to that was: “Sir, I am earning R400 a month.” There is no such thing that if a person is an artisan, he cannot find employment. Take the blockmen in Cape Town, take the blockmen in the butcheries. But for a few exceptions, all of them are Coloureds. They are people who earn R300 or R400 per month.

Is the hon. member aware that according to the 1970 census there are 14 000 Coloured families who had an income of less than R100 per annum?

I can well believe that. These are perhaps people who do not work every day. One finds people who work for 10 or 12 days a month. They just work for that period and then their masters chase them away. I can well believe the figures mentioned by the hon. member. There is employment for the person who wants to work. Take, for instance, the clothing industry. That industry is in the hands of the non-Whites today. The hon. member for Newton Park does not want to listen now.

No, I am listening.

The clothing industry is in the hands of the non-Whites, One may go to any of the factories and see who works there. Non-White women are working there by the thousand. However, here we are being brought under the impression that the Coloureds are frustrated because there is no employment for them or because there is too big a differencle in the employment. However, those people should be asked what they earn. We could travel in the buses here today. Who are the bus drivers and who are the conductors today?

Where?

Does the hon. member want to know where? Here in Cape Town.

And in the Transvaal?

What about Johannesburg?

And in Durban?

The hon. member is looking for a way out. Right at the beginning I said I was referring mainly to the Western Cape, where there is a concentration of Coloureds.

What are their salaries? [Interjections.]

We gladly provide them with work, as I have said. Half of the traffic officers on the streets are Coloureds. Just take a look at how many Coloureds are employed in business concerns today. How many Coloured typists do we have sitting behind typewriters? Just take a look at the clerks in the chain stores. How many Coloured girls are working behind the counters in them? Just take a look at how many Coloured men and women are standing behind counters in chemist’s shops. This progress has been made by the Coloureds within the space of a few years. I want to repeat that that side and that party are trying to run down what the National Party has been doing for the Coloureds. It is a pity that this is being done. I understand that quite a number of Coloureds are sitting here in the public gallery, and surely, it gives those people pleasure to hear that side saying that they are getting frustrated. It is a great pity that this is being said.

A certain Coloured person started working here in one of the Coloured residential areas in Cape Town as a bottle washer. He died the other day, but do you know what his estate was worth, Sir? Just over 1 million rand! He was a person who wanted to work. He and his wife started working alone by cleaning bottles.

You do not even want to allow that.

My time is very limited, but I want to say that we are dealing here with a person who wanted to work and achieved success for that reason. Eventually he acquired a soft-drink factory, and shortly before his death—it is a pity that he could not see it —he imported machinery to the value of R0,25 million for cleaning bottles.

I do not want the hon. members over there to plead for the knifers. Every day we read about the “skollies” in the newspapers. We have hundreds of them here, I almost feel like saying thousands, who are loitering about, and when they see a poor widow living in a house all by herself, they go there at night, assault her and rob her of the few rands she has in the form of pension money. They may even rape her as well. The other day we read in the papers about a jobless “skolly” who pulled a twelve-year-old girl from her bicycle and dragged her into the bushes. We know what he did to her. What I absolutely take amiss of the United Party, is that they put the emphasis more on that type of person and not on the good work done by these people.

Why do they become “skollies”?

I could go on in this vein for hours. Take the position in the Police and the Post Office, into which thousands of Coloureds are absorbed today. The only point is training, and the National Party Government is engaged in training them. I have the figures available. Take the figures in respect of the University of the Western Cape, for instance. When I studied at the University of Stellenbosch in 1924, there were 600 students. At the moment, in respect of the first term of this year, there were 1 241 students at the University of the Western Cape. Therefore, the National Party Government is engaged in providing them with training. It is not only doing so at the universities, but also at technical schools, in respect of which I could also furnish the hon. members with the figures. In the first term there were 3 406 pupils at the technical schools. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few words to the points I made earlier on. Let me tell the hon. gentlemen that the point at issue is not amalgamation of people or integration of people. That is not the standpoint. Our standpoint on this side of the House is that people should have equal opportunities. One should take the stones off their heads so that they may have the right to develop themselves. These people are subject to too many unnecessary restrictions. It does not make a better White person of me if I prevent another person from developing, and by imposing restrictions on other people. That is why we reject this kind of argument, namely that when we plead for people to be treated justly and to be afforded the opportunity of developing and developing freely, we stand for amalgamation. In the first place, I said it was absolutely essential for us to put a stop to the wastage of manpower. South Africa needs every person, and it is necessary for every person to develop to the highest degree of his personality. For that reason we should afford every child every opportunity, irrespective of whether he is White or Coloured, of developing his personality and becoming a useful citizen of this country. But we shall have to go further than that. There are many injustices which must be removed more forcefully. Is it fair for a Coloured teacher and a Coloured doctor to have to complete the same studies and incur the same expenses in order to hold a post, only to be paid infinitely less than a White teacher and a White doctor? What justice does one find in that?

Does he not have the same responsibility?

Yes, for the same work. I am referring to people who have the same qualifications, and not to people who do not have the same qualifications. How long are the Minister and the Government going to continue to commit these injustices which cause bitterness amongst people with whom we can least afford it? This refers specifically to the teacher who has thousands of children under him, and his influence on the ultimate relations between the Whites and the Coloureds is much greater than that of any other person. But, this is how we treat those people. What we want to see on the part of the Government, is drive. If it says that it is its policy to afford unlimited opportunities to every person—the sky is the limit, according to Mr. P. W. Botha—we want to see this put into practice. It can be done.

I want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. When is the hon. the Minister going to get so far as to make the Coloured Persons Representative Council a fully elected council? In saying this, I am not against any person in any position. I have the highest respect, also for those people who were the pioneers. The pioneers often have a very difficult task. When are we going to learn the lessons which the colonial powers learnt? In taking a look at history, one will find that no matter what colonial power it was—Britain, France or whoever—it always tried to appoint people who would be sympathetic towards the colonial power in question, rather than affording the people the opportunity of choosing freely the people they wanted. I want to say something to the hon. the Minister, and I am saying this with all due respect to the representatives who are there at present: As a White person I would much rather be face to face with those Coloured leaders whom I know were elected by the Coloured community. I would much rather want to know that I was speaking to leaders who could really speak on behalf of those people. Why are we bluffing ourselves? How long are we going to bluff ourselves? How long do we think we can tolerate this situation where one creates bitterness and discord in that council because it is not a fully elected council? There is a possibility of legislation being introduced in that regard later on in this session, but what gives rise to all the problems arising there? They stem from the Government’s action in that it does not want to afford the Coloured community the opportunity of establishing a fully elected council. How long will we still be able to carry on with this in that way? I think it is the hon. the Minister’s duty to tell us when we shall reach the point where they will at least have that elementary right. That council has few enough powers. It is not a case of our belittling that council, but, heaven knows, at this stage it really does not have powers that are worth having. Even with such few powers, we do not see our way clear to telling the Coloureds that they may elect their people, that they themselves may elect an executive committee to deal with these few matters that have been delegated to them. But I want to go further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that he should also be so kind as to give us a reply to the question as to what powers he ultimately envisages for the Coloured Council. I do not want to argue with him today on the question of representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament. I know what his policy is, and he knows what our policy is in regard to the matter. But I want to speak to him within the framework of his own policy. I believe that the hon. the Minsiter will have neglected his duty if he and his Government have not yet to a certain extent given thought to and prepared themselves for a decision as to what powers can be delegated to that council. What I want to know from him, is not what powers he will now delegate to the council, but what the eventual situation will be in his view. They do not want to grant representation to the Coloureds here or on any other similar body. Now he should tell us openly and honestly that this and that are the powers he knows will eventually be delegated to the Coloured Council. When the Government talks about self-determination, when it says that these people will really govern themselves, we want to know whether it honestly means that they will have full control over their Budget. The hon. member for Malmesbury waxed lyrical here about the amount of R82 million controlled by that council. We all know that it does not control it. It has no control of its own Budget. It cannot change anything in that Budget. It is purely a book transfer from this Parliament to that Coloured Council, where it merely has to be signed. We all know that this is the case.

Really, you do disparage everything.

I am not saying anything disparaging; this is merely the truth. If this is not the case, the hon. the Minister should tell us what the actual position is. They have no authority over that Budget. When are they themselves going to have that elementary authority which will at least leave them some scope, as certain Bantu territories already have? Those things we want to know. If the hon. the Minister is honest about the future of the Coloured Council, we shall also be better able to test the Government. We are not intent on running something down when we see that it works and that it is successful. The hon. the Minister can win a great deal of goodwill for the idea … [Interjections.] No, those hon. members know that the attitude we adopt is that if something works, we recognize it. If the hon. the Minister and those hon. members can convince us and give us an idea of the powers this council will have in the near future, I am convinced that he will strike a major blow for that council. But we do not hear a word from that side. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity this time to explain to us up to what point the Coloured Council can develop, and more or less when it will become a fully self-elected representative council of the Coloured community.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but I shall not reply to all of them since I believe that this is the hon. Minister’s prerogative and that he will possibly prefer it that way too. I want to start with the questions he asked last. He referred to a fully elected council. I can tell him right now that the principle has already been adopted. The only thing is that there are practical problems preventing us from introducing this at the next election. That is all it amounts to. I think the hon. the Minister will repeat it.

Did you say that it would be introduced at the next election?

It cannot be introduced at the next election already. There is a White election, and, in addition, many other practical problems are involved in this matter as well. I am merely mentioning it to the hon. member. It is still being investigated. A final decision has not yet been taken on the matter. However, it has already been accepted in principle by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister. The hon. member referred to the Budget over which these people supposedly have no authority. The Budget of the Coloured Persons Representative Council is preparted by its executive committee itself. They add their extra demands to it according to their needs. After that it is considered by the Minister of Finance. These hon. members vote on it; they are not a tax body; they cannot impose taxes. Nevertheless, they prepare their own Budget. In the utilization thereof they can exercise their full authority.

The hon. member said at the beginning that we did not know what the Coloureds were thinking. Today we are much more familiar with what the Coloureds are thinking than has ever been the case before, because we have regular talks with members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. They have their executive committee and every month we have talks with them on an increasingly broader basis. There is no end to the possible forms of liaison which we can work out in the future in these dynamic times in which we are living.

In the third place, the hon. member tried to draw a comparison between the Afrikaner in his former state of subordination in the economic sphere and how he subsequently made good as compared to the English-speaking people. But, surely, the hon. member has lost his bearings completely. After all, he cannot compare two assimilable groups, involved in a struggle against each other, with a group that is not recognized as being assimilable with either of the other groups in its struggle to the top. One can recognize this on economic, political and other grounds, but not on the grounds you want.

The Afrikaner had no obstacles in his way.

No, wait a minute. We are not putting any obstacles in their way. There are certain conditions, but no obstacles. The hon. member also referred to progress. The major issue today is political progress. As far as political progress is concerned, those hon. members are the persons who are placing a final ceiling over these heads, i.e. six representatives and the fact that the Whites have to decide on the future. What have the Whites decided over the past 24 years?

Then the hon. member raised the question of bitterness, equal opportunities and job reservation. I shall come back to the question of opportunities later on, but I may tell the hon. member that in South Africa the legalistic prohibitions, legalistic obstacles in the way of the progress of the Coloured people, are far fewer than are the social ones. The people on the hon. member’s side, many of their religious denominations and many others, are actually responsible for the fact that these people are not making progress at places where they apparently intimate that they will allow them to make progress if the Government would only clear the way for them. Their way is clear, and they can make progress. The hon. member will forgive me, but his other questions will be replied to by the hon. the Minister himself.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the poor progress made in regard to the training of apprentices. In 1964 there were no vocational schools; at the moment there are five colleges. In addition there are a number of schools at which continuation classes are provided. At present there are 2 321 pupils attending the colleges and the continuation classes. There are 487 pupils in the technical institutions and the differentiated high schools.

The hon. member for Parow raised the question of bursary loans awarded for library science. From 1966 to 1971 an amount of R8 800 was awarded. There are five subject inspectors. The libraries are being developed at Coloured high schools. The provincial library service caters for all population groups. Where this service is provided for Coloureds, it is staffed by Coloureds as far as possible. The hon. member mentioned the possibility of this service being handed over to the Administration of Coloured Affairs. To my mind this is not desirable at this particular stage. It is still in a stage of development.

†The hon. member for Berea, who is not here at the moment, talked about the families living at Macassar Beach and the sub-economic housing there. I wonder if the hon. member realizes that what he was talking about is really a transit camp. The divisional council of Stellenbosch placed these people in that transit camp. They have to stay there for the time being; from there they will be moved to project 4. Some of these people, about 30 families, have been housed on one plot at Firgrove. Is this new arrangement not a big improvement? The hon. member also talked about Greenwood Park and Wentworth. I realize that things are not as they should be at Wentworth. I visited Greenwood Park, also Wentworth and Sparks Estate, and I agree that there are many things that need our attention at Wentworth. These people came to see the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Coloured Affairs on Monday and we had a good discussion about all these matters. I do not think the hon. member need worry any more about Wentworth, because things are getting the attention they should. Then I want to say a few words about the memorandum of the church institutions. In this regard I have received some information from the department. The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town had an interview with the Minister and the Minister of Community Development in connection with the retention of Zonnebloem College. Amongst others, matters mentioned by the hon. member for Berea were also raised. The Archbishop was, however, asked to submit a memorandum in regard to these matters and he then indicated that he would also like to include the views of other churches. The Secretary informed me that such a memorandum has been received. It was attended to by the administration of Coloured Affairs who suggested that the views of other Afrikaans churches also be obtained. The information is now being correlated by the department and will be submitted to me or to the Minister for further attention. The question of a further meeting, if necessary, will also be considered.

*The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about housing in Boksburg. He knows that I attended to the matter there, that it is receiving the attention of the Department of Community Development at the moment and that he will in due course be informed as to what is being done about it. I have sympathy with the problem of recreational facilities at Reiger Park, and I have been there personally. The Coloured Affairs Administration, the commissioner and the executive committee are aware of the problems experienced there, and some of their members visited the area with me. We have the Council for Culture and Recreation, in respect of which I wanted to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Berea for being willing to make his positive contribution on this body for the upliftment of the Coloured people. They can possibly make a contribution; I do not know. We shall have to look into the matter. I am rather impressed by the idea of a levy on employers. After all, if people get people from elsewhere to work for one, they must see to it that these people get proper recreation. We shall most certainly give attention to the various suggestions raised by this hon. member.

I think I have now replied to most of the questions put by hon. members. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just resumed his seat, mentioned one or two matters which I will deal with in passing. The first is in connection with Macassar Beach, a matter raised by my colleague the hon. member for Berea. The Deputy Minister pointed out that this was a transit camp and that it must be realized that from this transit camp these people would move on to better pastures. I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have a transit camp also in Durban. We call it “tin town”: it has been there for a solid 10 years. We are very anxious to know when the occupants of this particular transit camp are going to move on to better housing.

I would like to deal very briefly with a few other points that the Deputy Minister made. But before I do so, I would like to tax the Government with this thought: First of all there is to be no homeland for the Coloureds. Secondly, they are not allowed to have a majority elected Coloured Council.

Why? That is not true.

I said majority “elected” council. You nominate more than half of the members.

It is going to happen.

When is it going to happen? They are not allowed to have their own representation in Parliament. That is number three. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: What price democracy? What morality is there in this approach? Not one of the things they do will they take to its conclusion. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not himself admit that he places the members of the Coloured Council in an invidious position, those who are nominated by the Government? They know, as well as everybody else knows, including the Coloured people, that these are nominated members, and therefore they cannot pretend to be the truly elected representatives of their people.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: The United Party members insisted on nominated members.

I would like to go further than this. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that they must have a Coloured Council that represents the views of the Government. Now, I want to know how you can have a Coloured Council representing the Coloureds that must first of all, as number one priority, represent the views of the Government.

I did not say that.

Well, this is what you implied in your remarks. If they did not represent the views of the Government, they were no good to you, and for this reason the question of a fully elected council is something for the far distant future. But this, of course, is not strange in their thinking. I wonder how much the Coloureds themselves must have been worried by debates in this House earlier this session, just a few weeks ago, when they saw a deliberate attempt from the Government benches to drive a wedge between the White groups in South Africa. Having tried to drive this wedge between the White groups in South Africa, how much less chance do we have to be able to bring the White and Coloured people in South Africa to a form of national unity which will benefit the whole country? The point is that they place the importance of the Nationalist Party far above that of the interests of the Coloured community and the White non-Nationalist community as well. This has been their creed for 24 years.

I would go further than this. I would say that after 24 years of Government rule, we are no nearer solving the problems of the Coloured community than we were when we starged. After 24 years of Government rule, after 50 years in the Union of South Africa and ten years as a republic, and after 300 years of occupation in South Africa, we are still unable to solve probably what is our easiest race problem.

You don’t know anything about history.

It is our easiest race problem. If we cannot solve this problem I do not believe we can solve the far bigger problem of the Africans.

I warned in previous debates in this House that the frustrations and the hardships caused to the Coloured community were going to bode ill for South Africa in the not too distant future. If hon. members on that side of the House do not like that sort of statement, as far as I am concerned, they can lump it, because we owe a duty to South Africa to warn South Africa what is happening. This Government has taken Coloureds from very good areas and lumped them together in what has been called by some Coloureds, when they are lucky to have lights, “graveyards with lights”. They live, they say themselves, as battery chickens. If anybody can get up in this House and say that the Coloureds are better off than they were before the advent of this Government, then I say that they know nothing about the Coloureds and that they have not in fact examined the problems of the Coloureds in any depth whatever. Sir, hon. members have spoken about Coloured housing in this debate. I would like to quote to them just one figure given to me by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who is responsible for housing. He told me in reply to a written question that we need 16 346 houses per annum to cater for the population increase; and in addition to that we have a backlog of 21 840 housing units which still have to be provided. The best building rate we have achieved is an average of 11 000 houses a year. But the Minister also went on to say that within eight or nine years all the Coloureds would be resettled under the Group Areas Act. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has come back into the House. I want to say this to him and to the hon. the Minister of Planning, because this is his prime concern. The Minister of Community Development said in the debate on his Vote that all Coloureds would be resettled under the Group Areas Act within eight to nine years.

What about 1978?

If this is so, Sir, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that the backlog in Coloured housing by that date will be no less than 80 000 on his own figures.

You are talking tripe now.

If I am talking tripe, then I am talking tripe with figures supplied to me by the hon. the Minister himself, and if the hon. the Minister can do any arithmetic, he will arrive at the same figure. I want to say to the Minister of Coloured Affairs that I believe that that figure was a very conservative one and that in fact investigations will reveal that the figure is a great deal higher than that. I want to warn the hon. the Minister of Planning who, I believe, is a far more reasonable man than the Minister of Community Development that in eight or nine years’ time there will not be a shortage of 80 000 houses, but a good deal more, and that with this shortage of housing, there will be a great deal more frustration and bitterness than there is today if that is possible. Sir, I am saying to the hon. the Minister, and to every member who sits on the Government side, that if they do not face this problem and face it very quickly, we may have created a gulf which neither side of the House will ever be able to bridge. Sir, I am deeply concerned over this particular problem, and I want to say to the Government that to my knowledge they have never done a single thing, materially, in 24 years of rule, to assist the Coloured people. Everything that they have done has hurt the Coloured community and not assisted them. One could mention all sorts of things that happened in the 1950s, things such as the High Court of Parliament and so on, but that is not necessary. Sir, I want to challenge the hon. the Minister, as I did in the debate on the Planning Vote, to return District Six to the Coloured community. I say this in all sincerity because it is not too late. Nearly 34 000 Coloured people still have to be removed from District Six. If he were to return District Six to the Coloured community, he would not have to find housing for those 34 000 odd people. Many of those houses in District Six could simply be renewed and repaired. Sir, this would make a tremendous difference to the housing backlog. I also want to say, Sir, that I do not believe that hon. members opposite will accept this challenge to return District Six to the Coloureds. Nor do I not believe that they will make the Coloured Council fully representatives.

That is a silly suggestion.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that that is a silly suggestion. Of course, from the point of view of greed it is a silly suggestion, but I think from the point of view of humanity and justice it is certainly warranted. I do not believe that the Government has the courage to do this. I do not believe that the Government cares two hoots about anything except staying in power. [Time expired.]

Sir, we are discussing the Coloured Vote, but I must tell the hon. member for Port Natal a little story. A few days ago I was in Durban. I had the opportunity of talking to a few Indians there. I asked them, “Do you know Mr. Winchester?” Their reply was, “We have never heard of him, Sir,” I then asked them what they thought of their residential areas, and their reply was, “We are highly satisfied with what this Government has given us.” They added that there still were poor residential areas. This man is a venomous politician; I think he should join the leader of the Liberal …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it and say he is a dangerous politician. I think he can join the leader of the British Liberal Party, who made such a venomous speech in Cape Town yesterday evening.

Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that the United Party has appointed a committee to investigate their Coloured policy. I understand that this committee, according to its terms of reference is to investigate the following: “Coloureds must have equal status with Whites.” This is the central idea of the recommendation of that committee, consisting of United Party members, which is to investigate their Coloured policy. We have already heard a great deal today about the six representatives they want to give the Coloureds in this House of Assembly. I want to ask them: Why only six? If they are working in the direction of an equal status for the Coloureds, why do they make provision for only six representatives? That hon. member in the corner must not tell me now that we give the Coloureds nothing. We are able to motivate and justify our standpoint in respect of a Coloured Persons Representative Council. Let me come back to that now. I should like the hon. member for Wynberg to tell me why there should only be six representatives of the Coloureds in this House.

Why discrimination?

Yes, as the hon. member for Parow says, why discrimination?

But you do not give them any.

Are the Coloureds still unripe in the eyes of the United Party? The hon. member for Salt River should really go and push trains, Sir; he is bothering me. If he wants to make a speech, he should rise and speak. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Wynberg now. Sir, it seems to me she cannot reply to this; perhaps she is not allowed to. I want to ask her: Why, in terms of their policy, do they want only six representatives of the Coloureds in this Parliament? Why not more? The criticism is levelled at us that our policy has no morality and no justice. But if, in terms of United Party policy, 2 million Coloureds may have only six representatives in this House, then surely there is something wrong according to the United Party, with the Coloured’s political development and with his standards. I think I can conclude with that point. I can just tell the United Party that they are people who hold out the prospect of certain things to the Coloured people which they subsequently do not want to give them.

