I move—

This Bill deals with attorneys, notaries and conveyancers and, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say in order to give the background that the attorneys are in fact—and I am saying this in the first place not to the attorneys in this House, but particularly to hon. members who are laymen in that field—the backbone of our legal system in South Africa. I think this is a matter which hon. members on both sides of the House who belong to other professions should take fully into account, namely the fact that I, as Minister of Justice, am very concerned about the position that too many other people who are not qualified to do so, who have not been trained, are starting to encroach upon the field of the attorneys. I am not saying this because I want to butter up the attorneys, but I am saying this because I am concerned about the matter, because it is and remains a fact that if the attorneys, particularly on the platteland, should, as a result, find it increasingly difficult to exist and are forced out to an ever-increasing extent, our legal profession will suffer damage which it will be very difficult to restore. Although this Bill does not deal primarily with that matter, I feel it my duty to prepare the ground so that if one day—I do not say it will be to-morrow or the day after—a modus operandi can be found which represents a sound, reasonable and fair method of doing justice to the attorneys, and whereby their field will be less accessible to other people who should not be in it, I trust that if such a method can be found and I submit it to this House, I shall have the wholehearted support of hon. members who are not attorneys.

In the second place, I want to say, and I feel the need to say this, that when international law conferences have been held in the past—there was one recently in Canada—it has unfortunately happened that a certain advocate who is no longer in this country but who has left for another country, has gone out of his way to cast aspersions on South Africa’s legal system and to make statements which in the first place are untrue and which are not worthy of South Africa. I found it particularly pleasant to see that on that occasion an attorney—and I do not want to mention his name—who was not a member of the National Party or a supporter of the Government, but who is a very active supporter of the United Party, on that occasion put South Africa’s case correctly as far as her legal system is concerned. [Interjections.] I want to express my appreciation to him for the attitude he adopted.

To come back to this Bill which I am introducing this morning, I want to say at once that not only is the Bill being introduced at the request of the various law societies, but alter it had been drawn up in the form now before hon. members, I submitted it, in accordance with the promise I had made, to the persons nominated by the profession to study the matter, and that they personally handed it back to me and stated that they were very grateful for this Bill and that they supported it in every respect.

With the passing of time certain weaknesses in the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act of 1934 and the Attorneys Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Act of 1941 have come to light. Every attorney is aware of these weaknesses. As a result of these weaknesses, the cession of the articles of articled clerks is made unnecessarily difficult; secondly, the training and interests of articled clerks are harmed in certain cases, and, thirdly, the control over the trust accounts of attorneys is handicapped. Seeing that I have referred to the trust accounts of attorneys, I want to say once again with reference to this profession that not only is it one of our best controlled professions, but this is a profession which has set an example. There are black sheep in every profession, and in the attorneys’ profession as well, but here we have a profession which of its own accord has accepted responsibility for its black sheep. It has not only accepted moral responsibility, but has in fact been prepared to put its hand very deep into its own pocket in order to accept financial responsibility for its black sheep. I think there are few professions which have gone so far in order to take responsibility for the black sheep in its profession on its own shoulders, and I think we should be very grateful for this fact. Secondly, it has been found that the finalization of claims on the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund of 1941 is being delayed and other problems are being created as a result. The Association of Law Societies and the Board of Control of the Fidelity Fund regard the removal of these weaknesses as an urgent necessity, and that is in fact the object of this Bill. The proposed amendments of the 1934 Act relate in the first place to articled clerks and their articles. The intention is that the law society concerned, instead of the court, will in future be able to order the cession of articles in the case of, for example, the death, insolvency, removal from the roll, etc., of the attorney to whom the clerk is articled. I am referring to Clause 2 (c). Provision is also made in Clause 1 for the execution of the contract if it should be ceded. Hon. members know that if an attorney dies the cession of articles to another person cannot be effected except by application to the court. I agree completely with the law societies that they are fully qualified to effect those cessions themselves. In the first place this will facilitate the procedure and will eliminate unnecessary consequent expenditure. Section 20 of the 1934 Act envisages that the articled clerk who should be and should remain under contract in the office and under the direct and personal supervision of the attorney to whom he is articled, or his partner or manager, throughout his whole period of service. It appears however that the provision is so worded that it can easily be circumvented in practice, and the law societies inform me that it has in fact been circumvented in certain cases. It has been found that the clerk receives his training elsewhere than in his principal’s office where he is supposed to be under the direct supervision of his principal, and that this clerk in the other office is only visited occasionally by his principal. It is obvious that such a clerk’s training will be seriously hampered in such a case. In Clause 2 (a) we are now trying to make it quite clear that the clerk must receive his training in the same office as that of his principal.

