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.