A great deal was said here this afternoon about housing. I took the trouble to inquire from the Department of Community Development what the housing position among our Coloureds was today. I want to tell you, Sir, that this National Government had to remove the Coloureds from the worst slum conditions which, according to Senator Horak, were created by the United Party. This Government had to remove them from there and give them decent housing. For example, since the promulgation of the Group Areas Act, more than 150 000 houses have been approved for our Coloureds. That is a tremendous figure. More than 40 000 houses for our Coloured population are being planned at Mitchell’s Plain, and yet the hon. member for Newton Park speaks of hardships and says that we apply discrimination. I think if there have ever been people who owe this Government a debt of gratitude, it is the Coloureds for what the Government has done for them in respect of housing. When one thinks of the shanties and the miserable conditions under which those people had to live, I want to make the statement that group areas have brought about a totally new dispensation—I almost want to say a new revolution—in respect of housing for Coloureds in South Africa.

It is true that there are people who are never satisfied. I want to refer to a columnist of Rapport, who calls himself Gus Adams. I do not know who he is, but I think sometimes this writer should at least be grateful as well. In this particular article he is just like the Cape Times, and it seems to me the two of them are blood relations of the United Party, because the Cape Times refuses to open its eyes and to see what has been done and is being done for our Coloureds. This Mr. Gus Adams —I presume it is a pen-name—on occasion wrote the following in Rapport: He addressed the article to White local authorities, and mentioned the names of mayors and town clerks. He asked, “What are you doing to promote sport among the Coloureds in your area?” We know what the position was before 1948 when I was still a young boy. Allow me to tell you what the position is today in many parts of our country. Let me tell you about my own constituency. I had a discussion with the chairman of the Coloured Committee at Worcester, a certain Mr. Neethling. I chatted to him about the sporting facilities which the White municipality had given them and I want to mention to you what they have. I think that when we have heard this, our friend Gus Adams would have to agree with what Mr. Kearns said on occasion (translation)—

Our Coloured community at Worcester has five standard rugby fields, an athletic track, two soccer fields, five cricket fields, five concrete tennis courts and a cycling track around the athletic track. In addition, a swimming-bath with a pavilion is being constructed. This is only one example. I think we can probably quote numerous cases where White local authorities are helping our Coloureds to do well in the field of sports as well. That is why the Proteas were able to put up such a good performance against the English touring team a few days ago.

Just look at the Athlone Stadium.

I think we can congratulate them and the chairman of their rugby board, Mr. Loriston, on being able to co-operate so well with the Rugby Board of the Whites and on their wonderful achievement. I think I have reason to say that we hope they will still progress a great deal in future and be able to undertake the tours they envisage.

The English said that Athlone was one of the most beautiful fields on which they had ever played.

The hon. member for Parow says the English said that Athlone was the most beautiful field on which they had ever played. I think it is a beautiful field they have there.

I should like to mention a figure I found very interesting when I read it, and that is to what extent the Coloureds have progressed in the economic sphere. I want to link this to one industry and to one article, and that is the motor car. It is said in an article I have here that the ownership of motor vehicles among the Coloureds has increased from a mere 19 500 in 1962 to 40 800 in 1966, and it is estimated that this figure will be 110 000 in 1970. The article goes on to say (translation)—

I think I can conclude by saying that we as White Afrikaners, the National Party, have good intentions with our Coloured community. We are at least honest with him. We say to him: “We give you the Coloured Persons Representative Council”, to which we still do nominate a certain number of members. But the samething has happened throughout our own history. From 1814 in the 19th century, the Cape Colony had to develop over a period of almost 70 years from a bureaucracy to responsible government, which they obtained only in 1872. It took the Cape Colony almost 70 years to develop to that stage politically. We want to say to the Coloureds that they must utilize their opportunities. They must develop in the political sphere; this Government will assist them as far as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. H. VAN Z. CILLIÉ: Mr. Chairman, it has been stressed on several occasions by this side of the House that, of all the burning issues facing South Africa, that of establishing and maintaining sound race relations is the most fundamental. In spite of a large, well trained army which is equipped with modern weapons, and a police force, the 4 million Whites of South Africa will not be able to maintain themselves unless we live amicably and harmoniously with the rest of the peoples living in South Africa. This is the field in which the Government of the moment has been found guilty and stands condemned in the eyes of all right-thinking people, here and overseas. The Nationalist Party protests that its policies, including its race relations, are founded on Christian principles. Did Christ teach His followers to circumvent solemn pledges such as an entrenched clause by employing devious measures? Did Christ teach His followers to exploit their fellowmen in all fields of human endeavour if their skins are off-white as happens in South Africa? Did Christ teach His followers to imprison their opponents without giving them a fair trial?

*Did Christ teach His followers to force defenceless people from their homes without providing them with adequate alternative accommodation with the necessary facilities? Has this Government’s arrogance and high-handedness caused it to forget that Christ’s teachings were and are based on love and not on hate, prejudice, discrimination and exploitation? The United Party has been warning for many years that the Government’s race relations policy can only fail. Did the hon. the Minister pay any recent visits to the Coloured slums which his Government created? Did he see the idlers, the unemployed and the neglected there?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member from what he is is reading?

Does he not realize that it is precisely there that the danger point in South Africa is to be found? Coloured leaders joined Bantu leaders recently in starting to warn the Government that particularly the young people in their ranks were beginning to adopt a militant attitude. At present the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has no significant powers. As has been said, it is merely a rubber stamp which has to implement Government policy. This frustration is increasing dangerously. When we consider the position of the Coloured nurses, we clearly see the Government’s discrimination emerging. How do their duties and salaries compare with those of White nurses?

†When Coloureds are engaged in Government service, platform ticket examiners become barrier attendants and are consequently paid a lower wage. Similarly a shunter becomes a train compiler and he too is paid a lower wage. 60 per cent of all Coloureds earn a wage which is below or just at the breadline. Up to the early 1960s the salaries and wages of Coloureds grew from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of those of Whites, but now this gap has once again been widened. In 1970 it was about 50 per cent of the White salaries and wages. How can these discrepancies be justified? Many a Nationalist argues that everybody born with a White skin has an inherent moral and intellectual superiority over everybody else whose skin is off-white. The hon. Minister of the Interior in a recent speech said, and I quote him:

We know that the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions have on two occasions completely repudiated this statement. However, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs has made no response to this statement. I ask him to tell this House where he stands in this very serious matter.

*The hon. the Minister announced his policy of a parallel road for Whites and Coloureds and of a twin Parliament with great seriousness, but no thinking South African, whatever the colour of his skin, could wax lyrical about this policy because it is quite rightly seen as a colossal bluff.

†I would urge the hon. the Minister to take another long look at the role which the Coloureds must play within the South African context. Let us seek common ground between them and us, accepting that both have a common loyalty to South Africa and, secondly, that each has a contribution to make towards a better South Africa. I think the time is past for us to indulge in clever politics. What is demanded is statesmanship of the highest order. I believe that the United Party policy points in this direction. We say that the Coloured should be uplifted as soon as possible in the socio-economic context. We say that improved housing, social and civic amenities are essential. Improved schooling is essential. Consultation at all levels must be followed. Closing the wage and salary gap is essential. A fully elected Coloured Representative Council with meaningful powers is necessary. Defined representation in Parliament on a separate roll must be implemented. If this policy were to be implemented, the Coloureds of South Africa would lose their militancy and would become worthy partners of the Whites in building a better South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few ideas on the University of the Western Cape. Reference was made here this afternoon to the small number of permanent lecturing staff who have thus far been appointed to that university from the ranks of the Coloured people. I want to say to this Committee, and to the Coloured people as well, that nobody in or outside this House is more anxious than I that Coloured persons should be appointed there as lecturers and professors and has tried to do more in this regard than I have. The position is that, with the best will in the world, it is not an easy situation. The Opposition, who spoke about this matter this afternoon, were in fact too late in the field, because the Coloured people themselves have already raised this matter with the hon. the Prime Minister at these liaison meetings which are disparaged so much, at which meetings the matter was thrashed out thoroughly.

But your Vote is under discussion.

This matter was thrashed out thoroughly there and both the hon. the Prime Minister and I asked for names of Coloured academics, graduates whom we could appoint or could have appointed to the staff of this university. Names were given to us. I followed up each of those two cases in detail. There were one or two persons whom we could have appointed, but whom we could not get because they were earning higher salaries in the private sector and would not come to us. One or two were appointed, but subsequently resigned, the one in order to enter the ministry. Surely one cannot take it amiss of someone if he resigns in order to enter another sphere. The other persons whom we could get we could not have appointed, except if we had been prepared to abandon certain standards. Then there was one field of study at this university in respect of which we could obtain people, but in which there has so far not been a single vacancy to which we could have appointed someone. Can one say to someone who holds a position: “You are here permanently; but I want you to leave now because I want to put somebody else in your place?” Surely that would be absolutely unfair and unreasonable. And this afternoon, while the hon. member for Wynberg was speaking, I asked her to mention one or two cases so that I could reply to her on them. I have the information with me. But the hon. member has not done so yet. She merely held a piece of paper aloft and said she had a whole list.

I shall write a letter to you.

I then asked her to send the list to me. I have been sitting here all afternoon and have not yet received that list. The hon. member kicked up a terrible fuss about it.

I shall write to you.

I shall wait for that list until 11 o’clock on Thursday morning.

Yes, certainly.

Then I can deal on Thursday afternoon with the names submitted by her. I shall not mention the names of the persons concerned, but shall refer to them as A, B, C, etc. I have the same list as the hon. member, but let her send me hers. This afternoon we have again been made out to be everything which is bad and dishonourable. We allegedly damage and break down relations. We have been accused of all those things here this afternoon on the basis of that type of argument which has nothing in it.

You haven’t done much in 24 years.

That hon. member should rather not enter this discussion, because he has no knowledge of this matter. I do not want to waste my time on him either now. We are doing absolutely everything we can. For example, we shall introduce a new course at the university next year, namely one in dentistry. I should like to make the following statement in regard to the introduction of this faculty of dentistry at the University of the Western Cape. On the recommendation of the Council of the University of the Western Cape I have approved that, in co-operation with the school of dentistry of the University of Stellenbosch, a degree course in dentistry be introduced at the University of the Western Cape as from 1973. The first two years and part of the third year of the course will be offered at the University of the Western Cape, while the course for the remaining years will be housed in a section of the dentistry building in Parow which is being erected specially for this purpose and which will be made available to the University of the Western Cape by the University of Stellenbosch on a compensation basis until the first-mentioned university has its own facilities. The University of the Western Cape will be responsible for the appointment of staff, but it is envisaged that staff for the clinical and professional sections of the course could be obtained on a part-time basis from the University of Stellenbosch. This staff will be responsible to the Senate of the University of the Western Cape for the tuition and examination of the students, and the degrees will be conferred by this university. A limited number of Indian students who have successfully completed the basic first year course at the University of Durban-Westville, Natal, and who fulfil the entrance requirements set by the University of the Western Cape, may be admitted to the course from the second year.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the medical course which has been referred to here today, I want to say that we are still actively thinking in that direction. In the building programme of the university we shall make provision for the necessary lecture halls and facilities for certain basic subjects with a view to introducing a medical course at our university. We are keeping in close contact with the provincial administration and with the M.E.C. in charge of hospital services, so that when another hospital is built for Coloured people, it may be built at the University of the Western Cape. We shall try to arrange matters in such a way that we shall subsequently be able to develop the hospital as a teaching hospital attached to a medical faculty for the Coloured people. However, these are matters about which we should not become too enthusiastic. In speaking about these things, we are perhaps speaking in terms of 10 to 15 years before the first doctor can be produced. But it is receiving our attention.

I have a few minutes left and should like briefly to discuss the question of artisans which the hon. member for Walmer raised. As the hon. member said, there is a technical college in Port Elizabeth. According to my information, there are at present seven enrolled apprentice mechanics attending classes at that college. In reply to his proposal, the position is, of course, that the training of apprentices is governed by the Apprenticeship Act. I cannot get around that with the best will in the world. In terms of the Apprenticeship Act there are apprenticeship committees, which must approve the enrolment of an apprentice with an employer, otherwise it is not a valid apprenticeship contract. There simply is no short cut. After four years, that apprentice may have himself tested, and if he passes the test, he need not complete the fifth year. I have also discussed the matter with a former Minister of Labour, the present Minister of Transport, and have been informed that there simply is no short cut. Our problem is that there are far too few Coloured motor mechanics. Like my predecessor, the present Minister of Labour, I have been trying to do something in this regard, ever since 1970, but we are thwarted by the trade unions, who do not want to allow it. We can do nothing about it. All they say is that Coloured boys are welcome to enrol with Coloured motor mechanics. The trade unions are perfectly satisfied with that. However, they are not satisfied that a White member … [Interjections.] That hon. member who is kicking up such a racket should keep quiet. They are not satisfied that a White member of a union should take in a Coloured boy as an apprentice. I can do nothing about that. People from all language groups belong to those trade unions. [Interjections.] What is that hon. member saying?

I said you have a kind heart.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In any case, this is the situation we are faced with. We are trying another method now, namely to see whether we cannot develop garages in the Coloured townships. This will not be enough, but it will at least help. I do not want to go into the scheme now, but in this regard we are receiving assistance from, amongst others, the petrol companies and certain other parties. We have worked out a formula according to which we shall have these garages in Coloured townships. It will be a condition that these garages will have to take in Coloured artisans as mechanics. I want to see whether we cannot set to work more rapidly in order to get more of the boys in there. At this stage, however, I have no other plan.

I now come to the question of salaries which was discussed here today. I found it notable that the hon. member for Newton Park said that a survey taken in May, 1970, showed that the salaries paid in industry to Coloureds were 26 per cent of the average salaries paid to Whites.

Compared with what they earned previously.

The Coloureds?

Yes.

Is it not 26 per cent of the earnings of the Whites? That is how I understood the hon. member. If he did not mean that, I shall leave the point there.

It was 40 per cent at first, and later it dropped.

Then it dropped to 26 per cent. That is correct. I do not want to say anything about this now, but I just want to put the matter in perspective because of the reproach levelled at the Government in view of the percentage salary it pays the Coloureds. It is not as low as. 26 per cent. Nor is it 40 per cent. It is much higher; it is approximately 60 per cent and more. I am just saying this to put the matter in perspective. That is the position, and I said last year what my standpoint is in this regard. I am continuing to strive for this. I have already drawn up another scheme which I shall try to implement in due course. If I can do this, I shall be satisfied that I have made good progress. But that is all I can say about it at the moment.

I said last year that we were endeavouring to reach a situation where we would be in a position to consider what we call, in popular terms, “the rate for the job”. I am still striving to promote this within the, call it a formula, which I announced here. I am actively engaged in this. I just want to say that the United Party, of course, also has certain standpoints on this. I remember having read that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition opened their congress in Port Elizabeth last year, he said that in this regard it was their policy “To ultimately close the gap”. Well, the word “ultimately” was so offensive to many of his people that the very next week-end the hon. the Leader was invited to attend a dinner and address a group of people in Port Elizabeth. That evening he did not speak of “ultimate”; that evening he said “at once cannot be too soon for me”. Therefore we see a tremendous difference within a period of only four or five days. Sir, [Interjections.] What I am saying now is true. Those hon. members may go ahead and do what they like. Then he said at his Bloemfontein Congress—that was the last statement of which I know— “as soon as possible”. Well, I do not know why I was reproached so much here today. This matter that we do not pay equal salaries for the same type of work was mentioned as one of the points causing bitterness, friction and frustration. I remember the hon. member for Newton Park saying this as well. I think the hon. member for Wynberg also said so. Now the same argument is being used again. We are reproached, and those members present us to the Coloured people as scoundrels, suppressors and heartless people. We are blamed for the estrangement existing in a situation which they handle in exactly the same way, or even worse than we do. I merely ask now: What is the morality in such an argument? Mr. Chairman, let me just look for another little subject while the clock ticks on.

You may move that I report progress and ask leave to sit again.

No, perhaps I may find something for another half a second. Then I shall continue on Thursday, if I live that long.

As far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, it is the position that many Coloured families have been resettled. I cannot argue about the figures furnished here today. But it is the case—I do not know what the percentage is—that virtually all the people or the vast majority of these people were removed from miserable conditions and placed in better conditions. The United Party now wants to place the Group Areas Act on ice. I do not want to play politics in the Coloured Affairs debate of 1972, because to us this is an important matter. But they now want to place the Group Areas Act on ice. Very well, let them do so.

That is not true.

That hon. member —does he not attend his party’s congresses?

Of course I do.

But his own Leader said this; I have his statements here with me, but I shall give them to him on Thursday.

Please do.

The Group Areas Act must be placed on ice now; it must be withheld for a while and the only removals there would be, would be in terms of the Slums Act. Those were the words of the hon. member’s Leader. What would actually be the objection if these people were removed in terms of the Slums Act? I have said this before, and I want to repeat it before sitting down: To me, the Group Areas Act—and I have given a great deal of thought to the matter—remains the best instrument by means of which to bring about the separation we desire between races, if it is applied in a just and sympathetic way.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Chairman, I want to convey my appreciation to my Coloured Affairs group and its speakers, who participated in the discussion. Their approach to the debate was positive and reasoned, and they placed in its correct perspective our work for and our relations with the Coloureds. They indicated the progress made, expressed appreciation and made constructive suggestions. I thank them for this. But, Sir, anyone following the discussion of this Vote and listening to the Opposition would have received a very distorted image of Coloured Affairs and our relations with that population group. My principle impression of the contribution by the Opposition was of the negative, the destructive, the disparaging and the suspicion-mongering approach which they displayed, and which characterized their criticism. I want to ask the Opposition: Why are they so venomous about this entire matter? In conrast to this, I want to quote what a Coloured said yesterday during a Republic Day celebration. I quote from a report—

In view of what a Coloured said yesterday, I want to say to certain members of the Opposition that they should go back and reconsider their contributions to this debate. My advice to quite a number of them is this: Do not try to speak on behalf of the Coloureds; they speak on their own behalf. In any case, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told them the day before yesterday that one speech from a Coloured was worth as much as 90 per cent of what they would have to say.

What you have to say.

Because the Opposition, taken as a whole, was so negative and disparaging, I would simply like to restate the other side of the matter in my reply, for there is definitely another side to it. It depends on what pair of spectacles one is wearing when one examines the matter. A flower yields food for one sort of bee to make honey from, and that same flower yields food for another kind of bee to make venom from.

In the discussion of this 1972 Coloured Affairs Vote, we look back upon a year of sustained progress. More schools and classrooms were provided. There are more children attending school. There are more teachers at teachers’ training colleges and at universities. There are more Coloureds in employment, and in better employment. There are more Coloureds who have joined the higher income groups, and who have experienced an increase in their standards of living. There are more houses, and better houses as well. I say today to this Committee, to the Coloureds, and to the country: “It cannot be denied that there has been progress. Of course, a great deal still remains to be done. I think of the words of Rhodes who said: “So much to do, so little done”, to indicate to us the tremendous magnitude of this task.

In respect of the universities it is our aim to appoint more Coloureds to the lecturing staff. This is an aim which the council of the university is also trying to promote actively, and which is constantly, in the right way, with understanding and perseverance, being advocated to me by the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. This is a task which lies ahead for this year. Next year, I shall inform the Committee whether we have made progress and to what extent we have made progress in this respect. There is the question of a greater say for the Coloureds in the administration of the universities. Then there is the question of education. Of course we will endeavour to effect improvements, and there is room for improvement. We must erect more schools; we must provide more classrooms. In addition, sporting facilities, as well as other facilities, must be made available for the children. We are hoping to find better equipped and more adequate teachers. There is the question of inspectors, which we discussed here. There is the question of Coloured inspectors, who have to be appointed. Sir, you can ask the Executive of the Coloured Persons Council; you can ask any of my officials how I have consistently and continually during the past year made it my task, il vacancies occur, to get Coloureds appointed to those posts, and we have in fact appointed quite a number of them. Sir, there is the question of compulsory education in regard to which I am at this moment working on a system to submit to the Government, a system according to which we can introduce compulsory education. There is a great deal of work waiting for us. There is question of housing. Does the Committee realize that between 1960 and 1970 the Coloured population had one of the highest growth rates in the entire world? Does the Committee realize that the Coloured population as well, like the population of the rest of the world, is becoming urbanized? Does the Committee realize that in these ten years we have had an increase of 5,5 per cent in the Coloured population in Natal? There is no nation in the world whose rate of increase was even nearly comparable to that. This increase is attributable to the natural growth and the influx of Coloureds owing to our economic activities. Sir, we are being blamed, under these circumstances, for not already having done everything we should like to do. But I am confident that we will be able, during the next few years, to make a breakthrough in regard to Coloured housing as well. There is the development and expansion of Coloured local authorities, about which nothing was said in this debate. There is the question of the provision of amenities in those Coloured townships where a tremendous task is awaiting us, and in regard to which I will provide hon. members who discussed this with a personal reply in the form of a letter. There is the question of the training of Coloured artisans and the expansion of their technical training, which is very much in their interests and on which we are working, but in regard to which there is a great deal we still have to do. Let me just mention in passing that the hon. the Minister of Labour is holding further negotiations with the labour organizations in order to try to have more Coloureds enrolled as motor mechanic apprentices under the existing system. Whether we shall succeed in this, I cannot say.

Mr. Chairman, there is much to be done, but this does not detract from the fact that a tremendous amount has already been done. The country and the Coloureds may not be given the impression that nothing is being done, and that what is being done is of lesser worth and of minor importance. Sir, this great deal which is being done, this progress which has already been made, is the result of the dedicated labour of numerous men and women, Coloureds and Whites. They are the silent workers, the people who do the routine work, the people who do the most important work, but work which is not as spectacular as that which others do and which for dubious political reasons is always kept in the limelight. I should like to convey my gratitude to all these people; to all the officials, from the highest to the lowest, in whatever capacity they are serving, who fall under my Ministry of Coloured Affairs. I extend a word of appreciation, since they also fall under me in this respect, to the Coloured teachers, both male and female, and to the school principals who are working with dedication for their people. I should also like to extend my gratitude to the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the representatives of the two other Coloured political parties, who come to discuss matters with me so regularly, for their contributions. These persons adopt an attitude which is peculiar to them and which they adopt in the interests of their people. They adopt such a firm, independent standpoint, that the Opposition quoted them here the day before yesterday in the attacks which they launched on me. I am quite satisfied with that, for these people have also made a very important contribution to the progress which has been made in the interests of their people.