At the request of the Association of Law Societies, the maximum monthly salary which must be paid under Section 20 (a) of the Act to an articled clerk is being increased from R30 to R50. This provision is contained in Clause 2 (b). I want to say to the credit of the attorneys that there are very few of them, if any, who pay the minimum salary, but the attorneys themselves felt that with a view to circumstances, the time had come for the minimum salary to be increased, and I think we all agree.

The cost of living allowance is also being included.

That is so. As the Act now stands, compulsory military training is not regarded as service under articles. Seeing that such training to-day can last nine months, the law societies feel that articled clerks should be given some relief, and in Clause 2 (d) the necessary provision is made, subject to a maximum of three months. Hon. members also know that before regulations can be issued under Section 30 of the Act, the Minister must consult the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the various law societies, the universities in South Africa which have legal facilities, and the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law. This Board and the universities are not really concerned with regulations issued in terms of paragraphs (a), (d), (e) and (g) of the section, seeing that these paragraphs relate in the main to matters in which they have no direct interest. Clause 3 therefore provides that consultation with the universities and the Board will not be obligatory in such cases, but will only be obligatory in respect of the remaining provisions. I think hon. members will also agree with me in this regard.

In terms of Section 33 (2) of the Act each law society is authorized to examine the books of accounts of any attorney, notary and conveyancer within its area in order to satisfy itself itself that the provisions of sub-section (1) relating to the trust account of such an attorney are being complied with. It appears however that the expression “books of account” does not include any record or document relating to any estate of a deceased person or any insolvent estate or any estate placed under curatorship in respect of which any attorney, notary or conveyancer is the executor, trustee or curator or which any attorney, notary or conveyancer is administering on behalf of the executor, trustee or curator of such estate. The amendment envisaged in Clause 6 (a) will enable the law societies also to investigate such records and documents and consequently to exercise better control over trust accounts.

Clause 6 (c) has been included in the Bill at the request of the Association of Law Societies and with the consent of the four large commercial banks. This provision will empower the law society concerned to establish whether an attorney is misappropriating trust moneys which have been entrusted to him, and is essential if we are to combat the manipulation of trust accounts. On this occasion I want to express my thanks. The legal profession has made this request to the banks for a long time past. The banks’ attitude originally was that they were not prepared to make this concession to the lawyers because it affected the affairs of their clients which they did not want to reveal to a third party. I did not agree with that attitude, and I intervened in the matter by negotiating with the banks. I am very glad that the banks have conceded us this principle because it in fact has nothing to do with the affairs of the client as it relates to the trust account of the attorney which is in fact a matter affecting him and the law society without the client being affected in any way. His account is not affected, his name does not appear, and the client is not concerned in any way, but only the attorney and the law society concerned. I want to express my thanks to the banks which have conceded this principal to the lawyers.

The Board of Control of the Fidelity Fund established under the 1941 Act, finds that persons with claims on the fund neglect to submit the necessary proof which the Board requires within the prescribed period with the result—and all hon. members who are attorneys and who are interested in the fund know this—that considerable delays are experienced in the finalization of claims. In Clause 7 we are now providing that such proof must be provided within six months or such longer period as the Board may allow. For the rest the clause is of course a repetition of the existing provision. I do not think it is unreasonable that this period of six months should be laid down and if in a particular case there should be an injustice to any person as a result of the circumstances, the Board under this clause has the right to grant relief to such person. It does of course happen that the Board of Control rejects claims which must now be submitted within six months after receipt of notice, and when the Board of Control rejects a claim, an action based on that claim can apparently, according to legal opinion, be instituted against the Fidelity Fund at any time within 30 years. I think hon. members will all agree with me that it is quite unreasonable that a person should have such a long period of grace before he must submit his claim. Seeing that such a long period is regarded as unreasonable, this Bill now embodies an amendment aimed at limiting the period to one year after the rejection of the claim, i.e. after the law society has notified the person concerned that it is not prepared to meet his claim. It is quite reasonable that we are making provision here that such a claim must be instituted in a Supreme Court within one year of such rejection if the person concerned so wishes.