Sir, I will probably not be able to resume my seat without having said something about the political aspect of the Coloured situation. In the first place, there is the matter of Coloureds in this Parliament. I think that the National Party has made its standpoint very clear, which is that it will not again create machinery or methods which will allow Coloureds into this Parliament, and with that we have disposed of the matter. The United Party is levelling reproaches at us in this regard, as they did here again the day before yesterday. They are arousing suspicion against us among the Coloureds. They say that they will introduce six Coloureds here and two Coloureds in the Other Place. The day before yesterday they again adopted a firm standpoint in this regard. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his members today that I cannot understand them, for in one breath they say that they will bring the Coloureds in here, and in the next breath they say that they will take the Coloureds out again. Where do we stand with them? There were prominent headlines in the newspapers yesterday morning and this morning: “U.P. re-think on Non-Whites in Assembly.” They say that under certain circumstances—and we shall be blamed for this—they will take the Coloureds out of here again. What moral basis does the Opposition and its Press have for reproaching us on this side of the House, for inciting the Coloureds against us and indulging in suspicion-mongering … [Interjection.] Sir, I withdraw that word. What moral basis is there for arousing the hostility of the Coloureds against us in regard to a matter which they say they are themselves considering? But this is a matter which can be thrashed out in a subsequent debate.

Sir, I want to say something about the elected/nominated basis of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I have been informed that the Select Committee that was at the time under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, was unanimous in respect of 40 elected and 20 nominated members, that Committee was unanimous in regard to the Act which was introduced here, and which provided that a delimitation should be made of the Republic, a delimitation which would be revised after ten years. In other words, the Opposition by implication gave its wholehearted support to a Coloured Persons Representative Council which would be established on the basis of 40 elected and 20 nominated members.

They advocated this.

They advocated this on that Select Committee. If the Opposition had said that it should not be for ten years …

That is another matter.

I am advancing an argument now, and there is no valid reply to this argument. If the Opposition had thought at the time that this situation should apply only for five years, why did they not insist that the delimitation clause should provide that the position would be revised after five years? They were satisfied with the basis on which it was constituted. They said that a delimitation law should be introduced which would divide the country into 40 constituencies, and that the situation should be revised after ten years. Sir, the Coloured Persons Representative Council will in future become a fully elected Council; this lies on its political course of development, and I have already said this frequently. There was a resolution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council last year in which they requested a fully elected Coloured Persons Council. This year, at the beginning of the year, at the first liaison meeting under the chairmanship of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself relayed that resolution of the Council to the hon. the Prime Minister. We did not take a final decision that day, but according to the spirit of the discussions I have taken this matter further. Inter alia, I went into whether it would be possible to do so, if this matter were decided on in principle, and my inquiries, and everything which must take place before 1975, in regard to the election of this House at the appointed time, led me to find that although not insurmountable there would be major problems attached to undertaking a completely new registration of Coloured voters and a delimitation of the country into 60 constituencies. Next week, I think, I shall discuss matters again with the liaison committee with the Coloureds who form the liaison committee together with me, and I shall then report to them in this way.

I envisage that I will subsequently recommend to the hon. the Prime Minister that the 1974 election of the Coloured Persons Representative Council should take place on the basis as it exists today; and I think the House and the country may as well accept it in this way. I also envisage personally that the election which will be held after that, will take place on a fully elected basis. This is how the Coloured Persons Representative Council feels about this matter, and I am quite prepared to say that that is also how I feel about it. This is a matter in regard to which I shall hold further consultations with the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Executive and the Government, and I hope that the circumstances will be such that this will in fact be able to happen.

Mention was made here, particularly by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, of the powers of the Council. The United Party talks about this, but we have never heard what powers they want to transfer to this Council.

The right of taxation, for example.

I have said in the past, and I say it again today, that time and experience will teach us, but a further transfer of powers will be in regard to those matters which are peculiar to the Coloured population, matters which affect them in particular. Then I want to say this, and I am saying it in great earnest, and I am really saying it as a friend of the Coloureds: The Coloured Persons Representative Council has enough work. We need not look for more work for it today, not at this stage. There is the matter of their education.

Can you imagine, Sir, what a tremendous task the education of any nation in the world is for it, to staff an education system from the bottom through all its stages to the top with teachers, school principals, inspectors of schools, chief inspectors and a director-general of education. Can you imagine what a great task is awaiting the Coloured population in regard to its university? There are local authorities, with which we have only just commenced, in an attempt to build up the Coloured town councils and city councils, with their own staff which work up to the Coloured Persons Representative Council, with its structure which will be staffed completely by Coloureds. There are the rural areas, which were discussed here the day before yesterday, which have to be developed, and where there is a great deal of work. There is a Coloured public service for them, which has to be staffed from top to bottom, right up to the commissioner, by Coloureds. Surely there is more than enough work for the Coloureds, and on the day they have achieved all this, other doors will open for the Coloureds in respect of all these matters.

I am not necessarily saying that we must wait until that day arrives, I am simply making the point that at the moment there is more than enough work. As far as the Budget is concerned, which I discussed here, I just want to say that we, this House, do not draw up this Budget. All that this House does is to vote a sum of money for the Coloured Persons Representative Council, but they draw up their own Budget in regard to all the matters which have been transferred to them. Let us make no mistake about this.

They cannot change it.

They cannot change the lump sum. If we vote R80 million or R90 million on our Budget for them, they cannot change that, but within that lump sum they can draw up their Budget in any way they please. They get allocated to whatever services they wish, as far as I am concerned. The hon. member ought to know that.

*I come then to the matter of liaison.

Can they pay the same salary for the same work, for teachers, for example?

I come now to the question of liaison. The Committee knows how that liaison has been established. I discussed it last year. I should just like to bring one point to the fore here today, namely that the liaison machinery has been established as the Coloureds requested us to establish it. We did not tell them what they should do; this is something they requested us to do. This liaison works well. We have already expanded it to a certain extent this year. This year we dealt, one by one, with all the resolutions adopted last year by the Coloured Persons Representative Council on that liaison committee. All the Ministers involved, the Ministers, of Sport, Posts, Labour, Community Development, Justice, Health and Forestry and others—there was scarcely a Minister who was not included—attended that liaison meeting when those resolutions were conveyed by the spokesmen concerned to the Government and debated, to hear what the requirements were and what the justification of the Coloureds for their resolutions was. I have stated in the past—and so has the hon. the Prime Minister—that the liaison machinery is not in its final state; it will be developed and altered, but it will develop as experience teaches us. I have used these words before, and I shall keep on using them: It will proceed from one well-tried stage to the next. We shall take no leap in the dark nor try out any experiments merely for the sake of experiment. We shall move from one well-tried situation to a subsequent one.

I am pleased to say that not only the Federal Peoples Party, but also the Republican Coloured Persons Party and the National Coloured Peoples Party participate regularly in these liaison meetings. Twice, now, the Labour Party has been invited to attend. They declined. I have already, on two occasions, told the Labour Party from public platforms that they should come and discuss matters with me. They are welcome to come and discuss matters with me. However, they do not want to talk to me; they prefer to talk to the enemies of South Africa.

The United Party.

I do not include the United Party in that. I have certain other organizations in mind, but they speak to the United Party as well; this is a fact which cannot be denied. However, they do not want to come and talk to the Government.

I have been asked here what I think of the boycott movement the Labour Party is contemplating. I do not want to discuss it, but I just want to say that it is a completely evil thing. I reject any ideas in this direction. I do want to say however, that if the Labour Party talks of estrangement, they have to blame themselves. They must not look for the blame in me; they can put it in their own pipes and smoke it.

The day before yesterday we confronted each other on this issue. This side of the House stated where it stood in 1972 in respect of the political rights of the Coloureds. The United Party stated where they stood. Since the hon. member for Maitland has said that, if one educates people and makes them economically stronger, one must expect them to urge you to grant them a greater say in the administration of matters, I just want to say …

Do you agree?

I agree, but the hon. member for Maitland must remember that this applies to them just as much as it applies to us. We are adhering to a certain basic policy in 1972, and they are also adhering to a certain basic policy in 1972. They must not try to make the country believe that their dispensation—that which they are presenting to the country—is a final dispensation. It is a starting point, just as we hope to enter the future, which is our responsibility, on this basis.

I want to start finishing off. Mention was made in this debate of relations and deteriorating relations. I just want to say that this may be the case in certain circles, but I wonder whether those relations would have deteriorated to such an extent if it had not been for the prompters from among the Whites, and the White Press. [Interjections.] I do not know why the Opposition is kicking up such a row, whether it is because they feel guilty, but I want to say today, and I should like to say this to the public in general, Whites and Coloureds, that good relations among Whites and Coloureds are not only desirable but absolutely essential. It is in the interests of South Africa, and in the interests of all of us, Whites and Coloureds. To seek to achieve this is my declared objective. In spite of what the hon. member for Wynberg said, and I reject her statement, I should like to say that there is a great deal of goodwill in South Africa. There is goodwill among our Whites, and goodwill among our Coloureds. I want to convey my gratitude and appreciation for this, and say that there are many people and many organizations who are working to achieve goodwill, working to create confidence and friendship; people. Coloureds and Whites, who are building bridges. To all of them I want to say thank you. There is. for example, an organization such as the Sendingtrust. Where can one hope to find a finer bridge-builder between us and the Coloureds than in fact the Sendingtrust? There are our various churches. It is my duty as Minister to build the bridges. It is also the duty of my officials, the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Mr. Loriston and his Rugby Federation. Duggie Dyer and his Protea team, Coloured principals and teachers and management committee members throughout South Africa. It is also the duty of the industrialist towards employees, the farmer on his farm, the policeman, the post office worker, the ticket-examiner on the train and the ordinary men and women of this country. We are all bridge-builders in this important sphere of White/Coloured relations. I pay tribute to everyone who makes a positive contribution to these relations. Distrust is continually being sown. We read about it every day, we know about it, and we are experiencing it. But I want to say today that it is on the conscience of those people and newspapers that do this. In my position I, like any other person, can only try from time to time to keep my slate clean. More than that I cannot do. Of course matters will not always be perfect on my part, for there is a great deal more I have to do, but I am doing what I can and I hope to achieve what I am striving after. I said last year that we and the Coloureds should walk the road together, and I am saying it again today. Let us and the Coloureds trust one another. Let us have appreciation for what we are doing for one another, Everything in life has its appointed time, and all any of us can do is to do the best we can in our task. If a person is hungry and I give him food is that an immoral deed? If a person wants to learn to read and write and acquire knowledge and this is given to him, is that an immoral deed? If a person asks to be trained in the techniques of administration of bodies and organizations and I help him and give him such training, is it an immoral deed? Is it immoral if I strive, even if I will not be fully successful in doing this, to give another person what I demand for myself? That is why I say that I am completely satisfied with the Government’s policy and deeds.

During the past few days we have been discussing the Whites who have to do their share; our discussion centred mainly around that, but the Coloureds must do their share as well. The other day I addressed a group of Coloureds in the Eastern Province. In my way I tried to speak persuasively to them of the things I thought I should discuss with them. At the end one of them thanked me, and said: Sir, it was right that you. Sir, should have spoken to us like that; for you must remember, Sir, that you are now our leading Coloured. I should like to tell the Coloureds that I speak to them in that spirit and with that attitude. There is among a sector of our Coloured population still too much alcoholism; there is still too much work-shyness among a sector of the Coloured population. Too many illegitimate children are being born; too many illegitimate children and children who cannot be cared for are still being brought into the world. A child does not ask to be brought into the world. But once a child is there, it has the right to ask: Give me a house, give me food and clothing and training. The Coloured population can listen to what I am saying to them today, because I mean well with them. I say to them that nothing will increase their standard of living so much, and allow them to make so much progress as more responsible parenthood. They must convey this to their people. The Coloureds, in the same way as the Whites, must have only as many children as they can care for properly.

I want to conclude by saying that I have to do the work which my hand finds to do. I must perform the task which lies before me here; this work which the hon. the Prime Minister saw fit to entrust to me. I stand on land which cries out to be cultivated. I do not ask, and I may not ask to be given land to cultivate far beyond the horizon, land the situation of which I am not even aware of. I must set my hand to the plough in faith, for what are we able to accomplish in this life without faith? I must do the work which is before me, and which cries out to be done. I say that if all of us in South Africa does this, the Whites and the Coloureds, we can go to meet the future with great confidence.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 45.—“Interior”, R5 510 000, 46.—“Public Service Commission”, R6 153 000, and 47.—“Government Printing Works”, R8 867 000. and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 26.—“Interior”, R178 000, and 27.—“Public Service Commission”, R75 000:

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I want to take this opportunity to tell the House today that we have a new Secretary in the Department of the Interior in the person of Mr. Fourie. a person who, as some of the hon. members know, was the Deputy Secretary for that department for many years. He starts today. Personally I am very grateful that I have gained such a Secretary in this department as I know what the particular responsibilities are which matters relating to the Interior impose on a Secretary for the Department of the Interior. It is probably one of the most difficult departments in the whole Government. In saying this I do not want to suggest that we do not have many other persons who would have been able to do the same work, but I believe that Mr. Fourie has the background and the experience, the long-continued knowledge of various departments, enabling him to be an excellent Secretary for the Interior. When I addressed a few words to Mr. Du Preez last year, because it was his last session with us, I said that a Secretary was probably the most important factor or link of a department. There is no doubt that a Minister cannot do his work with any measure of efficiency if he does not obtain guidance from his Secretary, who knows the inner workings of that department. That is why I am fortunate in getting a person such as Mr. Fourie. On behalf of not only myself and this side of the House, but also the entire Committee, I want to wish him a pleasant number of years as Secretary for the Interior, and I want to express the hope that under his leadership the department will develop and be strengthened further. It is interesting to know that Mr. Fourie is one of the few people who is in his office by 7 o’clock every morning. This is something quite unusual. Since I myself am a person who only comes in round about 11 o’clock every morning and then has tea by quarter past eleven already, I asked him on a certain occasion how he managed this and why he started at 7 o’clock in the morning. Then he replied that he was a person who did not have breakfast at home before coming to work; that enabled him to start working at that time of the morning, feeling fresh and sober-minded. I just want to add that I have always considered Mr. Fourie to be, and this is also the way I have found him to be, a very loyal official of the department. I believe that we as members of the House of Assembly are very much indebted to the fact that we have persons of this calibre who can serve us.

At the same time I also want to take this opportunity to extend a word of thanks to the other officials of the department. In Natal I always felt that when we come to a Budget debate—and there an Administrator himself must, of course, try to handle the financial side of matters as well—it was a task and a privilege to tell the officials as well as the members of the Executive Committee how much it meant just to have them with one. Therefore I want to tell the officials of my department that I am grateful for being able to have such men helping me.

It is somewhat unusual for me as a relative newcomer to introduce the debate today without first having told or asked my colleague on the other side about the matter. Since we met here, he has at least indicated that he does not mind my doing so. I appreciate the fact that he has afforded me this opportunity. I suppose it is also unusual that I want to start by extending a word of thanks to the United Party; that is probably quite unusual. In the year since I last had to take part in this debate, experience has shown me that the United Party, and I am saying this with great respect, has begun to gain a better understanding of the responsibilities and the activities and of the major task of the Department of the Interior. I think this is particularly important, and I could notice this from many things that happened in the course of this year. At a certain stage I took the trouble to take a few Hansard booklets home, because I myself was not a representative in the House of Assembly prior to my being appointed here as a Minister, and actually did not know the background to the debates conducted on the activities of the various departments. While paging through the Hansards, I came to the conclusion that the standard of the debates on the Interior Vote had improved a great deal over the years. If I may say this, I think that over the past year we have probably had the best year as regards debates, interest and knowledge on the part of members of the House of Assembly concerning the activities of the Department of the Interior. If I had to write a report as is done on our children, I would have been quite willing to tell the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion that this year I would alter slightly the usual comment of “not too good” to “not too bad”. I think this is an indication of what has in any case happened in my opinion. This paging through the Hansards enabled me to realize to a certain extent what topics were discussed in the course of the debates on the Interior Vote over the years. Something which struck me, was the fact that everything virtually hinged on a few matters, which were repeated every year. In other words, one gained the impression that the Department of the Interior was actually regarded as a department concerned exclusively with the provision of travelling facilities—in other words, with the issue of visas, passports, residential permits, etc., occasionally with an election, and perhaps with publications. Hon. members may perhaps have heard that we are also dealing with publications and such things at the moment. However, the general impression I gained was that we did not cover a very wide front in our debates. I think that we shall probably be in a position to cover a much wider front this year if I on my part, as Minister of the department, were to mention to hon. members a few things we would be well advised to discuss. By these means it will be possible to make a contribution towards bringing about a positive approach to the department.

If I have to say something as regards the topics for that discussion, I must say that I am beginning to realize that nowadays all of us consider the Department of the Interior to be a department dealing primarily with human rights. It is not a “project department” in the sense that one is working on a matter which has to be finished and on which one will still be working for six or nine months or a year. It is a department in which one has to do with a tremendously large number ad hoc matters. There are matters which only come before one for a moment, and one has to judge them, sometimes within a very short space of time. Then one has to proceed to a next matter, and then that is past again. Of course, this makes the department, seen from the point of view of the member of the House of Assembly, a difficult one. But I am also aware of the fact that we are working primarily with human rights, matters about which the average voters are very sensitive and which have the effect that many of the voters are not always happy about what they are getting. Then we had an analysis made. This will interest hon. members as it gives an indication of the amount of work which the department has to do and which is perhaps not fully appreciated by members of the public, who merely bring to our notice minor matters concerning themselves and want them to be solved. It is interesting to see that in the course of the year more than 2 million different matters had to be settled by the Department of the Interior. This is a large number. It stands to reason that not many of them are submitted to the Ministry. I think the majority of them are of course, as you will be able to understand, dealt with on other levels. But out of that total of more than two million matters we made 0,003 per cent mistakes. In other words, the department actually has a very small number of mistakes for which it can be blamed. I believe that there is, moreover, another important point which I must mention. If I have the opportunity of leading this department further, I think we should try to take more positive action in regard to mistakes that are in fact made in this process. There is no doubt that a percentage of 0,003 out of more than two million matters is a very small one. However, it is unfortunately true that people often concentrate on those mistakes. A mistake is referred to the Press, for instance, and the publicity given to that mistake creates the impression that the entire department must be rotten; in such a case no cognizance is taken of all the other hundreds of thousands of cases disposed of in silence.

I want to add that in my opinion the questions asked this year were of a higher standard. Now, I do not want to speak like a priest passing a judgment with a superior air on what this House has done; this is something I definitely cannot do. However, I have read through all the questions, and it is clear to me that the standard of the questions put by the Opposition over the past year was on a much higher level than was the case the previous year. To my mind this in itself has contributed to a better and sounder approach to the problems we have to contend with. Now I want to mention a few of these questions to you and analyse them. That will afford us the opportunity of determining how matters are often approached, how the questioner views the matter and how the department has to handle such matters on its part. For instance, the hon. leader of the Interior Group who is sitting over there, the hon. member for Green Point, who will no doubt take part in this debate later on, put to me a perfectly normal question, which is asked every year. I am referring to a question he put on 21st April. In that question he requested ordinary, factual information which, to my mind, is important to all members of the House of Assembly for indicating the guide-lines of the manner in which these matters are dealt with. He simply asked—

This is a perfectly ordinary question, but it has had the effect that we could infer from it, as a result of the investigations subsequently instituted, that a considerable increase had taken place in the number of passports and the number of visas applied for by the public. The number is rather interesting. In 1971 154 990 applications for passports were received as against 141 003 in the previous year. This represents an increase of 10 per cent per year, and is certainly an indication of the fact that many more people are going abroad than was the case in the past. This is, I think, the highest percentage we have ever had. Out of that number of applications 154 907 passports were granted in 1971, as against 140 843 in the previous year. Once again this represents an increase of approximately 10 per cent per year. On the other hand, the number of passports refused, dropped from 160 in 1970 to 83 in 1971. In other words, this is a drop of 50 per cent, which is also a reflection to us of what is happening.

As far as the withdrawal of passports is concerned, the answer to the hon. member’s question cannot be furnished, for the simple reason that the statistics do not give any indication of the number of passports withdrawn. These are not statistics which we have kept over the years; they can actually give no reflection of what this means.

As far as exit permits are concerned, 20 were granted in 1970, and in spite of everything said in the newspapers and in public, this number dropped to 12 in 1971. In other words, this is once again a drop of almost 50 per cent, and is definitely an indication of the fact that fewer people are going abroad to live there permanently than was the case a few years ago. There was a time in the past—hon. members will remember it—when large numbers, especially of our Coloureds, left the country and settled in other countries such as Canada, and subsequently applied to us for returning to South Africa again.

The next question asked by the hon. member for Green Point was to my mind not as relevant and important. I am mentioning it now because I want to point out a major difference. The hon. member put a question on the question of Home, the Wits student sent back to England. He wanted to know why it had been done and what the circumstances of the matter were.

I did not differ on the decision.

That may be so, but the hon. member did something very important by putting the question in public. The hon. member could have asked me a question of that nature in my office, and I would probably have furnished the hon. member with much more information in that regard than I did across the floor of this House. That would have enabled the hon. member to gain a much better understanding of why the Government or the department had taken action in this case. In that regard I draw a very clear distinction, for, on the one hand, one has the type of information which is necessary, to which a member of the Opposition is entitled, and which he must have, to give him an indication of what is happening. As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I am afraid that I must end there.

Now I come to the hon. member for Houghton. Unfortunately she is not here at the moment, but I am still trying to analyse what happened to the questions asked this year. The Department of the Interior received far fewer questions from members opposite than it did in previous years. It is a pity that the hon. member is not here, but I am nevertheless going to deal with the question of …

But you do not want to reply to all the questions. Why is it, then, that the hon. the Minister does not want to reply to questions on the reasons as to why certain books and films are banned?

The hon. member will probably want to put that question to the Deputy Minister, who is responsible for this matter and to whom this task has been delegated.

No, you are the Minister.

He will be able to give you a very good reply. In any case, the hon. member does of course have every right to ask any question he pleases in this House, as long as it is, to my mind, relevant, and as long as it can lead to the improvement of the methods applied in the department. However, this does not apply to questions such as the one in regard to Home, which simply brought about world publicity, and which actually did not do this House any good, since that information could have been furnished in private —better information than I could give the hon. member in this House. I think the hon. member also realized this.

The hon. member for Houghton did her best to bring the question of South-West Africa to the attention of this House by putting certain questions. She put quite a number of questions. For instance, she raised the question of the withdrawal of passports in South-West Africa. She wanted, to know how many applications for passports had been granted, how many had been refused and how many were still under consideration. There is probably nothing wrong with the fact that she asked those questions. At that stage South Africa was very good news, and, of course, this was immediately taken up abroad as an item of news giving an indication of how South Africa was treating the South-West Africans. Fortunately it was possible for me to give her a reply which actually knocked the bottom out of her whole argument or her whole line of thought. I want to repeat my reply here because I think it is important to know that out of the 154 000 applications made and disposed of in South Africa and South-West Africa, only 83 were not granted. The mere fact that only 83 out of a total of 154 000 were not granted, is probably not reflective of precisely what the attitude of the Department of the Interior is towards the entry of persons from outside.

†The second question, which was also asked by the hon. member for Houghton, was how many applicants had applied to leave the area with exit permits. I was able to reply that three Whites had applied for exit permits, one Coloured person, four Asians and four Bantu. These figures also reflect the whole policy which has been followed during the past year as far as exit permits are concerned, and then indicate to what extent people in both South-West Africa and South Africa have made use of exit permits. This was the total number of exit permits applied for and granted. Of course, these figures were not of sufficient interest to the hon. member for Houghton to publish them even in the Brakpan Gazette. She had no luck in this regard. Unfortunately, Sir, this sort of thing, as you know, is always sent overseas, for the simple reason that South-West Africa is always news. The hon. member tried her luck with a second question as far as South-West Africa is concerned. In this particular case she wanted to know from me whether any persons in the Republic and South-West Africa respectively had been deprived of South African citizenship during 1971; how many in each race group, and for what reason. I was able to reply to her that naturally there were a number of people who had been deprived of their citizenship, but here again the number was so small that she could not make use of this answer—I will not say in any agitation—in any speeches made by her on the situation in South-West Africa. There were only 34 people in South Africa and South-West Africa who were deprived of their citizenship, and they were all Whites. Not a single non-White person was deprived of his citizenship. The hon. member also wanted to know what the department’s reasons were for depriving these people of their citizenship. These facts are rather interesting. Out of the 34 Whites no fewer than 27 made use of the passports of other countries, of which they were also citizens, despite warnings that they may, because of that, be deprived of their South African citizenship. In other words, they did it voluntarily. Six obtained the citizenship of other countries, voluntarily by formal act, while they were residing in the Republic. In other words, what remains is that there was one person, who, because he was convicted of being in possession of habit-forming drugs and was sentenced to R800 or eight months’ imprisonment, was deprived of his citizenship. This is an extremely encouraging figure, as I see the picture, and again, if I may repeat myself, indicates what really was the attitude of this department in regard to handling the rights of South Africans and of South-West Africans.

*Now, I do not wish to use all my time for discussing this particular matter. I merely thought that by way of background I could give an indication as to the attitude adopted by the department and the Government towards this problem. But what is perhaps more important and more interesting—I see hon. members are leaving the Chamber, and I do not take this amiss of them either, for the matters we are dealing with are rather dull ones—is that I should tell you something about the registration of voters and the Electoral Act, for these are more topical things with which we shall be dealing within the next few months. I am sure the hon. member for Durban Point, who fought his first election against me in 1953, will remember that he still owes me a few half-crowns because he made a bet with me before that election. I am sure it will interest the hon. member to know what we are engaged in doing.

You will remember, Sir, that we decided last year that we were going to have a general registration this year, which will be a de novo registration. The reason for our making it a de novo registration—this means that one starts one’s voters’ list right from the beginning, virtually eliminates everything one has and starts from scratch in order to get the names of a totally new group of people on the list—is that the existing list is a very old one. It is almost nine years old, and both sides of this House have felt for a long time that a change ought to be effected. Now I should like to mention a few dates to the hon. members, and I am very sure that the hon. member for Durban North will be interested to have these dates. Now, this is not a political matter, but something to which, I feel, the United Party has as much of a right as we have. As you know, this registration will, of course, start on 24th June, i.e. within a matter of a few weeks, and end on 5th September, in terms of what has been laid down in legislation, and copies of the voters’ list will be handed to the two parties before 22nd December. The period that will have elapsed by that time, makes it compulsory for those lists to have been given to both parties by 22nd December. It is also important for the parties to know that 22nd January, 1973, is the date on which those lists will come into operation. If you know the Electoral Act, you will know that the first supplementary registration will probably have to be held on 1st March, 1973. Supplementary lists, on the other hand, come into operation on 1st May. There would be no point in having these facts as a party, but it is in any case an indication of the framework or programme that is going to be followed over the next few months. We have already read reports in the newspapers on the anticipated number of voters who will be on the lists, or who will be traced and placed on the new lists. On 1st January, 1972, there were 2 220 000 voters in South Africa. If we can get the necessary registration officers so that we may effect the general registration which we now have in mind within the anticipated statutory period, it will mean that the department will have to appoint 4 500 official registration officers. These people will, of course, be issued with the usual application forms, which will then be taken to the voters. People are appointed mainly with the idea that they should know the area in which they have to make a survey. They will also collect the forms again. As you know, the responsibility for such forms being collected in time by the registration officers, does not only rest with the latter; it may also rest with the voters. I want to tell the hon. members of this House, so that they may be aware of this, that, especially in the urban areas in South Africa, it is difficult to get registration officers. This is no easy task. Especially in Johannesburg, in the Witwatersrand complex, in Cape Town and in Durban it is extremely difficult to get registration officers who may be used for this purpose and who are sufficiently familiar with the area in which they will be working. I must make an appeal to the two parties—I think it is correct that this should be done by me as the Minister responsible for the procedure in regard to the first process that goes hand in hand with general registration—to ask the workers to report to the nearest electoral officers, the magistrates and others who will and may record their names.

What is the minimum age qualification for such a registration officer? Is it 18 or 21?

Unfortunately I do not know that, but I can find it out for you. I shall find it out from my officials. I assume that it is 18.

Furthermore, I should like to make an appeal to registration officers and to you on both sides as leaders in the constituencies—it is quite correct that it will be done this way—that the most detailed particulars be furnished on these forms as soon as possible. We have a major problem in this regard. You will be astonished—no. you will not be astonished—but you will know that it is very difficult to correct certain particulars once the forms have been collected and it appears that not all the particulars were filled in correctly either by the registration officer or by the person who entered them himself. This often means that a registration officer has to go back to a person registered by him. This also means that such an officer has to go back and forth three or four times. Of course, this involves a tremendous waste of time.

In regard to the question that was asked, the department has just informed me that the minimum age is 18 years. In other words, 18-year-olds may be used as registration officers. Furthermore, hon. members, who are leaders of their constituencies, are requested by the department to see to it that these forms are returned to the magistrates or electoral officers or the registration officers failing to perform their duties and to see to it that these forms are collected. Voters are requested to see to it that those forms will have been handed in by 18th August. It may sound as though this is still a very long way off, but it is not as far off as that. This can be done at the nearest post office, police station, magistrate’s office or electoral office. Any mistake that may be made on the part of the registration officer, still does not relieve the voter of the responsibility of ensuring personally that those particulars will reach the registration officer or the office. Then there is another appeal I want to make to hon. members. I feel that I want to do it here because I also want to do so in public later on. I want to tell hon. members now that I think all the parties should scrutinize the lists before 22nd December. This is a job which should rest on the parties, for the department cannot do this by itself; this is impossible, because mistakes are made. If this can be done before 22nd December, the further programme in regard to the registration as a whole may be carried out in time.

We are only getting the lists on 22nd December.

I mean that it should be done as from 22nd December. The mistakes must be brought to our attention before 28th February, please. This is being done with a view to the supplementary voters’ list on which the names may be placed. The customary thing is, of course, for the supplementary voters’ list to close after a question of four months, when the supplementary election takes place. Generally speaking it is expected that as far as voters’ lists and general registration are concerned, much better results will be produced under the new system which we have now introduced in the Department of the Interior. We have not only better forms— the forms have been simplified, especially for the older people—but also, of course, the easier use of computerizing, which we did not have at our disposal in the past. In addition, considerable advantages are implied in the Government’s decision to make this a de novo registration and not merely to add names to the existing lists, which have been in use for a number of years. The redelimitation of constituencies on the basis of fresh statistics must necessarily have a major influence on the improvement of those lists. In terms of the Act the next election is to take place in 1975, but technically there is no reason why a Government may not call an election at an earlier date. It can be advanced, and if I remember correctly, it will be possible to hold it towards the middle of 1973 already, should it appear necessary for this to be done. I do not wish to enter in detail into the possible displacement of seats or the displacement of the gravity in South Africa. This is actually a matter for the parties, but since reports have been published in the newspapers in that regard, it is a generally known fact to most people that we do expect a displacement, a displacement of the number of seats, and we expect a sizeable increase in the urban areas, especially in the Witwatersrand, Durban and, to a lesser extent, in Cape Town. These are merely tentative estimates that have been made by our electoral officers. I would be able to furnish the figures that were available in 1965 and are still available if this would be of any value to the hon. members.

Now I want to come to the question of the possible amendment of the Electoral Act. I feel that it is incumbent upon me as the Minister charged with the implementation of the Electoral Act to tell hon. members that quite a number of proposals were received from time to time over the past year. These are concerned with changes that may be effected to the Electoral Act. I think the most important of these is probably the question of simultaneous parliamentary and provincial elections. I need not explain in detail to hon. members, who are familiar with the political system, why there is such a strong feeling in favour of simultaneous elections. As hon. members know, the point at issue is the question of the two smaller provinces, each of which must have a minimum of 25 provincial councillors, but which have a smaller number of seats than that minimum number of members. The way in which this is to be rectified, is a matter on which there is a great deal of conjecture and on which many different views are held. There may be two main views, but it is not necessary for me to mention them now. When the parties have the opportunity to submit proposals, there will in fact be time for that. Consideration is being given not only to submitting this possibility of simultaneous elections by way of legislation to this House for consideration next year, but also a number of other matters of a political nature brought to the notice of the chief electoral officer of the Department of the Interior from time to time. I think it is known to the House that it is being felt that there are quite a number of topics—I myself know of seven—which a Select Committee would be able to investigate. There are minor matters as well; not all of them are major ones. For instance, there is the question of whether or not the system of postal votes should be abolished, as hon. members will know. This is one of the possibilities that could be investigated. Those persons who were members of the commission that investigated these matters in 1969 and who also gave evidence, will know what the feeling in regard to this matter is on both sides and what its implications will be. I do not wish to pursue this matter. Then there is also the question as to whether the names of the candidates’ parties should appear on the ballot papers; in other words, whether the voter should be given an indication as to the party for which he is actually voting. This is an open matter on which there may be difference of opinion and on which there would probably be difference of opinion if it were to be investigated. It was also felt—this is a matter which has often been mentioned—that delimitation had to take place every five years. At the moment this is not the case. This is a matter which caused some delay and problems to the department in the past. In addition, there is, for instance, the question of the preparation of voters’ lists according to what is called the block system instead of doing so in the alphabetic manner, as is the case at present. It is not for me to deal with the pros and cons of the block system here today. I am merely mentioning this to the House. I think all the parties could benefit if hon. members of this House would think about these matters in the meantime and then come forward with positive proposals when a Select Committee may be appointed next year.

Will a Select Committee definitely be appointed?

Provisionally this is the idea. I think it is made compulsory in the Electoral Act that a Select Committee be appointed in cases where changes of this nature are effected in terms of the Electoral Act. Of course, hon. members are very familiar with the reason why we are making it next year. We first want to have this general registration and devise a new set-up. In addition to this a general registration of Coloured persons, which must be completed within a certain period, is also at hand. To prevent overlapping and the two registrations from taking place more or less simultaneously, which would impose a tremendous burden on the Department of the Interior, the general registration of Coloured persons will probably be held in the second half of 1973. I do not know whether this is necessary, but I could also mention the benefits involved in this new system. The computerization coincides with the renewal of the population register. Then there is also the question of the identity cards, in which so many particulars will in due course be incorporated that it is hoped that if matters proceed correctly, there will be no need for any further general registrations to take place in South Africa in future. As from the time when the system will be properly in operation, it will be possible to obtain the necessary particulars from the cards themselves and then, within a very short period, to tell a constituency what persons have been registered in that constituency, where they are living and all the other particulars connected with such matters.

Then it should also be possible in the future to make available immediately, by means of this computerization, index cards for every voter in a constituency if this may be of any importance. What is more, it will then be possible for lists of all voters in blocks in urban constituencies who have been registered in such areas, to be prepared for and made available to the parties at once. At a later stage during this debate I may perhaps mention the dates that are important in the case of the Coloured election. If at a later stage during the course of this debate any questions are asked or thoughts are expressed on the Electoral Act as such and on possible changes, I may deal with them then. For the time being, however, I want to content myself with these words.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I would first of all like to associate this side of the House with what the hon. the Minister has said about Mr. Fourie. We would like to congratulate him on his appointment as Secretary for the Interior. He is inspanned today, the first day of office as we debate this Vote. We have had the opportunity, particularly during the last 5 or 6 months while he has been acting secretary, to see him frequently and I want to say how much we appreciate his objective approach, his thorough investigations and the precise and concise decisions that we do get from him when we approach him with problems.

The hon. the Minister has entered this debate and has revealed to me a new type of political mental exercise. I never before realized that when I put a question on the Order Paper to seek information, I would cause a Minister to have sleepless nights finding out why I asked the question. I hope it is not going to result in those of us on this side of the House spending the recess and our quiet time trying to find out what we think the Minister will think is the reason why we asked for certain information. The Minister was quite correct when he thanked us for our responsible approach; we deserve it and we appreciate his recognizing the fact. When he said that the department is responsible for a ,003 per cent error in its activities he obviously did not take the activities of the Publications Board into consideration in arriving at that figure.

It is included.

If it is included, it no doubt provided that total of ,003 per cent. Then he raised his reasons as to why he thought I asked about passports. There, I want to tell him, he was quite wrong. I did not ask merely to find out how many passports were being asked for, and whether there was an increase; but I wanted to find out how many manhours were being wasted because of the change in the population registration system; that passports are not to be issued automatically. The reply which he gave, is that 154 990 passport applications had to be processed, with all that is involved, in order that he could refuse 83. It seems to me that that is an awful waste of manhours, and that if the passports were, as was originally intended with the Book of Life, issued automatically, they could have been withdrawn in the odd 83 cases where it was necessary that they should be withdrawn.

In the course of this debate we will deal with the other matters which the hon. the Minister has raised. I am surprised, however, at one matter which he raised, in regard to my question about Home. The hon. the Minister will realize that at that time there was a notice of intention that Home’s temporary residence permit was to be withdrawn. Then there appeared in the local morning Afrikaans newspaper a long story that there were certain other activities of this gentleman which were being investigated. In other words, it was not merely this matter of his activities on the campus that we knew of, but there were other matters being investigated. I then asked the Minister for the reason why this man was being deported. He gave me a reason, which we accepted as quite correct, namely that he was undesirable in relation to the publications on the campus. But now the hon. the Minister has told us that there were other matters and that we could have found them out if we had gone to his office. But if we or the Press, go to his office, are those matters then confidential or are they then for publication? This is an extraordinary matter that apparently the Afrikaans morning newspaper knew more about Home and the investigation than we, as members of Parliament, were told by the hon. the Minister when he replied to this question.

I leave the matter at that, because I want to go on immediately to say that the hon. the Minister during the recess and recently outside the House has expressed opinions and attitudes which are of considerable interest. I propose to refer to some of these statements, in the hope that we may be able to deal with them, not in the abstract, but in the realities of this Government’s policies in general and in the realities of the Minister’s sphere of influence within the Cabinet, with reference to the application of the publicly expressed opinions to his department where they can become practical realities. We should remind ourselves that the Minister of the Interior controls a wide aspect of Government affecting individuals and individual rights. He has control of our identity, of our movement and of many personal aspects of our lives, from the registration of birth to registration of death, one might say from the cradle to the grave. Added to this, is his authority over the Public Service. He controls through the Publications Board what we may see, read and hear. The hon. the Minister referred to it this afternoon as “menslike regte”. I would have preferred, I think, to say “menslike aangeleenthede”, which fall under this particular department.

Having regard to his wide sphere of influence, I propose to deal with several of the expressions of opinion of the hon. the Minister, with which I not only do not disagree, but with which I heartily agree. Let me first deal with the Public Service. Government members are keen to make comparisons between 1948 and today. I will add a few which will probably not be quite so palatable to hon. members opposite. I want to indicate what the Vice-President of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut termed “burokratiese ontwikkeling” and also referred to as “kruipende burokrasie”. In 1948 there were 12 Cabinet Ministers and 19 State departments. In 1971 we have 24 Ministers and Deputy Ministers and 34 ministerial departments. In 1971 the Controller and Auditor-General had responsibility for 650 statutory bodies. I refer to this growth because of the importance of eliminating unnecessary work as, for instance, to a small degree in so far as passports are concerned.

The number of White civil servants has grown at double the rate of the White population growth of South Africa. In 1948 there were 85 321 people employed by the State, excluding the Railways and Harbours, and by the Post Office. That figure of 85 321 is today 327 579. According to the information I received from the hon. the Minister of Statistics this week, it is very interesting to note that 11,5 per cent of members of all races economically active, are employed by the State, by provinces and by local authorities. The imbalance of race involvement is apparent from the members of each race economically active, who are employed in this public sector. 26 per cent of the Whites economically active are employed in this sector, as against 12 per cent in the case of the Coloureds, 8 per cent in the case of the Indians and 7,6 per cent in the case of the Bantu. These statistics lend emphasis to the Minister’s statement at the Public Servants’ Association Congress last September. The hon. the Minister then said that we must face the fact of non-Whites being drawn into the public service, that 160 000 non-Whites were already then, when he spoke, in the public service, and that increasingly more non-Whites would have to be so employed. Sir, what is the hon. the Minister doing to implement those sentiments? Twenty per cent of our total population—the Whites—cannot go on attempting to provide the professional, technical and specialist personnel required for the administration of the affairs of this country. Realization of this fact that we need more non-Whites in civil service functions, adds urgency to the Minister’s appeal and warning last year that the wage gap, and, as a result, the differences in the standards of living, should be narrowed as a matter of urgency. Those verbal statements, those expressions of opinion by the hon. the Minister, must be backed by action. The power to adjust salaries and wages rests largely in his hands. There has been some small attempt at narrowing the gap, but time is against us; we must hasten to implement these views which the hon. the Minister holds. We shall follow what he does with deep interest, but what is he doing? Is the hon. the Minister, for instance, making representations to the Treasury to ensure that sufficient money is made available to the provinces to close the gap in the pay of doctors, nurses and para-medical personnel? Is the Minister taking those steps? Is the Government receptive to his views?

The Minister, at the Public Servants’ Association Congress, also referred to the disparity between the number of English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans serving in the public service. Except for the technical division where, according to the latest figures I have, the ratio between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans is roughly the same as the ratio of the population grouping on that basis, what the hon. the Minister has said, is correct. This is unfortunate, and I hope that English-speaking people will be encouraged to do all they can to discharge their share of responsibility in the public service. The hon. the Minister’s public statements in this context are important and no more so than his statement in Cape Town on Van Riebeeck Day, 1972, when he said—

When the hon. the Minister speaks like that, one is constrained to say that one swallow does not make a summer, because we have had this matter of relations discussed in this House for minor political advantage in by-elections. We have had the arrogant speech of the Minister of Defence; we had the bitterness of the speech of the Minister of Mines, and we had the condescending speech of the Minister of Information, who said: “Our English-speaking friends should know exactly how we feel about their attitude”. Does that encourage what this hon. Minister wishes and what we wish, and that is the full co-operation of both sections of the Public Service? Sir, this hon. Minister, judging by his statements, has much missionary work to do within the precincts of the Government, of which he forms a part. On Monday the hon. the Minister said—

Sir, will all his colleagues subscribe to those views? I would commend to him one step that he can take in the Public Service, and that is to accede to a request made to him by the Public Servants Association itself. I refer again to the article which appeared in The Public Servant of April of this year drawing attention to the fact that there is no proper machinery available to public servants whereby they can have an independent investigation of any grievances that they may have. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that although the Act does prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of allegations of inefficiency or misconduct, there is no procedure laid down whereby a public servant can rectify a grievance. The hon. the Minister will know that at the moment those grievances are handled departmentally and by the Public Service Commission. In other words, the person who did the appointment of the public servant decides whether his grievance is justified or not. I would urge the hon. the Minister to look into this, because it is important that this outlet should be available to members of the Public Service. One recalls that the public servant involved in the Agliotti affair superseded numbers of other public servants senior to himself, on the recommendation of his department; and similarly the manager of the MVA Fund superseded other members of the department on the recommendation of that department. Those are matters which it should be possible to refer to a grievances committee. Sir, we all acknowledge that we have an efficient Public Service, but there are incredibly heavy burdens being laid on the shoulders of a few of the highly conscientious members of the Public Service. We should do everything we can to encourage recruitment. I am pleased to see from a recent report of the Public Service Commission that although they offered only 750 study bursaries this year, there were 2 800 applications for those bursaries. I do hope that the number of bursaries will be stepped up. Money spent on education of this sort is money well spent and we would welcome it.

Then I want to refer briefly to the Minister’s continued refusal to have an independent investigation into the Public Service. Sir, the history of this is quite simple. His predecessor, Mr. Muller, stated that there would be such an investigation. To the great disappointment of the public Servants’ Association, it subsequently transpired that this would be a departmental investigation by the Public Service Commission itself. Sir, the Minister has dealt with his reasons. This investigation was in fact supported by a resolution at the Nationalist Party Congress last year in Pretoria, but that resolution was then withdrawn. The Minister gave an extraordinary reason why he could not accede to the request which was contained in a resolution that came from Christiana. He said that he was sorry the resolution was on the agenda because it was similar to a motion which the Opposition had put forward in the Other Place. Sir, that is no reason for rejecting a motion.