The Board of Control which has been in existence since 1 January 1942, is finding it difficult to provide the necessary space for its documents, etc., which increase by the year. There is no legal provision for the destruction or storing of such documents, and it is desirable that provision should be made in this regard. Hon. members will find such a provision, which is a reasonable provision, in Clause 9 of this Bill.

I believe that this Bill will enjoy the support of all attorneys. Nor do I have any doubt that it will have the approval of all laymen and that this House will not only be rendering the attorneys a service by adopting this measure, but that we shall be rendering our legal system as a whole a service by giving this measure our unanimous support.

After 14 years in this House I now find myself in the unique position of being able to thank the Minister and the Government for something, and I hope it will not be the last time. Of course, the reason why I am able to thank him is obvious, and that is that I think for the first time we have as Minister of Justice a man who also practised as an attorney. He is a practical man and he appreciates the difficulties which attorneys have to face.

The Minister in his opening remarks mentioned the difficulties that the profession was facing through the intrusion into this field by financial institutions and other people, and he specially stressed the shortage of attorneys in the country districts. He warned this House and the public that it was a matter of great concern and should be a matter of great concern to this Parliament and the public generally that attorneys in the country districts find it more difficult to make a living, and in fact you find that in many towns and villages in the country there are no attorneys at all. That is unsound and I hope that next year or sometime in the future the Minister will be able to introduce some measure which will afford protection to the attorneys in the country districts.

Sir, all professions have their associations to control their own affairs. The medical profession has its Medical Council; the surveyors and architects, etc., have their councils, but the legal profession is more strictly controlled than any other profession. That is partly because we are officers of the court and the powers and the duties of our association are laid down by this Parliament. The Judges of the Supreme Court at all times have their eyes on the affairs of the association, and if any member of the association is guilty of any transgression the association has no hesitation in taking him before the Supreme Court.

It is said that the mistakes of the medical profession are buried with their patients. Unfortunately the mistakes of the lawyers are always brought to light.

Some of them are buried.

Sir, it is human to make mistakes; any man can make a mistake, and as the mistakes of lawyers have an effect on their clients, the societies go out of their way to protect clients by seeing that lawyers are as well trained as possible. At all times they take the necessary steps to see that articled clerks do in fact receive proper training; and having trained the lawyer, the societies go further and although they cannot protect the client from mistakes which the attorney may make, they certainly protect the public against dishonesty on the part of the attorney. This Bill before us deals with these two subjects, the training of lawyers and the protection of the clients’ moneys which are entrusted to them for safekeeping. Sir, a client to-day knows that if an attorney should transgress and is dishonest and misappropriates moneys, the client will always be protected. This Parliament, at the request of the lawyers, passed a Bill many years ago which provided for the setting up of a Trust Fund to which the attorneys themselves contribute to protect clients against thefts by fellow-members. If a client goes to an attorney to-day and gives his money to him for investment or for safekeeping, he knows that his money will be quite safe should the attorney misappropriate his trust funds in any way. I say it is a good thing for the public to know that they are protected, especially to-day when you find so many mushroom investment companies springing up. We have seen laymen lose their money through investing it in businesses which are not sound. To-day the client knows that if his money is taken to an attorney for investment his money will not be appropriated by that attorney.

But it is sometimes misappropriated.

Well, if it is misappropriated he knows that he will be protected. From no other society does a client get the protection he gets when he invests his money with an attorney or hands it to him for safe-keeping.