I gave a very cogent reply to the request.

The Minister also stated that the appointment of a commission by the State President would be a serious reflection on the Public Service Commission. Sir, that is nonsense. Was the appointment of the Centlivres Commission in the past a serious reflection on the Public Service Commission? I do hope that the hon. the Minister will look into this matter again.

Then we come to the other grievance which the public servants have, and that is the cursory way in which resolutions passed at their congresses are dealt with. One sees in the last report of the Public Service Commission that many of these resolutions are noted. One notices from the record of proceedings at the congresses of the Public Servants’ Association that there is considerable discontent about the delay in dealing with their requests.

Sir, I want to deal with one final matter in regard to the Ministers’ speeches. In his speech on Monday he mentioned certain matters upon which, in the public interest, the Government should not be criticized. Amongst others, he mentioned the question of relations between the State and the Church. He said that South Africa could ill afford criticism of the Government’s action against things done by certain churches. I want to make our position quite clear in this matter. What we on this side of the House have in the past done and what I did, both in public statements and in this House, was to warn against the possible development of a church-State confrontation. We asked the Minister for frankness in his dealings with the leaders of the various churches. I am glad to be able to say that the extent to which the Minister has opened his doors, in a way which his predecessors refused to do, to the leaders of churches, will do a great deal to eliminate any possibility of a church-State confrontation in South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Minister will have the support of church leaders in maintaining law and order and discipline, where discipline is necessary, but then he must also accept, and this Government must also accept, that opposition to Government policies, even outspoken condemnation of Government policies, is not evidence of a lack of patriotism. Sir, we on this side would not tolerate activities which are subversive of the maintenance of law and order, or activities which are directed to changing the present state of affairs by force, but we must accept that sincere and legitimate opposition to Government policy does exist, and that it exists in the sincere judgment of men and women who are devoted to promoting the welfare of South Africa, and that they are entitled to express that opposition whenever and wherever they choose to do so without being threatened that their passports will be withdrawn.

We have had many interviews with them during the year.

I have said that. I think that in doing this the hon. the Minister will create understanding, because he has opened his doors to church leaders, while his predecessors were not prepared to do so.

I want to refer to the manager of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. It is true that there is a Police investigation being undertaken at the present time, but there is an obligation upon the hon. the Minister of the Interior to ensure that the provisions of the Public Service Act are carried out. That is quite apart from any police action. It has been admitted that a certain commission was paid to the manager. The hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Deputy Minister assured the House that the Fund did not lose any money and that the private auditors did not report any irregularity. But, Sir, the Minister of the Interior is obliged to carry out the provisions of the Public Service Act, and he knows as well as I do that in terms of section 24 (3), if any money is received by the manager of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund or by any public servant, that money must be recovered by the commission and paid into general revenue. I just want to say this to the hon. the Minister. I believe he has a duty to find out what the factual position is regarding this particular investment. The total amount recoverable by the State must be determined. When one looks at the fact, for instance, that R23 million was invested at 31st December, 1971, on deposit with building societies, one is entitled to ask where did the half per cent introduction fee go. It does not appear in the accounts of the MVA Fund, and it is a normal payment by building societies. I believe it is only a judicial commission, which this Minister can call for and recommend to the State President. which will be able to find out these points which no Police inquiry can of itself ascertain. I have reason to believe that some of the investments were made on the condition that loans were made again by the deposit-receiving organization to a nominated person. If that is so, there would have been commissions which are accountable for by the persons concerned, and it must be accounted for in terms of the Public Service Act. Sir, I cannot go further in the time I have available, but this particular man had an interest in firms undertaking insurance broking and practising as insurance assessors. Did he gain any benefit which must be accounted for to the State? A cursory glance at the records of the Deeds Registry indicates that he had bonds from two insurance companies for more than 100 per cent of a certain property that he first bought, and that thereafter there were a series of property transactions and a lot of them for not inconsiderable sums of cash. This man suddenly was able, after getting a 100 per cent bond, to start purchasing property for cash. Only a judicial commission has the power to call the necessary evidence from the institutions to find out what commissions were paid out and what introductory fees were concerned, and I am sure this hon. Minister will not avoid his obligations, and will see to it that this provision of the Public Service Act is fully carried out as far as this official is concerned.

Finally, I want to say a few words regarding the Publications Control Board. I do not have time to say much at the moment. Other hon. members on this side will deal with the subject more fully. The position today is verging on the ridiculous and the inter-departmental committee which has now been appointed, as announced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, will not be able to bring about the reforms which are necessary, because there is a radical new approach necessary in so far as censorship is concerned. The Act needs complete overhauling because in its present form it is vague and embarrassing and impracticable. The board has produced incomprehensible decisions and has given decisions which are irreconcilable and which over and over again are upset in courts of law. Banning has not stopped the introduction of undesirable literature into this country. We on this side of the House believe that criminal prosecutions and heavy fines will be far more effective than the form of censorship which is going on at present. Why have there been so few prosecutions? According to the last figure I have, since the introduction of this Act there have only been ten prosecutions under section 5. If there are bannings to the tune we are given here in figures, bannings of publications to the tune of thousands and thousands, why have there not been prosecutions of the persons concerned? The provisions of the law are there to prosecute these people. By prosecution, by process of law, we would at least be able to get some understandable and consistent attitude as to what test is applied as far as the court is concerned in regard to what is desirable or undesirable publications. The hon. the Minister is aware that this dissatisfaction is widespread among writers, among intellectuals and among the general public of South Africa. Theatre proprietors do not know what to do in so far as the conduct of their business is concerned. A theatre proprietor is expected to prepare and have ready for presentation a stage production, imported or local, which can cost many thousands of rand in preparation. He cannot get it passed in advance. The board has in fact refused a request from the South African theatre to go overseas and to approve the importation of a production for this country, a production which would cost that firm something like R200 000 or R250 000. But no, Sir; the theatre proprietor must take the risk. He must bring it out here and he can be sent a telegram the next day by the chairman of the board saying: “Sorry, we do not like your show. You must close it down.” That will close down theatrical productions in this country. I believe the time has come that these arbitrary, inconsistent actions should be looked into and that there should be a new and better approach to the question of publications control. We on this side feel that, by reason of what has taken place, we can only express our concern adequately by moving the following—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the previous speaker, who extended a word of welcome to Mr. Fourie, the new head of the department. I add my welcome on behalf of the members on this side of the House. I just want to say that he has already shown himself to be a person whose motive it is to serve. I hope we shall be able to make use of his services in this department for a long time to come.

At the start the hon. the Minister gave a rational explanation of particulars relating to certain aspects of his department’s activities. Since this department does not publish an annual report, I wondered if the time had not come to consider making available to us a statistical report of the Department of the Interior …

What did he say last year?

… so that we can gain a better understanding of this department’s activities, and also, in particular, so that this can be brought to the attention of the hon. members of the Opposition, who are so ignorant in that connection. As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I just want to say that the Deputy Minister will discuss with him the matters he raised in connection with the Publications Board. Other members on this side of the House will speak about matters concerning the Public Service Commission.

Today I want to take the opportunity of bringing a very important matter to the attention of the House and discussing it with the Minister, i.e. the question of the control of foreigners in South Africa. According to information which the hon. the Minister of Statistics made available to the House, there were 2 368 700 Whites over the age of 18 in South Africa on the day of the census, 6th May, 1970. 2 158 010 of these Whites were South African citizens, while 209 690 were foreigners permanently resident in the Republic. My argument concerns these 210 000 foreigners who are permanently resident in the Republic. A large number of these people live and work here on a temporary basis. Although they have already been living and working here in South Africa for many years, they have not yet applied for permanent residence, with the result that at no stage can they be considered as qualifying for South African citizenship. These people are not subject to the obligations that South African citizens are subject to. They need not, inter alia, do national service. These people come chiefly from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the Irish Republic. They live and work here in South Africa without any control being exercised over their residence and their employment. Some of them have built up large business interests in South Africa. These people are in a privileged position in comparison with citizens of other countries who are in South Africa on a temporary basis. Citizens of other countries, who are in South Africa on a temporary basis, are all subject to permit control and can only remain in South Africa for as long as their valid permit allows them to. Neither may they accept work in South Africa without prior permission having been obtained for that purpose. Of course, this privileged position which people from the Commonwealth countries find themselves in today, in contrast to citizens and visitors from other countries, is a result of the period when South Africa was a member of the British Commonwealth, before the advent of the Republic. I want to point out that our citizens enjoyed the same privileges in those countries, before South Africa ceased to be a member of the British Commonwealth, that their citizens still enjoy in South Africa today. Today this is no longer the case. For example, if South African citizens go to the United Kingdom today they cannot accept employment there before they have received an offer of employment and obtained a work permit. In addition they must report to the Police every three months. In other words, if such people want to remain in the United Kingdom for more than three months, their residence is controlled by the authorities. When we left the British Commonwealth some time ago, there were possibly good reasons for deciding to continue applying this privileged position to citizens from Commonwealth countries. Now, 11 years after having left the Commonwealth, the question arises as to whether we should continue with these arrangements. Has the time not come for the citizens of this country I have mentioned also to be under permit control like citizens from all other countries who visit South Africa on a temporary basis? Must it not be stipulated that these people may not accept work here either unless they obtain prior permission to do so? The hon. the Minister of National Education said in this House that there are about 3 000 foreign students studying in South Africa. South Africa is subsidizing the university training of those students. The majority of those students do come here to study, and the majority of them are not guilty of subversive activities either. However, there are some of them who do not behave themselves in this country, but who are guilty of advocating deviant policies, something that South Africa cannot allow. That is why the Government has already been compelled to take action against some of them, and here I am referring, in particular, to the Home case. We get a large number of visitors from other countries, the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries and so on, people who are good visitors and in whose paths we would not like to place any obstacles in the event of their wanting to come to South Africa. There are also those who are not welcome as visitors in South Africa. I want to refer to the case of the Russian spy, who came to South Africa a number of years ago. He came to South Africa under the pretext of being a Canadian citizen. He lived and moved around here freely. Likewise I could also refer to other examples of people who come to South Africa and who do not adapt themselves to the traditional customs and ways of life that are the order of the day as far as we are concerned. We are living in a dangerous age; and we must bear in mind that we must first look to our security and to our interests. Although we do not want to place any stumbling blocks in the way of any bona fide visitors who want to come to South Africa, I nevertheless feel that we must now give some thought to also making citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries subject to permit control, as in the case of South African citizens who visit the United Kingdom, if they want to stay here in the Republic for longer than three months. Neither must they be allowed to accept employment here if they do not obtain prior permission to do so. I think this is an important matter. We are living in a dangerous age, an age in which we must guard the gateways of our fatherland.

I should also like to raise another matter. This is the question of entertainers who come to our country from abroad. I want to point out that according to reports in the Press, since we allowed the American Negro, Percy Sledge, to come to South Africa three years ago and appear before separate White and non-White audiences, there has virtually been a constant flow of one or more foreign entertainers or so-called entertainers visiting and touring the country. I want to point out that these people are import products. They come here to make money and to take money with them out of South Africa. The question that arises is whether they leave our people with something constructive and informative in exchange for the money they take away here. One does not want to deprive the public of the entertainment provided by foreign entertainers, but one asks oneself whether many of them who come to South Africa do not have standards and artistic qualities that are very much lower than those of artists we have already had here in South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what steps are taken to ensure that foreign entertainers are of such quality that they really bring us art and give us constructive entertainment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parow obviously feels very deeply about the large number of aliens who are permanently resident in this country. I want to say straight away that we are on common ground in this regard. I agree completely with his concern over the large number of people who live and work for very many years in this country without bothering to apply for citizenship or to qualify for it. I want to tell him too that we, on this side of the House, do not only complain about the position. We have a record of having been active in persuading a large number of people that it is in their interests to become South African citizens.

I agree with him also that perhaps things could be tightened up by precluding the entry into South Africa of people such as the Russian spy, Loginov, who came in on a Canadian passport. We can all speak with feeling about this, because we had another case which gave us great concern, the case of the seemingly easy access of a certain Tsafendas into this country, a man who should not have been allowed into the country and who, indeed, should have been put out of the country long before he was ever allowed to cause the damage that he did.

At the same time I want to suggest to that hon. member that we must be a little careful in what we say so that we do not frighten away people who would be ideal immigrants and citizens of South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister of Immigration has done this country a great disservice by some of the things that he has said in this House during the last few weeks.

Just briefly I want to get something on record. When my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, was speaking a few minutes ago, he asked the hon. the Minister whether the Government was receptive to his view that the salary gap between Whites and non-Whites should be closed. My colleague put it particularly to him that he might have made representations to the Government about making funds available to the provinces for the closing of the gap between Whites and non-Whites’ salaries, for example in the medical profession, in nursing and in para-medical services. In case it did not get on the record, I want to say that the hon. the Minister said “Yes”, the Government is receptive to his ideas. We shall look forward to seeing some results from this.

I want to return to something which has also been touched on by the hon. member for Green Point, viz. the whole question of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and Mr. Gouws. I want to support him in his plea to the Minister to ask for a judicial commission of inquiry to be set up to investigate this whole affair. The Minister has a specific responsibility in this, because he is responsible for what goes on in the Public Service. Various speakers in past debates have canvassed the whole question of the background to the Gouws affair. In particular, one question was how Mr. Gouws got his appointment. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us more about the background to this appointment; but I do not want to dwell on it. Then there are the wide powers assumed by Mr. Gouws on his appointment, the directorships and shareholdings that he had while he was in his post and the apparent omission of getting either the Minister of Transport or his Deputy Minister’s their prior approval to some very substantial investments made by the Fund.

We have no power over that.

These things have been canvassed. I want to put certain things to the hon. the Minister now which have a direct bearing on the whole question of a judicial commission. I am sorry, I did not hear what the Minister was saying …

We have no powers in regard to this matter at all …

The hon. Minister might say that he has no powers, but the Public Service Act makes some very specific provisions, and I will come to these in a moment. Surely we can expect this hon. Minister to see that the Public Service Act is complied with. More than that, I think we can fairly ask this hon. Minister to ensure that a judicial commission is appointed. I shall tell him why. The basis of the allegations that have been made against Mr. Gouws were that he was paid a commission, or a raising fee, or that he received other benefits for investing funds of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund in various companies and even in several building societies, and that complaints were received from outside the department about this.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a point of order. Is it correct for an hon. member to continue arguing a matter if I have indicated that we have no powers in regard to it?

Order! The hon. the Minister may rise at a later stage and reply to what the hon. member is saying. The hon. member may continue.

The Minister of Transport himself—and I must just dwell on this for a moment—spoke in very strong terms, not only about Mr. Gouws, but also about those who are alleged to have paid these commissions. This has a very direct bearing on our request to this hon. Minister to ask for the appointment of a commission. The hon. the Minister of Transport said that the people—he was referring to the people who paid the commission—had no right to pay him a commission and that they were as guilty as Mr. Gouws is. He said that they knew that they were not compelled to pay any commission, but they did pay commission and Mr. Gouws was putting that commission into his own pocket.

It is not true.

The Minister said it was true.

From the other side, the side of the real employers of Mr. Gouws, viz. the Government, we seem to have a strange reluctance to take any action other than to hand the whole thing over to the Police for investigation. I submit here that handing the investigation over the Police does not cover the situation by any manner of means. In terms of the Public Service Act no public servant may accept fees, or commission, or other awards over and above their salaries, without proper permission. This is precisely what the allegation is against Mr. Gouws. As the hon. member for Green Point has pointed out, any remuneration received by public servants illegally in terms of the Act are recoverable and they must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, where necessary, the Treasury must take legal action, or other steps, to ensure that this is done. It is anybody’s guess how much money was in fact paid to this particular public servant by way of raising fees or commission. At a rough guess, it could be anything between R100 000 and R500 000, for all we know. But there are very strong indications that a very large amount of money is involved. It is encumbent upon this hon. Minister to make sure that the provisions of the Public Service Act are adhered to and that this money is recovered. Now, Sir, how is it going to be recovered? The Police have a specific duty in this regard. They have only to investigate whether there has been a crime and whether a charge is to be preferred, and that is that. But regardless of whether there has been any crime, there has been a very definite prejudice to the State if these commissions were in fact paid. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington must forgive me for not following up what he said. It seems to me the major part of his speech in point of fact belongs under the Transport Vote.

I want to say a few words about registration, election, delimitation, etc. A short time ago I saw that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had given a Cape paper an interview in which he condemned the system of loading and deloading in South Africa. Interestingly enough, it was on 21st April, one day after the Oudtshoorn by-election. As I understand it, he advocated representation on a percentage basis. He said that if the voting percentages of the last general election in 1970 had been taken into account, the National Party would have obtained 92 constituencies, the United Party 62 and the Progressives and the Herstigtes six respectively. Next he advocated a supplementary system, over and above the present system, so as to give effect to this percentage of votes cast. He also advocated a parliamentary select committee. I think this is something we have in common, because today I also want to advocate that the time has arrived for us to reappoint a parliamentary select committee in this regard. To a large extent, indeed to a very large extent, our electoral system is derived from and follows the British system—also, as it would seem to me, as regards loading and deloading.

The average number of voters in England in a constituency is 58 500 and in Scotland 47 000. In Wales it is 50 000 and in Northern Ireland 75 000. Our system has been derived from the British system and their loading and deloading are much worse than ours in South Africa. The major objection of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is to the very practice of loading and deloading in South Africa. He says the difference between city and rural area is too large. But now it is interesting to note that in England the constituency with the largest number of voters has 144 734 voters and the one with the smallest number 18 884. In South Africa a constituency based on area must have a minimum of 70 per cent of the voters. Do you know, Sir, that in England the constituency with the smallest number does not have 20 per cent. I say our system has been derived from the British one.

Sir, in one respect we have dropped behind the British system and that is with regard to our registration. Their’s is a continuous system of registration from February to February, which is the exclusive responsibility of the State, and the result is that they are able to hold an election, a by-election or a general election, virtually at any moment. Now it is interesting to note that the number of voters on the present voters’ roll exceeds the number of White persons over the age of 18 years by 62 000. If we were to add the number of those who are not registered, it would give us a figure in the region of plus-minus 100 000. With an average quota on 1st January, 1972, of 13 594, this means that the rolls contain extra voters for approximately five constituencies, voters which do not exist. We assume that there are many others who still have to come onto the voters’ rolls, in which case the figure would be approximately 100 000. Now I want to advocate that in the future —we must take the necessary steps in this regard now—a voter may not vote without producing this new identity document, or if it is not available, his identity card. This will eliminate all phantom votes if such things do exist.

The provisions in the Constitution in respect of delimitation and the electoral system are outdated, and it is time for us to take another look at these matters. Means of transport are no longer such an important factor, nor are natural features.

I think area ought to play a much bigger role than it does at present. In the case of South-West Africa it definitely plays the biggest role. The Cape Province extends over two thirds of the area of the Republic, and the largest part of this area is becoming depopulated. The Constitution contains a section in terms of which an anticipated increase in population may be take into account in the matter of delimitation. With the new policy of decentralization which the Government is following at the present time, I think it is a factor which has to be taken duly into account in future delimitations. There are 11 constituencies based on area in the Cape Province, three in the Transvaal and one in the Orange Free State. With a deloading of 30 per cent the minimum number of voters for a constituency based on area was 8 052 voters in 1965. With the registration of January, 1972, the mean quota was 13 594, i.e. 2 000 voters more per constituency. For a constituency based on area it was 9 517, i.e. 1 500 voters more, after a maximum deloading. Not one of the 11 constituencies based on area in the Cape Province meets the requirement. In the Transvaal all three of them do not meet it. Also the one in the Free State is far below the average number of voters which a constituency based on area may have. When one considers that a constituency such as Namaqualand extends over 35 703 square miles, an area as large as the Free State—Gordonia extends over 22 567 and Prieska 24 111, and I can continue in this way—one may say that the position is really getting out of hand. That is why I say that I have this in common with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. When he asks for the reappointment of a parliamentary select committee to investigate this matter, he has my support, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to keep this in mind. When I deal with this matter, I refer to our electoral system, our registration system, etc. I think a parliamentary select committee should be appointed to reconsider these matters from scratch.

Mr. Chairman, this speech of the hon. member for Malmesbury, following on the slip which the hon. the Minister made, or nearly made, when he introduced the debate, really makes us think. Is the Nationalist Party worried about the next delimitation? [Interjections.] Sir, I see the hon. member for Randburg talking; he is one of those who is worried. There is the hon. member for Boksburg, and there is the new member for Brakpan. These are the people that are worried about this delimitation. But, Sir, I shall leave the hon. member for Malmesbury to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who will speak a little later and will give him all the answers to the questions he has put to him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness: When he was talking this afternoon, did he make a mistake? Did he make a mistake when he almost said we were going to have an election early next year? Has he let something slip he should not have let slip? What exactly was the hon. the Minister going to tell us when he left off? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us in his reply exactly what he meant.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Parow, who started his speech this afternoon by pleading for what we pleaded for last year, namely a printed report from this department to tell us what is going on in the department. As the hon. the Minister has said, there are over 2 million cases …

We had a report last year.

A printed report? That report was not tabled, Sir, with respect, and this is what we want. Why is the hon. the Minister hiding his light under a bushel? Why does he not tell us what is going on in the world of identity documents, and how many applications there have been for the Book of Life and how many have been issued? Why does he not give us information regarding the numbers of applications for visas and passports, as well as information regarding naturalization, births and deaths, and marriages? Just think, Sir, of all the things which he should put into such a report and which should be made public. This is what we pleaded for last year. The hon. member for Parow was the chief spokesman who opposed us last year, and this year he supports us. I am so glad to have his support. I am also glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that there is a report. All that is left now is for that report to be printed and tabled.

It is being done.

I am very glad to hear that; perhaps we are going to get a report. I want to say that I hope that report will be tabled timeously in future, and that it will not come after the debate.

You yourself voted in favour of it coming later in the year.

No, that was the report of the Public Service Commission. We voted for that report to come later in the year; I concede that point to the hon. the Minister, but I am talking about the report of the Department of the Interior. I am not speaking of that specific branch concerned with the Public Service and the Public Service Commission.