The Minister has dealt with the different clauses of the Bill; he has told the House the purpose of the clauses. The first two clauses, as he has said, deal with the better training of articled clerks and are designed to ensure that articled clerks will receive proper training. The Minister then went on to deal with the provisions affecting the Trust Fund. One of the difficulties that the society has had to face in the past is that although it can order an inspection of an attorney’s ordinary books of account by an auditor if it suspects that there may be something wrong, it cannot inspect the separate books which an attorney may be keeping as an executor or a trustee in an insolvent estate. The societies themselves have now asked for this right, and this will give further protection to clients who may appoint an attorney as executor or trustee. The Minister has also mentioned that in future, if this Bill is passed, there will be a period of prescription within which time clients will have to submit their claims to the Fidelity Fund, and that is only right. Members of the House who are not attorneys may say, “How does it happen then that the Fidelity Board turns down a claim if, as you say, anybody who gives money to an attorney for investment, is protected by the Fund?” Well, the position is simply that you often find that people may lend attorneys money personally as an ordinary borrower, and the attorney then gets into trouble; he goes insolvent and these people who have lent him money as an ordinary borrower and who are really just ordinary creditors, then try to get payment from the Fidelity Fund and attempt to prove that they in fact did not lend the money to the attorney himself but that they gave the money to him to invest for them. That frequently happens. It often happens to that when an attorney goes insolvent you will find that relatives will come along with claims for money which they say they gave to the attorney to invest. Wives and parents and others come along with big claims to the Board and say, “We gave this money to the attorney to invest,” when in fact they only lent the money to the attorney personally. When the Board does in fact reject claims of that nature, claims which it feels are not justified on the ground that the money was not given to the attorney to held in trust for them or to invest for them, the client still has recourse to the courts of law; he can sue the Board. The societies have been in this difficult position that in the past there has been no period of prescription, and after the Board has turned down a claim, it is found that nothing more is done until a number of years afterwards and then another claim is put in, and the Board is then placed in this difficulty that it is difficult to get hold of the necessary records and evidence to justify its action. I submit that a prescription period of one year is certainly not too short. Once the claim is turned down, the client knows that he can take action, and he should be compelled to take action at once, because the Board would find itself in a difficult position if it is compelled to defend cases after the lapse of many years.

This Bill is welcomed by the law societies. The different provincial societies, through the Union Society, made representations to the Department for amendments to the Act. They wanted certain further amendments but the Department through the Minister has rightly pointed out that some of the matters that they want dealt with, will have to be the subject of private Bills, which may be introduced next year or at some time in the future to bring about further amendments to the laws affecting attorneys. I want to say that the societies are greatly appreciative of the way in which the Minister has treated them. I would also point out that the drafting of this Bill which is now before the House is an improvement on the suggestions actually made by the societies themselves, and I hope that the House will give this measure its blessing.

I shall not keep the House long in view of the fact that this is more or less an agreed measure. I do want to say that members of the legal profession will be greatly indebted to the hon. the Minister for the assistance which he is going to give to the profession.

There is one question, however, that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with Clause 6 (a). I know that I can deal with this in the Committee Stage, but I want at this early stage to ask whether the word “administering” in line 12 in sub-section (2)bis means by a power of attorney or in the ordinary course of the attorney’s profession. I want to give the Minister an example and I think the Minister ought to take cognizance of this. The example I want to give is that of an attorney who administers an estate under a power of attorney. The executor never worries about the administration of the estate. For ten years the attorney receives the money in that estate; the executor takes no notice of the estate; he merely draws money from the estate every now and again …

It refers to both—both under a power of attorney and in the ordinary course of his profession.

I felt that I should raise this matter at this stage for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. There should also be a duty on the executor to furnish every year, under his or her own signature, an account …

I see your point. I will bring it to the notice of the law societies.

In this particular case to which I referred the executrix did not care at all, and it was only discovered after ten years that the money was being stolen. I think this a matter which the Minister should go into, but for the rest I do not want to add anything to what has already been said by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes).

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The taking of evidence in the Republic upon commission or interrogatories on behalf of parties or courts in foreign countries and the obligation of persons in the Republic to attend such proceedings as witnesses, are regulated by a variety of British laws, some of which date back to the time of William IV of England. The application of these laws in the Republic is based on the fact that the then Union of South Africa (now the Republic of South Africa) was regarded as a British colony, possession or dominion for the purposes of those laws. This position still continues as a result of Section 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which provides for the continuation of those laws in the Republic.

Certain provisions regarding evidence are contained in Section 15 of the British Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which also regulates the extradition of fugitive offenders as between British possessions and which will also remain of force and effect in South Africa until the commencement of our own Extradition Act, which hon. members have already had an opportunity to discuss and which was adopted with the support of both sides of the House. In terms of the British Act the Republic and the High Commission territories together with the territory which to-day constitutes the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland are grouped for the purposes of extradition. The above-mentioned Section 15 makes it possible at present for a person who is required to give evidence in criminal proceedings, in any of the grouped territories, to be summoned and therefore to be obliged to appear, even if he is not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of that court. Thus a person who lives in Rhodesia or Swaziland for example can be summoned to come and give evidence in any criminal proceedings in the Republic of South Africa and conversely any of our citizens of course be summoned to go and give evidence in those areas. Hon. members will realize at once that this is not only a reasonable provision but that it is a useful provision. To give just one example: Think of the tremendous motor traffic which there is between Rhodesia on the one hand, or even the Protectorates on the one hand, and the Republic of South Africa on the other hand. A motor-car, as we know, has a habit of getting into accidents without its driver wishing it. Hon. members will therefore appreciate how essential it is that there should be reciprocal arrangements in this regard.

Between the years 1886 and 1906 the legislative authority over the various colonies which to-day constitute the Republic also passed laws which inter alia made it possible for persons resident in the colonies to be obliged to attend courts outside the colonies concerned if summoned to give evidence before such courts, not only in criminal cases but also in civil cases. These laws were only put into effect in respect of areas where similar legal provisions existed which ensured reciprocity in cases where a person from such a territory had in turn to come and give evidence in the courts of one of the other colonies. These various laws are still applicable to-day and facilitate their reciprocal summoning of witnesses for example between the Republic and Southern Rhodesia. With a view to the traffic between the Republic and the neighbouring territories the continuation of such provisions is also most desirable in the interests of the administration of justice. I may point out in passing that years ago laws were already passed providing for reciprocity in this regard which were applicable to South Africa and the neighbouring territories. In the case of the Cape for example there is the “Neighbouring States and Colonies Witnesses Compulsory Attendance Act, 1886”. This Act is still applicable as regards Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland and Basutoland. There was a further amendment of that Act in 1899. In the case of the Transvaal, there was the “Neighbouring Colonies Evidence Ordinance, 1906”, which was valid in respect of Bechuanaland, Basutoland; Swaziland and Southern Rhodesia. In the case of the Free State, there was “Chapter VII of the Law Book” which was valid in respect of Basutoland and Southern Rhodesia and there was also the “Neighbouring Colonies Witnesses Interrogatories Ordinance” of 1905. In the case of Natal, there was the “Neighbouring Colonies and States Witnesses Interrogatories Act. 1899”, which was valid in respect of Southern Rhodesia and Swaziland. And in the case of South West Africa, there was the “Fugitive Offenders and Neighbouring Territories Evidence Proclamation” of 1920, which was valid in respect of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Nyasaland, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and Swaziland.

In so far as this measure wishes to retain the existing arrangements relating to witnesses in criminal proceedings between the Republic and the neighbouring territories over which the United Kingdom still has jurisdiction, it supplements the Extradition Act, as I told hon. members when we discussed the Extradition Bill. Seeing that the relations between the Republic and those territories underwent a change on 31 May 1962, it is undesirable that these matters should in future still be regulated by Section 15 of the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881. It is however most desirable that similar provisions should be embodied in legislation so that the existing regulations can be continued uninterrupted.

Furthermore, this measure envisages the consolidation of all the provisions contained in the many laws of the United Kingdom and the four former South African colonies and the prescribing of a uniform procedure which must be followed by the courts throughout the Republic in cases of this nature. As far as this Bill is concerned, the existing principles are not departed from in any respect. Services which the courts in the Republic at present render on behalf of courts in foreign countries, will still be rendered without change.