While I am talking about reports, I must draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to comments that have been made by his colleagues in the Cabinet regarding the printing of reports, the tabling of reports, and the delay in having these reports tabled. I must draw his attention to the criticism which has been levelled at him indirectly, because of the criticism of the Government Printer. The first of his colleagues I want to refer to is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. When he was asked why we received his department’s report only on the day when we actually came to deal with his Vote, he said—and I quote from Hansard:

Because of pressure of work, he was unable to get the work done. But finally the report was printed and submitted to the department—

Sir, that is why I say that I must draw to the attention of this Minister the comments of his colleague. He goes further—

After having sent it back three times there were still faults in it—

Sir, that is only just one example, but unfortunately it is not the only one. My hon. friend here mentioned the hon. the Minister of National Education, who had a similar report to make. But we had the Minister of Tourism, who also had to apologize and say—

Then, Sir, I asked the following question—

The reply of the hon. the Minister of Tourism was—

Sir, when this is read, together with the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, one wonders what is going on in the Government Printer’s office. Last year I wished Mr. De Beer, the new Government Printer, well in his new job, and I expressed the hope that circumstances would be made such that he would be able to carry out his job as I know he would like to carry it out. But it appears from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General that the anticipated improvements have not been completed, and that they are now talking about a new building which might be started in 1975. The additional accommodation that should have been made available for the Government Printer to house his stocks has not been made available. But, Sir, there is another aspect to this, and I quote from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General for the year 1970-’71, at pages 16 and 17—

That is what the Controller and Auditor-General says in general, dealing with all the examinations carried out by his department; but dealing with the Government Printer in particular, his report reads—

Sir, the Government Printer handles many millions of rands worth of Government stock. He has a most important task to perform in this country, but somehow the Government Printer is not being given the opportunity of doing the job that he would like to do, he is not being given the necessary storage facilities, training facilities and staff. I am sure that there are various other matters that the Government Printer himself can bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister or of the Deputy Minister who has control of the Government Printer. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in all fairness to take an interest in this and to see what he can do to help this man to do the job of work that he would like to do.

Sir, in conclusion, I have one small request to put to him. As you know, Sir, Regulation Gazettes are published by the Government Printer; this is the only source from which we can get information when we require it. I accept that he cannot print a massive reserve stock of every Government Gazette which is published. Firstly, it is a physical impossibility to store them, and I am not asking that they should all be kept in reserve. But where a Regulation Gazette is published I do request that extra copies should be made available. Regulations in terms of the Public Health Act were published in 1967 and today it is out of print. I have been to the Department of Health and asked them for a copy. They have just one copy, and because it runs into a hundred or more pages, it cannot be photostatted. A letter from the Government Printer, dated 19th April, stated that it was out of print. I want to suggest that such things as Regulation Gazettes should be printed in excess of the number required, so that a number of them can be held for the information of people who require them later.

I want to begin by asking a question, and the question is this: Where today, in the political field, does one get more satisfaction than from one’s knowledge and experience of one’s citizenship of a country like the Republic of South Africa? What greater pride is there for one than specifically to give effect to this citizenship at the polls during an election? The franchise is our greatest political weapon, and in the light of the divergent policies of the two big parties here in South Africa, it is vitally necessary if we are to possess and give effect to that franchise and that citizenship, because that is the only way in which we have a say in the Government of this country and the implementation of those policies of these various parties in South Africa. We are very grateful for the information the hon. the Minister gave the House today, and also for the dates he furnished us with regarding the establishment of a new voters’ roll, the establishment of a de novo voters’ roll, because we know that the voters’ rolls we have are very out of date. We know that the State takes upon itself the task and obligation of drawing up a voters’ roll; the State does so through its Department of the Interior. We are also grateful for the knowledge that we have officials who devote themselves, with great dedication, to the task of establishing a comprehensive voters’ roll. But I want to emphasize the task and the duty of all the voters in South Africa to ensure that their names appear on the voters’ roll. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough, and it has nothing to do with politics. If it is true that the franchise is our mightiest political weapon, and that we can employ no other weapon to give effect to our policies in this country, then it is essential that every eligible voter, every male and female citizen, should ensure that his or her name appears on the voters’ roll. We do have legislation in this country that compels citizens to ensure that their names do appear on the voters’ roll. [Interjections.] I cannot now advocate an amendment to legislation. We are engaged in the Budget debate. But I say that we have legislation in South Africa that makes it an offence for people to neglect to have themselves registered. I want to express the hope that there will be more prosecutions in the case of citizens neglecting to have themselves registered as voters of this country. There must be the necessary self-discipline. We owe it to South Africa, and in South Africa, in particular, it is the duty of every citizen to register, because our policies are so divergent. We know that the one policy will result in complete integration of Blacks and Whites in this country. Whether a voter likes it or not, it is his task to decide about that. And we know that the other policy will result in the preservation of the identity of every population group in this country.

And what of the third avenue?

That third avenue, I fear, is interpreted differently at every Republic Festival or symposium of the young United Party supporters. I see that yesterday a new interpretation was given of the federation system of the United Party, which will be abandoned if it does not meet with everyone’s approval. But whether there is a third avenue or not, there is only one avenue that ensures the preservation of our identity, and that is the avenue of the present Government. That is why we are very grateful for the opportunity the State creates for the establishment of a voters’ roll for the determination of citizenship and everything that this entails. But I now want to say that placing one’s name on a voters’ roll is not an end in itself; it is merely a means to an end. One’s name appears on the voters’ roll for the purpose of allowing one to vote. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, it is not compulsory for one to vote in this country. There may also be circumstances preventing one from voting. But I want to tell those people who purposely stay away from the polls—I am not speaking about people who stay away because of circumstances beyond their control—that those people who did not vote for the candidate of their choice have no say in the Government of this country. Those people have no claim to the services of a Member of Parliament or a provincial councillor who represents that constituency, because they have proved by their actions that they do not want a representative in that legislative body. That is why I want to make a very strong appeal, particularly to our young people who, under the guidance of the late Adv. Strijdom, were given the vote at 18 years of age, when we placed enough trust in those young people to give them a say in the Government and the administration of our fatherland. Those people must first ensure that they get their names on the voters’ roll, and once their names appear on the voters’ roll it must be, as far as they are concerned, a matter of pride and a manifestation of their patriotism and loyalty not to have themselves driven to a polling booth, but to walk to that polling booth. Allow me, on this occasion to say to the White voters of South Africa. In this country we are in the fortunate and privileged position that when we go to the polls we are going to elect a White Parliament to guard the interests and decide the fate of the White man in South Africa. But if the situation ever arises—this may be a hypothetical statement, but it might happen under another Government—that the Black man in this country is placed on a common voters’ roll, I want to tell the White voters that those Blacks would vote you down before you can blink an eye; they would run to the polls; they will not go to work, but you will not have to beg them to go to the polls, because it is a craving of theirs to get that franchise. But with every election we accept the fact that we have to beg the Whites to go and that we have to drive them to the polls. To them I want to ascribe the words of our national poet: take part in that struggle that your nation is engaged in; vote wherever you want to, but exercise your right to vote; exercise your vote.

Our national poet said:

Yesterday we sat on Strijdom Square and listened to the hon. the Prime Minister. We felt a new upsurge, a feeling that we are citizens of the Republic of South Africa. I want to appeal to these people not to abuse their franchise by issuing threats or doing one thing or another, but to help rule South Africa and steer it on a course which they believe to be the right course for South Africa. We hear these people when they join us in singing our famous national anthem—

Some of those people are not even prepared to go and vote for South Africa and its welfare.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me that on the opposite side there are quite a number of members who are nervous about the next election. I shall leave it at that; it is clear that the previous speech was made in that spirit. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred, inter alia, to a future government that would possibly allow Blacks on a common voters’ roll. At this stage I just want to make it very clear that he was not referring to the United Party. A common voters’ roll is not the policy of the United Party.

Since the hon. the Minister referred to delimitation, I wonder whether he would be so kind as to give us some indication of when the delimitation will be finalized. I ask this particularly because, as I see matters, the supplementary electoral list will come into operation by the end of June, 1973, and it will be based on that.

However, I want to deal with the Publications Board. I want to begin by saying that if there has ever been a group of people in South Africa for whom one could shed a silent tear, it definitely is the members of the Publications Board. They are definitely a group of people in South Africa who firmly believe in the principle of censorship. But at the same time they are the people who do most to bring this principle of censorship into discredit in South Africa. Before hon. members on the other side say that this is an unfounded attack, I want to read to them from their own political Bible, namely Rapport I read to you a report headed “The Censors’ Sin”. It reads (translation)—

I therefore have grounds for saying that they are their own enemies and are harming the principle of censorship. I do not want to enlarge on all their sins; they are well known in this House. But since there is talk of possible reform, I think it is necessary that in this regard we should learn from our mistakes of the past, the mistakes made by the Publications Board. We must pose the question: What has gone wrong and why are they failing in their task? It is very clear to me that the main cause is that they find it difficult to determine norms of morality in the seventies. The reason for this is obvious. They have lost touch with the public completely; they have not even kept pace or remained in touch with one section of it. It is well known that they are out of touch with the youth. There is no doubt about that. If anyone thinks there is any doubt about that, I want to read to hon. members an article which appeared in Die Burger on 20th May. The heading was: “Is the Publications Board in touch with the youth?” It was written with reference to the ban on the pop hit “American Pie”. The writer came to the following conclusion (translation)—

For example, we do not know the reasons for the banning of this record “American Pie”, but we find, inter alia, the following words on the record—

Obviously they regard this as sacrilege. By regarding it as sacrilege, they have in actual fact proved that they are unaware of the extent to which religion is gaining ground among the youth of the world. It is gaining ground in a new form, the form of something which is of greater significance to them. If it is so that the presentation of religion by means of pop tunes has greater significance, who am I to pass judgment on that, or who are the hon. members of the Board to do so? We may add that they have not only failed to keep pace with the youth, but that they are also very rapidly losing touch with the modern Afrikaner. For example, we find that this board, which is mainly Afrikaans-orientated, has completely failed to keep pace with the modern Afrikaner. What do we find? We find that the Afrikaans-controlled publishers, publishers such as Republikeinse Publikasies, are continually having trouble with the Publications Board in connection with the articles and periodicals they publish. I shall just briefly mention the names of the periodicals published by them. They publish Scope, Living and Loving, Darling, Ster, Kyk and, to a lesser extent, the conservative Personality. The fact remains that these periodicals are published by Afrikaans-controlled organizations. Let us take a look at Brandwag Pers. For example, we have the following words from their own editor. He said—

This board, or even any new board, must be a board capable of determining norms, norms which are valid now and not norms which were valid for former generations or former times. In fact, I believe the big mistake made by the Publications Board is that they create a false impression of who and what the Afrikaner of today is.

What do you regard as your norm?

I believe that as a result of this they are harming the principle of censorship in South Africa, and I believe in the principle of censorship. I do not want the principle to be harmed, but when one applies it in such a way that it becomes absolutely ludicrous, in this case in the eyes of the modern Afrikaner and in the eyes of the youth, one harms the principle of censorship. We may just briefly refer to the question of Afrikaans films. Here we find that the major obstacle to progress for not only the Afrikaans film, but also the South African film industry, is the sword dangled over their heads by the Publications Board. It grieves me to hear a man like Jans Rautenbach saying that our South African films are made according to the recipe of a few jokes, some action, some concert entertainment, a few pretty girls and an excess of rubbish. It grieves me as a South African that a man like Jans Rautenbach should say this. This too I blame on the Publications Board. Hon. members must place themselves in the shoes of a film producer. Would the hon. members dare produce a film in South Africa that would be acceptable to the youth and that depicted the youth as it is, and would hon. members dare produce a film that depicted the modern Afrikaner as he really is today? Of course a film producer will not be able to do so. He will just have to stick to the recipe of some action, a few pretty girls and an excess of rubbish. In other words, he will just have to stick to the frivolous and the pedestrian. Until we reach a stage where the imagination of the people in South Africa is fired, we shall not make any progress in the field of art.

In conclusion, I just want to ask, in regard to the enumerators at the registration of voters, whether the hon. the Minister considers increasing their salaries. People have approached me about this matter, and they would all like to know. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be forgiven for not crossing swords with the hon. member who has just sat down, because he made a whole number of loose statements, not one of which actually had any indication of depth. For the rest he criticized people who know infinitely more about their subject than he does. For that reason I want to leave him at that.

I want to confine myself to the boot on the other foot. It is terrible to lay the blame for commas and full stops and printer’s errors in reports at the door of various bodies falling under the hon. the Minister of the Interior. It is easy to find a stick to beat a dog, but then one should see to it that one does not live in a glass house oneself. I want to confine myself more particularly to what would have happened if the United Party had been in power.

What do you know of what would have happened?

I shall tell you in a moment what would have happened, because I have the proof. Mr. Chairman, in Natal the United Party is in power. In recent times we have seen that of the money voted here for the provinces is apparently spent in ways for which there is not always verification. I want to say at the beginning that I want to deal with the Parks Board and its money. I am pleased the hon. member for South Coast is present. He still is a member of that Parks Board and at one time he was its chairman but apparently he resigned that office as he had made a certain statement at a certain time during his term of office. In this connection I should like to quote from page 19 of the minutes of that board where one reads, inter alia, the following—

I know full well of the “embarrassment” of which the hon. member for South Coast spoke. The history of that is that he surrendered the chairmanship shortly after this to another member of the executive committee. Before I go any further, I want to make the categorical statement that I have not been in contact with a single person connected with the petition of which there is talk at the moment and which is evidently going to be debated in the provincial council on the 6th of this month. I have not asked any of them for any information either, nor am I using information which, to my knowledge, appears in that petition. One moment this document is a secret document, the next it is not a secret document; one moment it is a public document and the next it is withdrawn. I have nothing to do with that game. I do not even want to refer to it any further. I want to begin by saying that as far back as 1959 we asked for an investigation into particular irregularities in the then Parks Board. The public of South Africa and especially the public of Natal does not know what happened there at the time, because at that time Hansard reports of the proceedings of the provincial council were not kept as yet. As there were no minutes, it never came to the attention of the public that at that time and for a long time to come into the 1960s, the Natal Parks Board as a statutory body received a large amount of money each year from the provincial administration, which in turn received money on a rand for rand basis from the Central Government. That money was spent without an account ever being given of what had become of that money or how it had been spent. In fact, the spending was never even subject to an audit of the provincial auditors. That came only much later, if I remember correctly, only in 1965 and only after we had objected most strongly. Even at that time the hon. member for South Coast controlled the Parks Board to such an extent that they did not even want to give us a commission of inquiry. It seems to me, if I read the newspaper reports correctly, that the same thing is taking place again. My request is, seeing that public funds are involved and that a considerable amount of the R711 million made available last year to the provincial councils on a rand for rand basis fell a victim to the Parks Board, according to newspaper reports, that it would be advisable for a commission of inquiry to be set up by the State to investigate what this foster-child is doing with the money in Natal which he has been given by the Central Government. Already at that time, round about 1960, the Parks Board was charged with the wilful mismanagement of public funds. Now I know that there are not really statutory powers in terms of which an inquiry may be ordered from the side of the State but, all the same, surely there are powers in terms of which the State may demand an account to be given of their stewardship of the money the State has invested, of how the money has been spent and of the reasons why the public is so unhappy about the matter.

Is there not a committee on public accounts of the provincial council?

Yes, it is only being done now. If the hon. member had listened, he would have heard me saying that it became clear for the first time in 1965 that those statements were being audited.

But this is the position now.

This being so, I now want to read out what the provincial auditor in Natal recently said in connection with this money. I quote from the Natal Mercury of 16th May, 1972. It states the following—

Since I am on the subject of statutory bodies, I want to mention that the public is probably not aware of the fact that the Natal Parks Board is the kingdom of the United Party. It is a closed kingdom into which a Nationalist has never been allowed, in spite of the undertaking they gave us that they would do so. Their motto is, “Keep it British as long as we can.” It is their little kingdom, and in a moment I shall come to the constitution of this board. I read more—

Now we get to the point, and this is why I link this to the Department of the Interior with which we are dealing now—

The report also states the following—

This enormous subsidy which came from the provincial administration was given, inter alia, by this Government in terms of the Readjustment Act with the provinces. For that reason I would say that this department had every right and reason to ask and to tell the public exactly what was happening there and why the people were so dissatisfied. When hon. members on the opposite side attack the department each one of them latches on to a detached thing and takes that further. However, if they were to come into power and were to administer departments on a par with their maladministration in Natal, I wonder in what kind of position South Africa would land, apart from all the other relations legislation I would rather not discuss. This same Parks Board, and it is good that we know this, acquired another person as chairman, one Mr. Wood, after Mr. Mitchell had resigned the chairmanship voluntarily. He was an M.E.C. and he promised the minority group in the then provincial council, the council of 1964, that if a vacancy were to occur, a Nationalist would be appointed. We made certain not to raise the question of language and did not ask for an Afrikaans-speaking person, a German-speaking person, or a person speaking another language, to be appointed. We made a friendly request for a Nationalist to be appointed. In any democracy the minority party must surely be represented, as they are represented in this House too. [Interjections.] This Opposition claim for themselves the right to criticize us and where they govern we therefore claim for ourselves the right to criticize them as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not make any comments on what he has said. I wish to take up another important matter and want to deal once again with the question of the Public Service.

At the outset I want to say, so that there is no mistake with regard to my motivation or intent, that in common with other colleagues of mine on this side of the House, we have the highest regard for the Civil Service. It is I think equal to the best in any part of the world. They have always had an outstanding reputation and we have always had a very high standard of loyalty and devotion to the service of the State from them. There have been one or two that have fallen by the wayside, but in the vast service of some 400 000 people, one can well expect one or two to be black sheep.

It is quite clear that throughout all the deliberation of the Public Servants’ Association at its annual meeting, this question of a commission of inquiry has loomed very large. The commission of inquiry is not only in regard to the conduct of its own people, but also in regard to the conditions of service, the question of salaries, the relationship and parity of their salaries in so far as the private sector is concerned, the retention of officers and officials and with regard to the encouragement of members of the public who leave schools and colleges to join the Public Service. I believe that the Public Service is on very sound lines indeed. They well remind the public, and this is obviously directed at the hon. the Minister and the State, that there was a commission of inquiry in 1920 and another in 1924. In view of the most remarkable changes in the administration and with the introduction of electronic machines, computers and other more modern methods of dealing with the various aspects of administration, they consider it is time that there should be another look at what is taking place in the Public Service, at what improvements can be brought about and what can be done to give the Service an opportunity of rising to the demands and the challenges of the modern age. I think it is more the motive than anything else. It is not only a question of a salary or the possibility of a five-day week which has already been conceded, it is not only a question of the medical aid scheme, which has been improved, but it is a question of the Public Service rising to the stage where it can with confidence meet the challenge of the times. In that sense I think that the Government, the State and the Minster, should not be deaf to a plea of this nature and to an attitude of this nature. This is not a problem which is peculiar to South Africa; it is common to all parts of the world, to all big countries, particularly those in the Western world, more particularly a country like Britain, whose system we follow to a large extent. This problem has been looked at and dealt with. In fact, I think Britain was the first country in the world to establish an Organization and Method division, from which we in this country and people in other countries have learnt so much, a system which is now being followed even at the level of local authorities. When the association asks for the establishment of a special grievances body, which it calls an “independent revisory body”, which will, it says, “not only bring satisfaction and confidence, but also silence the habitual malcontent effectively” it asks for something to meet its own standard of application to the services which are demanded of it. It has listed a few in the course of its discussions. I read from the report of their annual meeting. It dealt with a few aspects, such as the question of overlapping and, as I mentioned earlier, the question of shortage of well-trained personnel, and the recruiting and retention of such personnel.

We have rather a glaring example already evident, namely the question of the Book of Life in respect of which the hon. the Minister issued a statement, asking the public not to be hasty in their desire to complete the forms and make the necessary applications, because there is so much work on hand already that they are unable and afraid to cope with any sudden rush of applications. This, I think, is a rather serious matter, because a great deal of trouble was taken by the Minister to elaborate on the importance of the Book of Life. It was a new change in the whole system. Its objective was to lead to streamlining the whole system of identification, passports and other matters of that nature. For example, birth registrations, drivers’ licences and other entries which are regarded as essential in order that a person should have a complete picture of himself with him at all times. And yet, after a year of, what one thought, getting into stride, we are asked to slow down because the department cannot cope. It is not a question of their inability to cope; it is no doubt a question of personnel and the difficulties they have to face in a vast undertaking of this nature.

Other matters have been raised and referred to the Public Service Advisory Commission, matters, for instance, such as the raising of the level of the loans provided by the Department of Community Development. I have seen the latest report. The matter has been referred to the Department of Community Development. One would like some information from the hon. the Minister as to what has been done in this regard. There is the question of a housing loan subsidy being continued after an officer retired on reaching the prescribed superannuation age. The matter is already receiving attention, he said. Contained in the report is a number of matters which the hon. the Minister may, in the review which he gave at the opening of the discussion of his Vote, have dealt with to indicate to what extent he is trying to meet the situation. My colleague suggested a figure of 26 per cent, but I believe that, if you include one or two additional aspects of governmental administration, virtually as much as 30 per cent of the operative economic White people in this country are in the Public Service. With the tremendous increase in administrative functions, which are continuously growing, it looks as though that figure may even increase. Every piece of legislation that we pass, immediately demands the appointment of more and more personnel, and I am not sure that the public is fully aware of the fact that whenever we pass additional legislation, more and more bodies and more and more staff have to be appointed to administer the measure and to iron out the complex problems that often flow from the passing of legislation. The average member of the public is inclined to regard a new Act simply as a new measure which introduces new rules and regulations and makes further demands upon the public. They regard it as a fait accompli. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, as well as the hon. member for Green Point, had a great deal to say about the Public Service. On various occasions they referred to the Public Servants’ Association, and the hon. member for Green Point also quoted from the association’s organ for April in support of his case. Sir, I want to take the hon. member back to the January, 1972, edition of The Public Servant. In this edition Mr. Jan Basson, the outgoing general secretary of the Public Servants’ Association, wrote a few things about his career in the Public Service which covered a period of 35 years. Before getting back to the hon. member, I just want to say that I think it is fitting for us in this Committee to pay tribute to Mr. Jan Basson, who was in the service of the officials for such a long period of time. Mr. Basson is a man we all knew as competent and who was respected and appreciated in wide circles throughout the country. I think it is fitting for us here in the House of Assembly to place on record our appreciation of the work he did. I should also like to wish his successor, Mr. Landman, everything of the best.