One provision which perhaps deserves special mention is that a positive restriction in now placed on the taking of evidence on behalf of a foreign State or court if it appears that the evidence relates to criminal proceedings of a political nature or that the witness who is to be examined is in fact an accused in those proceedings. This was also my reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) when we last argued this matter in respect of the General Law Amendment Bill; namely that a certain provision in that Bill was necessary because the reciprocal arrangements require that evidence should not be taken in respect of proceedings which have a political nature. As regards the first aspect, namely that of evidence in respect of proceedings of a political nature, it is in accord with the general principle that states—and this is also embodied in the Extradition Act—should not extradite fugitives for offences of a political nature. If the principle which is also embodied in our extradition legislation is to be upheld, it is equally necessary that we should prevent the judicial machinery of the Republic being put into operation in order to obtain evidence for use in a trial in respect of which the accused himself cannot be extradited. I need surely not explain the second point, namely that evidence cannot be taken from a person who is apparently the accused in the proceedings concerned. Under our law an accused person cannot be obliged to give evidence. It is his prerogative to decide at all times whether he wishes to remain silent or whether he wishes to give evidence. No one can force him to give evidence. Because that is our legal principle, we do not want to make our courts party to such a procedure on behalf of another court or country where that principle does not apply. There are legal systems—and this is why I am mentioning it specifically—under which it is possible to try, to condemn and to sentence an accused in his absence. Such a system is foreign to our law, and for that reason we cannot make the machinery of our courts available to such other legal systems.

Clause 1 of the Bill contains the usual definitions. Clause 2 makes it possible for a division of the Supreme Court or a Judge to order the taking of evidence from a person in the area of jurisdiction of that court, if the evidence is required in civil or criminal proceedings in any court outside the Republic, subject to the proviso that evidence shall not be taken from an accused in such proceedings nor if it relates to criminal proceedings or a political nature.

In terms of Clause 3 a magistrate in the Republic can at the request of an officer performing similar functions in certain other specified territories take the evidence of a person within his jurisdiction if that evidence is required in connection with civil proceedings in the area of jurisdiction of the officer making the request. Here I can perhaps mention that the areas which we provisionally have in mind are the neighbouring territories, namely the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the High Commission territories. This is because similar arrangements to a greater or lesser degree exist under the present legislation. Clause 4 authorizes the magistrate or the person authorized to take the evidence on behalf of the the foreign court to summon witnesses to attend the proceedings as witnesses. Without such a provision persons could not be compelled to give evidence because the court would have no jurisdiction. Summoning will take place in the same way as when a witness is summoned by our own courts. The clause further provides that the proceedings will not be continued if it appears that the witness is in actual fact not a witness in the proceedings, but an accused, or that evidence is required in criminal proceedings which are mainly of a political nature. The clause also prescribes how the evidence should be returned and what details should accompany it. In other words, this is a purely administrative measure.

Clause 5 provides that a person who has been thus summoned will have the same rights and privileges as those to which a witness is normally entitled in the courts of the Republic. Clause 6 deals with the offences which a witness can commit in proceedings of this nature. These are in line with the offences which may normally be committed by a witness in our own courts when he is summoned and gives evidence. Under Clause 7 a person resident in the Republic can be summoned to appear as a witness in a court of a specified area. Provisionally these areas are the same as those I have already mentioned and this provision will replace the provisions of Section 15 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, in so far as criminal proceedings are concerned. This provision however also applies to civil proceedings. I just want to refer hon. members once again to the essential point in so far as motor accidents are concerned. Summoning is effected by the magistrate of the area in which the witness resides or is to be found endorsing the processed document concerned. A witness however cannot merely be summoned, but adequate funds must be advanced to him for travelling and subsistence expenses. In the Other Place I was asked in this regard whether the country which summons such a witness should not ensure that he is given a passport so that he can go to that country. A passport however does not come into the picture because such a person is going to the country concerned on the order of the court. I have gone into the matter and have found that such a court order has priority over the passport regulations of such a country. Furthermore he cannot be refused a permit to leave the country again after he has given evidence because he is leaving on the order of the court. When such a person is confronted with an order of court, no official can forbid such a person from going. I assume however that such a person in the ordinary course of affairs will ensure for his own protection that he has the necessary passport facilities. This is however not a point which we can deal with here. It is not at issue. The failure to comply with the summons is an offence and he can be punished locally for his failure after the submission of certain documentary evidence referred to in sub-section (5).

Clause 8 exempts a witness who comes from elsewhere to give evidence in the Republic from arrest, whether civil or criminal, for an offence committed or debts incurred prior to his appearance before the court as a witness. I can, in other words, not “steal” a witness for another purpose if he has been summoned to come and give evidence in a case. Just as applies to extradition, the principle here is that if I bring such a person to this country in order to give evidence in the case of, for example, the State versus A, I must, before I can institute other proceedings against him, first return him to whence he came. Then I must try afresh to bring him here for the other purposes for which he may be required.