Sir, since the hon. member for Green Point quoted from The Public Servant, I want to read out to him what Mr. Jan Basson, who served as general secretary for 35 years, said about the things the officials had to endure under the United Party Government. I quote from page 2 (translation)—

[Interjections.] Sir, they were at a low level, and yet those hon. members want to dictate to the hon. the Minister today what he should do. What does Mr. Jan Basson say about the position immediately prior to his retirement? He says (translation)—

[Interjections.] Sir, this is stern reality. Hon. members on that side try, now that it suits them to do so, to ride on the back of the Public Servants’ Association, while their record in the years when they were in power still testify against them today. [Interjections.] Sir, the Public Servants’ Association is pre-eminently the body that is well-informed about what the officials feel in their hearts. As far as I am concerned, it is a responsible body to which one can pay more attention than one can pay to the hon. member for Green Point or the hon. member who has just sat down. Hon. members know that the Association nominated six members who, together with six nominated by the Public Service Commission, constitute the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. Sir, I think we may once again take an objective and fruitful look at the functions which this body has to fulfil. The resolutions of this Public Service Joint Advisory Council go to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission may at its discretion reject the recommendations or resolutions of the Advisory Council without furnishing any reasons for the rejection. This council does not consider individual complaints. At the congress level of the Public Servants’ Association and during interviews with the managements of the Public Servants’ Association, the Government takes cognizance of the feelings of the officials and the Government is further advised by the Public Service Commission. The question I ask myself, when the individual servant’s founded grievances lie on the desk I have as an M.P. and I can do nothing about them, is whether another good look should not be taken at the purpose and functions of this Advisory Council. Sir, on matters of policy as far as the Public Service is concerned, I do not want to express any opinions. I think we have a very competent Minister, one who has already shown that he has made a very thorough and sympathetic study of broad Public Service matters, for which our officials, too, are grateful. But, Sir, what bothers me—and I am not saying this for opportunistic political reasons which the hon. member for Green Point revealed a few minutes ago —is that an individual servant with a grievance, founded or unfounded, gets satisfaction with difficulty, and an aggrieved official who does not get the opportunity of putting his case, can become a festering sore in an office or in a department. Sir, if a secretary or another more senior officer is not kindly disposed towards an aggrieved official, then that aggrieved official may do what he likes but he will be fighting a losing battle and in the end that grievance lies on my table or on the table of a colleague of mine, either on this side of the House or on that side of the House. Sir, I have already gone into these cases down to the very root causes; I have taken one as far as a previous Minister of the Interior, who agreed with me that that official was right. But the die was cast; the official had already left the service and nothing could be done about the matter. Sir, I want to tell this Committee today that I have high regard for our Departmental Secretaries. We know that they are responsible officials. I have the highest regard also for the Public Service Commission as a whole, but I want to make a strong representation to the hon. the Minister today that if an official has a grievance, no matter how slight, and if he feels that the Commission has not had justice done to him, the Commission should appoint an impartial person in all cases to investigate the grievance and to make a recommendation, whereupon the matter should be submitted to the hon. the Minister for a final decision, even if there is no right of appeal against his decision.

Thank you for the support.

That hon. member says “thank you for the support”, but he raised this matter for opportunistic political reasons and that is not my motive. Sir, there will not be many such cases per year. Therefore it will not cost a great deal and it will not take up much time. Then aggrieved officials would feel that their cases had been heard, even if they were not put in the right in the end. I believe that a procedure such as the one I have proposed here will relieve me as a member of Parliament and my colleagues of the unbearable situation of receiving representations from officials with grievances about which we cannot do anything in the end, no matter how much we would have liked to.

Then, Sir, I should like to raise once more the matter of the payment of holiday leave to officials, whether permanent or temporary, upon their resignation or upon their retirement on pension. I have investigated cases where officials were unable to go on leave because of the fact that they had too much work. Consequently that leave accumulated, and this is a wrong principle. If a man is unable to take his full leave, because of the nature of his work, he must be compensated in full for that, preferably each year, so that it does not accumulate. I advocate that the same principle should also apply in respect of temporary officials who hold down their jobs until such time as they are dismissed when permanent officials are appointed to their jobs. Sir, such a temporary official must be compensated in full for accumulated leave, no matter how little. At the present moment I have such cases on my desk, where a retired official has already done everything possible to have his leave money paid out to him. One does not want to approach the Secretary or the Minister with each individual case. Nor is that how it should be.

The final matter which is neat to my heart, is the image our Public Service and the individual official have amongst the public outside. In the past year a few ugly insinuations appeared in comments by the Press and hon. members on the opposite side of this House also made a great fuss about these as though there were allegedly officials who were allegedly open to corruption, as though there were officials who allowed themselves to be influenced by factors other than the pure merit of a case. Sir, these are ugly insinuations which do a great deal of harm to the image of our Public Service amongst the public outside, and this must not happen. It is my conviction that the vast majority of our officials are people of unempeachable integrity, in spite of what the Opposition wants to give out, people whose career is their pride, and this is how it should be. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not deny this. I can testify to the extremely efficient work of officials in many of the Government departments I come into contact with daily, and from whom I receive the most courteous treatment. I think the officials themselves, in the first place, should see to it that no time is wasted in rejecting black sheep who commit the kind of things about which the insinuations are made. The Public Service can do without these people. [Time expired.]

Just a brief word to the hon. member for Pretoria District. I want to assure him that nobody on this side of the House for one moment doubts the integrity and competence of the Public Service of the Republic of South Africa. But like in any organization, there are cases where persons do questionable things and, as we all know, some of those cases are being investigated at present. The hon. member himself mentioned cases of injustice being done to public servants in the Public Service. Let me repeat that, on the whole, we regard our Public Service as competent and unimpeachable, but we do not regard it as a body which is elevated beyond all sins and all mistakes, just like any other body.

†I have actually risen to express the growing discontent of all intelligent and thinking people in South Africa today at the actions of this Publications Control Board we have, actions which have lead to our motion this afternoon, asking for a reduction in the amount that we as taxpayers have to pay for the Publications Board. Let me say that this is indeed a nominal reduction that we are asking, when it is seen against the background of the large number of lawsuits and appeals that the Publications Board has lost, and seen against the background of the huge costs incurred by booksellers who have to destroy thousands and thousands of books every year, and seen against the background of the huge costs incurred by exhibitors and by film producers when they have to cut their films, or their audiences are restricted.

This Publications Board today is an anachronism in this modern age. In an age where the freedom of the mind is growing, it is an example of the incipient brainwashing of the people of South Africa. In a country where we are supposed to have a democracy it is a growing sign of the dictatorship of the mind. This motion of ours expresses the dismay we felt, at first with the action of this Publications Board, dismay which was followed soon by disgust at some of their decisions, and then later by contempt for many of the things they have done under the law as it stands at the moment. I cannot have respect for a board such as this, on account of some of the decisions it has come to. They are living in a crazy world of their own, beset by their own little devils, “hul duiweltjies en hul euweltjie en hul dominee Dan”, with phantoms all around them.

I often wonder how these good guardians of our morals must fare when they are faced day by day by what to them is the worst evil of pornography, of photographs and books by classical authors which they cannot stand and which they regard as corrupting the people of South Africa. Are they not corrupted by these things? What sort of people are they? They are the people who are holding sway today over our films, our books, our theatres, our music, our art and our sculpture. The index has more than 12 000 banned books and periodicals. It is such a huge index that the Government itself is unable to keep a record of it which one can consult immediately. A private firm is today keeping that list of 12 000 up to date. The Police have 50 copies of it, but they do not get it from the Minister himself; they get it from this private person who has compiled his own list. Sales of half a million books a year and more are lost on account of this type of censorship. Thousands of books have had to be destroyed and actually burnt, in the case of paperbacks, during the past few years. It does not pay the people to send all these books back, and so they simply have to be destroyed at the demand of the Publications Board or the Police, or whoever issued the demand.

The list of authors who have been banned is today one of the most incriminating things we have against this Publications Board. I am not pleading for hardcore pornography or anything like that to be allowed into the country, but if you look at this list of names which I am now going to read out, Sir, some of them the winners of great literary awards, some of them regarded as among the greatest authors of the 20th century, then how can you comprehend the mentality of this board of narrow-minded little men who are trying to rule our minds and our souls? I refer to books by writers like James Baldwin, Brendan Behan, Simone de Beauvoir, Truman Capote, Joyce Carey, Jean Cocteau, Ralph Ellison, William Faulkner, Jean Genet, Christopher Isherwood, Norman Mailer, Mary McCarthy, Guy de Maupassant, Vladimir Nabokov, Jean-Paul Sartre, John Steinbeck, Mikhal Sholokov, John Updike, Tennessee Williams, Emile Zola. It is a shocking thing to think that books by these authors are placed on the index of these narrow-minded and “verkrampte” lot of people we have on the Publications Board under that Minister. And I am not only addressing myself to that Deputy Minister. He is only a deputy. I am also addressing myself to the hon. the Minister himself, who as a journalist, a writer, and a man of culture must have a feeling for literature and for art, which he probably does not share with his deputy, and which I trust will be applied in future to see that these restrictions are at least lessened.

I have never heard of some of those writers.

If the Minister has not read them, why cannot I read them? Has the Minister heard of Emile Zola? Has he heard of Guy de Maupassant? His education seems to be improving! If you find a book such as To Sir, With Love, being banned and the technical college of Johannesburg being refused permission to use it as a prescribed text book, while at the same time you have the film of the book in its almost uncut version going throughout the country, you begin to despair of the mentality of this Publication Board.

They control our art. We have the ridiculous situations of the paintings of Prof. Duckworth. Eight of his paintings were declared objectionable; they could not be shown to the public. There was a furore, quite rightly, from the members of the public. The Minister was taken to the Supreme Court in Natal and, I take it on the advice of his own legal advisers, at the last moment decided to withdraw the case, because he knew that he would have lost that case. But at the same time a huge amount of costs were incurred by the people who brought the case against him, and the people who brought the case against him were not leftist people. They were an association of people headed by, I think, Judge Kowie Marais himself. I have the report here of what he said about the actions of the Publications Board in this respect. He said—

This is on the Duckworth paintings—

Then Judge Marais goes on and says—

They had to be taken to court in respect of the costs and ultimately they even refuse to pay the R800-R900 which had been incurred as costs between attorney and client of the appellants. Then Judge Marais says, justifiably—

Mr. Chairman. I cannot say that the hon. member for Orange Grove entertained us today; he bored us with his uncontrolled and sharp language against persons and a body which cannot get up here and defend themselves. I am sorry that the hon. member, as it were, made personal attacks on members of a board who cannot get up here to defend themselves. Under the leadership of that hon. member and other hon. members opposite, as well as of newspapers which support them, a campaign is being conducted to present the Publications Board as being ridiculous, to run them down and in fact to make them the laughing stock of the Republic. I think this really is very ungrateful and improper, if I may not use the word “scandalous”, because the members of the Publications Board are very decent, educated, well-read and well-grounded members of the public; they are highly respected persons, persons who are well-equipped academically. Several of them are professors at some or other university. The hon. member said, inter alia: “ … must be living in a crazy world of their own. How can we comprehend the narrow-mindedness of this little board … The growing signs of dictatorship; an example of brainwashing”, etc. If it had not come from that hon. member, one could have become very cross about it. But in actual fact we know that hon. member as someone who cannot control himself; we know him as somebody who always speaks in superlatives. This board is not a narrow-minded lot of people who, out of petty-minded spite, want to prevent the public from seeing what the public wishes to see. This is the impression which those hon. members are trying to create here. What is the task of the Publications Board? The task of the Publications Board is to apply the Act, i.e. the Publications and Entertainments Act. That is their task, and not to keep in touch with the youth or with the people. I wonder if the members of the United Party are in touch with the people? It does not seem like it to me if I look at the election results! I think that party knows as little about what the people thinks as anyone could ever think of knowing.

It is only old Gideon who knows something.

In terms of the Act, the task of these people is to keep from society what is improper, offensive and indecent. Now there is something we should very much like to know. The hon. member for Orange Grove said on occasion that the Publications Board should be abolished. I have a cutting of that report with me. Is it the policy of the United Party to abolish the Publications Board? With that statement, he said by implication that any form of control should be abolished. That is how the public understood it.

Do you not believe the courts of the country?

Yes, but a charge must first be submitted to the courts of the country. That hon. member said by implication that all forms of control should be abolished. In 1962 a Select Committee of this Parliament recommended unanimously that in the opinion of that Committee legislation with regard to the prevention of the distribution or exhibition of improper, indecent or undesirable publications, films, entertainments and other objects was desirable. At that time, therefore, they supported the principle. It seems to me they now want to reject the principle of control and that they want to throw the baby out with the bath-water. If this were done, the result would be that this country would literally be flooded with abominable things, sex scenes, prostitution and violence, such as one sees abroad. It is ghastly and revolting to arrive in some cities abroad and to see what is displayed in the windows for all to see.

Why do you look at it?

One cannot help noticing it. It is revolting. Is that what those hon. members are advocating? It seems like it to me. They are of the opinion that this vociferous, noisy minority which is kicking up such a fuss against the Publications Board, constitutes a majority and that they may make some political capital by running down the Publications Board. I want to tell them that there are many people in the country, far and away the great majority of our decent people, who are extremely angry about this process of running down people who are only trying to do their duty and to carry out their work properly. There is a seaman’s proverb which runs: “He that touches pitch will be defiled.” I wonder whether the hon. member for Orange Grove often works with pitch. As far as the board’s decisions are concerned, we must accept, and it must be stated as such here, that many very good decisions are made by this Publications Board, decisions which do not come to the attention of the public and which are not publicized. There are many cases where the board’s judgment is correct and where it keeps this filthy and undesirable material out of the country. These people have the work of a health inspector, as it were. In the same way as the health inspector safeguards the physical health of the people by clearing up dirt, pigsties and chicken runs so that infectious diseases cannot breed there, a body is needed to protect the soundness of the human mind in these times. It is true that an error of judgment was perhaps committed in banning Scope. I saw the particular edition of Scope only after I had read the judge’s decision. I looked at it, and I fully agree with the judge. I think it was perhaps an error of judgment, but Langenhoven said: “Who points at one little hole in the sieve and ridicules it?” This is one error of judgment in the numerous decisions which have to be taken daily. How many mistakes does that side of this House not make? Why should one react like this now because, according to our standards, one error of judgment has been committed?

I want to deal very briefly with the question of appeal. The Act provides that when a distributor of a film is not satisfied with the decision of the board, that decision may be taken to the Minister on appeal. The procedure is quick, effective and works excellently. There is practically no complaint in the case of films. However, cases in respect of publications are heard by the Supreme Court. It is very difficult to judge, in exact legal terms, a matter which is concerned more closely with the human mind. The court must judge what is offensive, indecent or improper for public morals. The question is, for whom? The Publications Board says: We believe this control should not be for decent adults whose characters have already been formed, because they cannot degenerate any longer; we believe that we must exercise this control in respect of our large numbers of young people and adolescents who are capable of being disturbed emotionally. Recently I read that a professor had said that there were more than 200 000 potential aircraft hijackers in America. How many potential sex criminals do we not have? These are people who are stimulated by looking at this sort of half-nakedness and permissiveness and commit rape. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the member for Algoa had to discontinue his speech at a point where he was giving all of us cold shivers at the terrible things which happen when one sees a few reasonably innocent photographs in a magazine. But what was not so innocent in the speech made by the hon. member was his statement that we wanted to abolish all control in South Africa. That is the biggest arrant nonsense that hon. member has ever uttered on that subject. We have already given our reply. We said that our present Publications Board was a useless body that was not worth the money we paid it by way of salaries, etc. We say the courts should have the say in the matter and we suggest that it should not be one of those expensive processes that would serve before courts. We should have something like, for example, the income tax court under a Judge of the Supreme Court. There should be a court of that nature where persons could appear if they contravened the Act and to which they could go as in the case of someone who wants to dispute his income tax. He could then obtain a decision on his case there. This can be done, and it is practical.

Furthermore, the hon. member said it was the task of the board to apply the Act. What sort of application of the Act is it when the board itself contravenes the Act and did not even have a quorum when it had to decide on Prof. Duckworth’s paintings? What sort of compliance with the Act is it if the board loses court cases seven times in succession on the grounds of the provisions in the Act? After the first time, one can talk of stupidity; after the second time, one can talk of ignorance; and after the third time, one can talk of obstinacy. But after the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh times, it almost verges on disregard of the law of South Africa by the members of the Publications Board. They know they are going to lose, but in their obstinacy they go on committing acts of that nature.

†Speaking of art, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior whether he has come to a momentous decision yet about the sculpture group proposed for the front of the new building of the Ministry of the Interior in Pretoria. Is it going to be there or is it not going to be there? I trust we will have a reply on that.

*I am referring, of course, to the Tienie Pritchard group in front of the building of the Department of the Interior.

It is not only we on this side of the House who object to the Publications Board. I have here a cutting from Rapport in which the following appears (translation)—

Our literature in South Africa is shackled because our people dare not write what they really feel and as they really want to. But hon. members opposite are not concerned with that.

Reference was also made here to an interdepartmental committee which is going to be appointed now. I have very little confidence in that interdepartmental committee. My impression is that they are simply going to see how they can improve the administration to some extent, and how they can perhaps make censorship somewhat quicker and more effective, if that is the right word, as amongst Customs, the Post Office, the Police, the Department and the Publications Board. The Post Office is represented on it, the Post Office which recently held back a book with paintings by a famous medieval painter simply because Adam and Eve appear in it in their original garb, plus fig leaves, I must add? Customs and Excise will be represented on it, the same Customs and Excise which turned away a reproduction of Michelangelo’s figure of David at Jan Smuts Airport. These are the bodies which are going to be represented on that interdepartmental committee. What we do need is a much wider commission, more than a committee.

†We need a commission on which you will find the arts, the film producers, the writers, exhibitors, booksellers, all these people represented. Educationists should also be represented—all those people who have an interest in the publications which are presented to the people of South Africa.

Mainly commercial interests.

Let them consider this whole question. For the benefit of the hon. member for Carletonville I suggest that there should also be a psychiatrist on that commission. I firmly believe that the time has come for us to get rid of this Publications Board, at least in its present form, and to let the courts decide. Surely we can have another system of classifying films in South Africa. The British system is a good one, with A films, the universal (U) films, the AA films, and the X films. I believe the A films are for adults, and this method of classification gives parents the right to decide whether their children can go and whether they can take them along. In other words, youngsters can go there accompanied by their parents.

I suggest furthermore that the hon. the Minister should consider a method used in some other countries in which it is laid down that after a certain period of years the ban on a particular book or particular publication falls away unless it is renewed. That, incidentally, I believe is the system today in a very conservative country, namely Ireland. There are one or two other countries where they have a similar system. The idea behind this is that these decisions should be reviewed in the light of the development of the outlook and the minds of people, and of what the public thinks in a particular country, without future generations being bound by the stodgy ideas of the present generation in South Africa. I also suggest an idea which I think has some good in it, but which will need careful consideration. It was put forward by the head of the department of criminology at the University of South Africa, Prof. Strauss, who suggested that there should be adult bookshops where people can go and buy books which would, say, corrupt the mind of the hon. member for Carletonville or somebody like that. These books should be of literary value and pornography should not be sold. This suggestion is worthwhile considering in the same way as we can consider not allowing children seeing these books and authors and that films therefore have bookshops of this kind.

We have to see all this against the background of a system of censorship which I believe is unique in the Western democratic world, a system which has almost placed more books on the forbidden index than the whole of the Inquisition throughout the centuries, a system which is harming South Africa itself through the distorted image it must give to the rest of the world about things in South Africa. It is a system which, with acts of this nature, with a publications board of this nature, is creating an image before the outside world that we are banning these books and authors and that films which all the world can see, we are not allowed to see. What is happening to the image of South Africa in this respect?

Finally, what is happening to the image of the Afrikaner and to his literature in South Africa?

*I have here an excerpt from an article by the Afrikaans author, Chris Barnard, in which he says (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Orange Grove. Although I do not really think he deserves such thorough attention, I nevertheless want to react to some of the things he said here this afternoon. I want to refer to a number of other members as well. Today we have again seen the typical political phenomenon, the habit of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares.

†They have boarded the bandwagon which is at the moment running against the Publications Board, and in that process they relieve themselves of a lot of irresponsible talk, as we have heard this afternoon. I think that we as a party and as a Government are surely permissive when we allow somebody to talk such a lot of rubbish in a high-standing House such as this. I do not want to dwell any longer on the rantings and ravings of this hon. member; his sorry state of ignorance in more than one respect really baffled me.

If hon. members are acquainted with the provisions of the Act, they will all know the functions of the board. This is by way of explanation. It is no use replying to all the various matters raised here and not always raised in a responsible way. I shall just in a general way deal with the Publications Board and its problems, and put the point of view of those members of the public whom we consider to be the majority, and who demand of us to look after the norms and the morals of the country. Hon. members acquainted with the provisions of the Act will know that, with the exception of films, the board must decide on publications brought to its notice by persons who want to lay publications before it. It is not for the board to go out and look for publications; so you will find that only an infinitesimal amount of publications entering this country usually come before the board. I think that in at least 90 per cent of the cases the sale of apparently undesirable publications will occur without them ever having been seen by the board. That answers the question raised by the hon. member for Green Point. This is perhaps why the board is often charged with inconsistency. In many instances they have not seen the publication; it has not been laid before them and they could not therefore have expressed an opinion about it. It is not fair, therefore, to accuse them of being inconsistent. Sir, in view of the fact that such a lot of dust has been kicked up about the Publications Board and the Scope episode, I think that by way of clarification and in order to dispel misunderstanding, I should give a short review of the board’s record as far as South African publications are concerned. I want to give hon. members the names of the magazines which have been submitted most to the board. Scope was submitted 57 times between 1968 and 1972.

By whom?

By the public. Drum was submitted 29 times between 1969 and 1972; Personality was submitted 22 times between 1969 and 1970. It is common cause that the probabilities are that those publications which are submitted most often will be banned most often. That may not be so in all instances, but in view of their record, the likelihood is that they will be banned more often than other publications. Seeing that Scope is the most frequently quoted example, I want to examine the record of the board in this regard. Hon. members opposite try to give the impression here that the board has lost all its cases. It has not lost all it cases. There have been 57 submissions. Forty-four were passed and 13 were banned. In the case of the 13 which were banned, there were 9 appeals to the court by the publishers. Of these 9 appeals, 7 were successful and 2 were lost by the publishers. That was in 1968-’69. In the two remaining cases the board revoked its decision. In the case of Personality, there were 22 editions; 21 were passed and 1 banned. There were 8 submissions, of which 2 were banned, and there were no appeals. In the case of Drum, there were 29 editions submitted, of which 24 were passed and 5 banned. In the case of Living and Loving, 6 were submitted; 2 were banned and there were 2 appeals, of which 1 was successful; the other one was undefended. Then we come to Brandwag: 6 submitted, 2 banned. Close-up: 9 submitted, none banned. These figures do not indicate that the members of the Board are “suurknolle”. In the case of Fair Lady, 3 were submitted and none banned; Sarie Marais: 4 submitted, none banned; Jonkheers Adam: 2 submitted; both banned; no appeals; both abandoned. Popular Laughs: 2 submitted, both banned, and also all ensuing editions.

*Sir, court cases and court decisions are implicitly incorporated in this Act and if there are court cases, we must not complain if the Government loses the case from time to time. It appears from these figures that the Publications Board has not lost in all cases. Their record does not look very good, but it does not look as bad as hon. members want to give out. It is true that they have lost more cases than they have won, and in recent times they have lost more and more cases because the norms, as interpreted by the judiciary, have gradually changed. Sir, because court cases are implicitly incorporated in the Act, we shall come across them to an increasing extent, but this is not the position in this country alone. I just want to quote quickly to hon. members from the weekly magazine Scope of 5th May, which was also banned—

All these things are interconnected. Permissive tendencies towards pornography, “sexploitation” and many other things are all interconnected—

This is what has made New York a violent city. These things are all interconnected. This is the type of thing which hon. members opposite want to defend. One will never be able to draw the line if one is sliding down the slippery slope to the bottom. Sir, as far as these Scope cases are concerned, I just want to say that it is not for me to defend or attack the board’s decisions. The members of this board have more experience than any of the hon. members opposite. Of course, they can make mistakes. I have differed with them already. I said they should not have passed Jesus Christ Superstar, but by that time they had already done so. In other words, in that case I was the person who was then probably narrow-minded in my approach; in another case, again, I would perhaps have let something through and they would have banned it. It is a question of an arbitrary decision in the last instance. This applies to the Supreme Courts as well. In my opinion the decision of the Judge is also an arbitrary one in the last resort. The Scope episode in 1971 extended over three to four months, after which the court cases extended over two months. The one thing overlapped the other, as it were, but it was one single episode of four or five court cases. The one could not really be stopped when the other was already in progress. I regard it as one episode in which it was pointed out to the board that the judges did not agree with it. Subsequently, in August last year, they imposed another ban which was set aside by the court. [Time expired.]

Sir, what the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government do not seem to be able to understand is that we are not arguing the details of a specific court case. We are arguing against this closed-mind approach which wants to regulate the thinking of every South African between narrow norms laid down to please the most verkrampt, the most bigoted, the most Mother Grundy-like reader. We are told that you may not read this or that you may not read that because it could affect a simple-minded person or because it could affect an impressionable child. But, Sir, what is more simple-minded than that approach, the approach that everything must be toned down to the lowest possible thought process in case somebody might not be strong enough to resist the temptation of a naked female body in a photo? Surely we are living in the twentieth century. Things are happening in South Africa and outside which this Government does not want South Africa to know about. They want to try to draw a dark curtain round them and pretend that these things do not exist. Sir, what we object to is the fact that this Government believes that it owns the minds of the people of South Africa and that it must have the right to regulate what they think and how they think. It seeks to remove from the South African citizen the right to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong; and that is the basic difference between the approach of that side and the approach of this side. We believe that pornography, subversion and Communism must be stopped. There is machinery to stop it. But we believe that when it comes to moulding a person’s mind in regard to literature, in regard to his thinking, in regard to his living and his life as a whole, every citizen of South Africa should have the right to know and to read what people are saying and thinking throughout the world and to mould his own thinking, instead of having a Deputy Minister with a board appointed by him as mental censor of everything that the citizen is allowed to think about.

I want to come back to the Minister himself, now that the anaesthetic he injected into the debate at the start is starting to wear off. I appreciate what he was getting at. He wanted to inject a little quiet anaesthetic to calm things down before we started talking, and he thought he would spike some of our guns, but unfortunately he did not pick the right subject and the hon. member for Green Point did not have to throw away his speech. But nevertheless, the hon. the Minister tried to direct the debate along certain lines. In doing so he started off by reminding me that he and I fought our first election against one another. I am afraid the hon. the Minister’s memory is a little wrong. He said that I owed him a few half-crowns. But what he forgets—and he has never got over this naïve approach—is that he was naïve enough to think he could bluff me, and so he offered me a bet which I did not accept. I have my records of that election and I was out by two. My estimate was that the hon. the Minister would win by 712 and he won by 714, while he thought he would win by over 1 000; he won by only 700. The Minister must not accuse me of not paying bets. I have paid every bet I have ever lost. But sitting not far from him I could introduce him to a gentleman who is posted from every racecourse in South Africa for not paying bets. I could introduce him to four or five of his followers, of whom he is the leader in Durban, who owe me certain liquid refreshment over the last two elections, and some of them are prominent men of his party. When he talks about paying bets, I hope he will talk to some of his own supporters and not try to imagine bets he wished I would take but which I did not take. Sir, I was merely answering the Minister, but I made my point.

Now the hon. the Minister kindly gave us dates which we could have worked out ourselves, but nevertheless it is useful to have them all set out, regarding the general registration starting this year and which will become effective next year. In the light of the promise made that there would be a supplementary after the general registration before a general election, he established as the earliest date when a general election could take place, approximately May, the middle of next year. In other words, that would be the earliest but the point he slid over, and this I want to pin down, is whether he will give this House the assurance that before there is another general election there will be a redelimitation of seats, so as to get a more even spread of voters in constituencies and within the provinces; because at the moment there is a totally unbalanced picture, due to the shifting of population. I asked the hon. the Minister to give an unequivocal undertaking that we will have a delimitation before a general election and that if there is a likelihood of an early general election to give us an early delimitation. He is entitled to do it. Between five and ten years he can do it in, immediately the general registration is over. I want him to give the assurance to the country that as near as possible with a clean voters’ roll we will also have a clean and more balanced spread of voters before the voters of South Africa are asked to vote again. I appreciate his announcement of a Select Committee next year. We understood it was to be this year, and in the light of some of the electoral irregularities it is high time that we have another look at the Electoral Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take a more positive and stronger line when it comes to Electoral Act irregularis. One gets the impression that he is rather dragging his feet in pressing for prosecutions. Too often irregularities take place which are not followed up by prosecutions. The one way to keep elections clean is to make sure that strong action is taken when the law is broken. I do not want to go into details because I do not have time, but he knows that there have been irregularities, some of which led to persecutions and others not. We want to know that where there is something wrong it will be dealt with ruthlessly by the Government, whichever side is involved in the matter. Dealing with the general registration, the hon. Minister gave us what I am afraid was a little bit of airy-fairy stuff about the new procedures with the computerization. We are not going to need a computer unless we get enumerators first to enumerate the voters. The hon. the Minister is not going to get the enumerators he needs, the 4 500 he is looking for. I ask him to consider a radical revision of the remuneration to be paid so that he will be able to get enough of these people. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I see the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point. He made an allegation that members sitting very near to the hon. the Minister have been banned from a race course for not paying their debts. That is a reflection upon quite a number of members and I order the hon. member to withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, the main grounds on which the Publications Board based its case in the 1972 banning of Scope was racial mixing, that photograph and the effect it might have. Those were completely different grounds from the ones on which the judges’ decisions on the previous episodes were based. These are new grounds and a large number of new grounds may still come from the Act, grounds on which they may also impose prohibitions or bannings in the future. Matters therefore need not come an end as a result of this. It would be wrong of me not to say that it was a disappointment to the Government as well as the board that this decision did go against the board. The reason is that we now have the norms of the court on which we have to go, and we do not know what the end of these representations of mixing will be. We have already heard that a large measure of nudity is quite acceptable in these times in which we live. I now want to tell hon. members that if we are able to spend nearly R3 million every year on making it possible for foreign students to study in this country—of whom a considerable number, if not one-tenth of them, spend their time in harming us—we can set aside R100 000 or R200 000 also to assist, in borderline cases, these people who have a duty to perform and who have been appointed to do so, if they lose their cases. If we were to do that, it would be money well spent. The Government will not allow itself to be deterred by that; it will not allow itself to be deterred by capitulating now in the face of the streams of pornography and other things that are descending upon us and want to force us to slide down the slippery slope down which so many of the Western countries are already moving. I can assure hon. members of that. I want to tell hon. members that I personally admit that to my mind I would not have recommended the ban on following editions of Scope, but I would perhaps have had a more political approach than these persons. In fact, I say that it rather counts in their favour that they did not consider that. Neither is it a death sentence if one makes such a stipulation in terms of section 8 (1) (e) of the 1969 amendment to the Act. It only means that if that next edition appears and they submit it and prove that there is nothing wrong with it, it may immediately appear again. That is what it means. It does not mean that with one stroke of the pen they completely ban all those publications so that none of them will ever appear again. I think this is a misconception too. Then I want to say that it is not the function of the hon. the Minister or myself as Deputy Minister to order the Board from day to day what to do. These people are very busy and they have a very great task to carry out. That is why it is so ludicrous to say that all these things should go to the courts. The courts do not have the time to do this work. What is required, is an administrative body to do the work. We must lay down a broad policy for them and we have now reached the position that, as a result of the decisions, as based on these two particular grounds, and I say two grounds, but there are many other grounds as well, we shall have to take note of the decision of the courts. The Publications Board will also take note of it. We shall have to ask this question to the public of South Africa. We know who the people are who want us to act more strictly. I want to tell hon. members who these people are. They are not only Nationalists, but also United Party supporters. I am not so sure that at least half the people who today want stricter action to be taken and the board to be given greater powers are not perhaps English speaking. According to the letters we receive, this appears to be the case. Hon. members must therefore not be so sure that they are following public opinion when they try to ridicule the board. If hon. members have the communications media playing along on their side, they must not be so sure that the people of South Africa are also on their side. I am now referring to people of various political views. That is all I want to say about this. We shall continue along the road we have taken. Perhaps we should take a more careful look at some of these issues in view of the fact that it is 1972 now, and that the people who are trying to bring the wrong things into the country today are more cunning, that they work in a more subtle way. We also take into consideration that norms have indeed changed and that we shall have to look closely to see what the borderline is between what is desirable and what is not. We want to be fair to all, but I can assure the House that the requests we receive in their hundreds and in their thousands do not reflect what that side of the House wants to suggest.

In the final instance I just want to mention the terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee which the Government decided to appoint last year to investigate this Act, which is ten years old and which has, in the past three years, come under increasing pressure from these changed and far stronger and more fiery attacks on the morals of our people, of our youth, and on all aspects of their lives, also as far as drugs are concerned, also as far as their revolt against authority is concerned …

Pop music?

Not only in that respect, but in many other respects as well. The hon. member need not try to be facetious now. Pop music can also be good in a few respects. This committee was appointed because we were experiencing problems, problems which will inevitably be experienced over a period of ten years with an Act of this kind, particularly as the pressure on our morals is becoming greater and greater today. I have already announced which departments will be represented on this committee. The terms of reference of the committee will be to inquire into and to report and make recommendations on (a) the composition of the Publications Control Board and the aspects in which members of the said board should be grounded; (b) the possible extension of the prohibition on the production and distribution of undesirable publications and objects as laid down in section 5 of the Publications Act; (c) the introduction of the audi alterem partem rule in the consideration of publications and objects by the board. Now hon. members on that side of the House may see that we, too, are verlig, as they would have put it. If it is possible and practicable for us to do so, we want to furnish reasons to people. We think of all those things. We do not think of one side only. We think of everything.

Do you admit that you were wrong?

By no means. Parliament took this decision in 1963. In addition, the terms of reference of the committee are to inquire into and to report and make recommendations on (d) the appearance or not in publications published periodically of undesirable material as defined in section 5 of the Act, and what steps, if any, can be taken to combat it; (e) the possible extension of the prohibition on the exhibition of films or parts of films not approved by the board as laid down in section 9 of the Act and the introduction of a prohibition on the distribution of films not approved of by the board; (f) the form of appeal against decisions of the board in respect of publications and objects submitted to the board or public entertainments against which appeals are lodged; (g) the registration of films and any other matter entrusted to the committee in connection with the application of the Act. These terms of reference deal not only with the changed norms, but also with the more effective functioning, as I put it to the House, of this board and the overhauling of the Act in all respects so that it will not only be adjusted to the so-called norms, but, in particular, also against the cunning methods used by people trying to assail the way of life of South Africa in its very roots. I just want to tell the House that the committee has already started its work. Reports, problems and suggestions may be sent to the committee. The committee will complete its report before the end of the year. If the Government deems an adjustment of the legislation necessary, amending legislation will, if circumstances and time permit it, be introduced during the next session of Parliament.

Will the hon. the Minister receive representations from the general public in regard to this matter?

The committee will. It has already started its work. If I still have time left, I should like to reply to the question about the Government Printing Works put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He spoke about publications which were returned and which were allegedly incorrect. However, he only mentioned one single case. I may tell him that the Government Printing Works is the most efficient printing works in South Africa in all respects. Research is conducted regularly. It is the duty of any department, including the department which returned its work, to check its text itself in order to make sure that it is correct and not to lay the blame on the Government Printing Works. I shall reply to the hon. member in detail in regard to his complaint about the availability of regulations and of consolidated Acts, etc. I have the details with me. The Government Printer is not here. He is in Germany at the moment to do further research there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is being a little optimistic if he thinks that his committee is going to finish its work within one year. I can remember a previous commission which sat on much the same sort of subject and which took about 13 years to report. By the end of that time I think only two of the original members were extant. I can only hope that the departmental people will in fact survive this commission. I am glad to hear that they are going to receive memos because this is obviously necessary. It is not only the members of seven different departments that should consider what are the norms for South Africa. These differ very widely indeed between people of different ideas and different philosophies. For instance, the norm of the hon. member for Sunnyside, who sits next to me, is very different from my norm. I am therefore glad that this committee is going to receive memos and I hope that it will get them from educationists, sociologists, psychologists and people of all walks of life in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister was protecting the board when he said that it had in fact won many cases that had gone to the Appeal Court. I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the definitions in the 1963 Act are very wide indeed and that it would be most surprising if the board did not in fact win some of its appeals. I also want to remind him that unlike the United States we do not have a constitution with the same sort of bill of rights which protects individuals against any infringement of those rights, although I believe that to be the correct thing. In South Africa it so happens that we do not have that, which means of course that here we could always prosecute for pornography and obscene literature. The Police could always take action and there would be no bill of rights to appeal to in that regard.

I do not want to reiterate what has already been said in this House about the ridicule attaching to this expensive piece of state machinery, the Publications Board. I believe that they have made a fool of South Africa over and over again and at vast cost to the taxpayer. One little item alone, referred to by the hon. member for Orange Grove—Prof. Duckworth’s appeal —cost the taxpayer just on R13 000. I would say that the ordinary running costs of maintaining this board is a very expensive item indeed. The Gazette of the 6th April, 1971, revealed that there are new scales of remuneration which were going to be paid to members of the board. The chairman now gets R10 200 per annum; the vice-chairman R8 100; and each member R6 900 per annum. I believe that the majority of adult South Africans do not need and do not want these expensive nannies. They will be very happy to dispense with them altogether, just as practically every other country in the Western world has managed to survive without the taxpayers being responsible for this band of very expensive nannies.

I want to say that the handling by the customs of various books is also pretty absurd. We have classics with suspicious titles that are embargoed and then released by the board. We’ve got books by well-known South African authors such as Nadine Gordimer. Gordimer’s book Guest of Honour won a prize overseas but suffers this humiliating fate in our own country. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what has now happened to Mary Renault’s book The Charioteers, which was first published 19 years ago and has now been embargoed. I want to make a final plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to do something either with the board or his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, about the absurd and hurtful classification for film purposes of adult Africans with under 12 years of age children of all other races. I have raised this in previous years, but nothing seems to have been done about it. We have about 5 000 Black graduates in this country and about 20 000 Black matriculants. We have a sophisticated Black urban population, just for starters. I say that, whether educated and sophisticated or not, it is an insult to adult Black men and women to classify them for the purpose of viewing films with children under the age of 12 of all other races. It is high time that we changed our policy in this regard. It is all too reminiscent of the common insulting South African custom of referring to adult African men and women as boys and girls irrespective of their age group.

I now want to come to the hon. the Minister. I was very sorry indeed not to be here when he started his speech. My flight from Johannesburg was delayed by one hour and I arrived unfortunately just after he finished his speech. I have purposely waited until I could get a copy of his speech before I spoke in this House. I see he made a few references to questions which I and other members in this House have put. Of course he could not resist a few side-swipes at me about one or two questions and the publicity they have or have not received. I am not responsible for the publicity my questions get; it is his answers that warrant the publicity, because most of them are so absurd.

Why, will he tell me, does his department not keep statistics about the number of passports which have been withdrawn or are these secrets kept only by the Special Branch who obviously instruct the Minister’s department whose passport should be withdrawn? He tells us that in 1970 20 exit permits were given and that this decreased to 12 in 1971. He draws the astonishing conclusion that this indicates that fewer people are leaving South Africa to settle permanently abroad. But does he not know that thousands of people leave South Africa on passports and that persons do not all demand exit permits in order to leave South Africa permanently. The Minister also mentioned the case of young Douglas-Home who was deported from South Africa. I want to say again that I believe this was the silliest thing to do, because it gave this young man a sense of importance which he certainly did not warrant; it returned him home to the United Kingdom in a blaze of publicity as public hero No. 1 among his own peers. In answer to a question I asked, the Minister told me that only 83 requests have been refused to visit South Africa or South-West Africa. Was he including Ovamboland in this, and does he mean to imply that there is a very liberal policy now operating in connection with the granting of permits to visit Ovamboland? I would like to take him up on that because I would like to apply for a permit myself and I am rather hoping that his leniency will then still apply. He also told us that there had only been four applications for exit permits, that all these were granted and that this was the policy being followed by the Government, namely to grant all applications for exit permits. Of course there has been a legal case on whether the hon. the Minister’s department can in fact come into conflict with the department of the hon. the Minister of Justice. I think it is the height of cynicism for this hon. Minister to come here today and say that this is the policy being followed by the Government, namely that all exit permits requested are being granted, when he knows perfectly well that some people, two anyway that I know of, namely Sobukwe and Shanti Naidoo, have been completely thwarted in their efforts to leave South Africa despite the granting of exit permits by the hon. the Minister of Justice, who simply refuses them permission to leave the magisterial districts to which they are restricted. I consider that an extremely cynical reply.

Finally I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the wholesale confiscation of or refusing of passports to students past and present, associated in any executive capacity with NUSAS. Apparently the hon. the Minister, like me, does not have too much faith in the Select Committee that is presently sitting on the activities of NUSAS. I would have thought he might at least have waited for that committee to report before depriving every single executive member of NUSAS of his passport, either by withdrawing it or refusing an application for one. There is no point in the hon. the Minister telling me that there is no association between Nusas and the refusal of the application of these particular individuals, that refusal is always on individual grounds. I do not believe that you can divorce individuals who are acting in an executive capacity from the organizations which they are serving. I want to say that I believe that this sort of action is simply gross intimidation. I want also to tell this House that it is not going to work; that the Government fails to appreciate that there is a very real spirit of determination on the campuses of South Africa, both White and Black. Our young men and women at the universities have a sense of values, of Western democracy and of liberalism which is very different indeed from that of the Government—for which, I must say, thank Heaven! Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister did, unlike his predecessor, take the unusual step of giving us five or six reasons, I think, last year, which motivated him when he refused or withdrew passports. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow up on the hon. member who has just sat down and whom the hon. the Minister did not mention as belonging to a party.

Sir, I was dealing with the Natal Parks Board, that exclusive English colony in an English province, when my time expired.

Are you also an Englishman-hater?

Actually my starting point is the speech of the hon. member for Kensington. He saw fit to refer to certain quarters and officials in the Public Service, well aware of the fact that that particular official to whom he referred had already been discharged, but without his guilt having been proved. He is the man who comes along here and plays the grand fellow and says that the Public Service has regulations which prevent people from working for their own profit. But, Sir, I return to the Parks Board in the time when the hon. member for South Coast was in power. That Parks Board did not hesitate, for example, to allow people to shoot game in the game reserve and to take it to the mayor of Durban. Nor did they hesitate to send an official overseas, to give him £2 000 in cash and to say: “Here, you can go and spend this without coming to report back,” which did in fact happen. This hon. member for Kensington was well aware of all the sins which had been committed in that board, but he did not refer to them. Then he comes along and insinuates that we on this side of the House, that the Government and the Public Service in particular, allow people in their ranks to fill their pockets without steps being taken against them. I think this is reprehensible, and I think he owes an apology to the public servants against whom he made this accusation. Actually I would have raised the strongest objections if such an accusation had been made against me if I had been a public servant.

Can you prove any of your allegations?

Those allegations of the hon. member for Kensington have not even been proved yet, and the official has already been discharged. The hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Kensington and his newspaper all know this, but he still comes along and alleges that we allow irregularities to take place in the Public Service without taking action. But he does not look back on that Parks Board, which carried on with public funds as it liked. They do not want to appoint a commission of inquiry now. I want to congratulate the Natal Mercury on this occasion for having exposed this matter. If the hon. the Leader of the United Party in Natal is a man, he must now order a public commission of inquiry through which the public can be informed of the things that are going on there, and not come forward with this game of cards which they are playing now.