I do not think the clause goes so far.

That is the underlying principle and the object.

Does that apply to civil proceedings as well?

Yes. Whatever the reason may be for his coming here, he must only come for that purpose and for no other. Clause 9 exempts certain processes which have been sent under this measure from a foreign state or territory for service, from court fees (stamp duties) unless the Minister otherwise directs. This is based on the existing practice. However, it is self-evident that such an arrangement can only rest on a reciprocal basis. In other words, we shall exempt those courts provided they too exempt us from that requirement. If they do not so, we shall be entitled to impose stamp duties.

Clause 10 empowers the State President to amend the First and Second Schedules which set out the territories to which Clauses 3 and 7 apply, by way of proclamation. Here I must mention that these services or concessions are provided on a reciprocal basis and if a state does not wish to enter into such an agreement or wishes to cancel the agreement, the State President must have the right to exclude such a state from the schedules. Although the Federation and the High Commission territories are mentioned in the schedules, I must mention that the negotiations with them have not yet been finalized. However, we hope that the negotiations concerned will be finalized in the near future. The amendment of the schedules, whether by the addition or exclusion of states, is therefore entrusted to the State President seeing that the normal methods of parliamentary amendment can hamper the effective application of this legislation.

Clause 11 empowers those bodies which can prescribe rules for the Supreme Courts and the magistrate courts also to prescribe rules in connection with this matter in so far as it affects the courts. Clause 12 provides that this measure will also apply to South West Africa while Clause 13 repeals certain laws. Clause 14 contains the short title and provides that the Bill will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President. We must undertake the required negotiations with the territories concerned and make administrative arrangements in this regard.

When this Bill was being considered in the Other Place, Senator Jordan pointed out that it was incorrect to say “to take an examination of a witness”. It should be “to conduct an examination”. Another Senator who had been a magistrate differed from him and maintained that “to take” was correct. I then promised to go into the matter and I consulted the Oxford Dictionary. I found that it refers to “to take a service” and not “to conduct a service”. I therefore think that I must keep to the words used in this Bill, namely “to take an examination”.

I have now explained the Bill to hon. members. The measure has already received the general approval of the Senate and I therefore recommend it to hon. members.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of us appreciate the full and lucid explanation given by the Minister of this Bill. On this side of the House we have had a good look at it, and I want to say that we cannot find any fault with it in principle. I also want to say that it is obviously desirable that this type of legislation should be passed. The laws which are being repealed by this Bill are not readily available, whilst their texts are not available in Afrikaans. To repeal them will, consequently, be of great help to legal practitioners and other persons, such as officials, etc. Accordingly we welcome this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to debate it any further in view of the very clear explanation given us by the Minister.

There is, however, one point I should like to raise. This is in connection with Clause 7 providing for the attendance of witnesses in certain territories. In view of the provisions of the Departure of Persons from the Union Act, I think it might be advisable to include a provision that, where a person is forced by a decree of a court to attend that court in a foreign territory, he should not be forbidden to return in terms of the provisions of the Departure of Persons from the Union Act.

I have already gone into the matter. An order of court overrides the provisions of the Act to which you refer.

If that is the case, it is not necessary for me to deal with the matter further.

As I said, we welcome this Bill and consider that it is only right that this legislation should be passed.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Germiston (District) and other hon. members for the way in which they have welcomed this measure. The same applies to the measure which we considered just before this one. In my hurry I forgot to express my thanks while the measure was under discussion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order of the Day No. Ill to stand over.

As I have done on every occasion that the Vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs has been considered, I want to say once again that I must not be misunderstood. There are certain basic differences between my attitude and the attitude of the Government towards the Coloureds. But it would be pointless for me to quarrel in respect of that point now. I cannot see any advantage in doing so. This is something about which we can argue on the political platforms outside from time to time. Here in the House, however, it is our duty as Coloured Representatives to confine ourselves to what is in the interests of our Coloureds within the overall framework of the Minister’s policy.

I want to commence by saying that the hon. the Minister did a very good thing yesterday when he announced what the Government intended doing as regards the taking over of Coloured education. We now know where we stand. Previously it was a question of rumours of what was going to happen, and this made matters difficult, particularly for us as Coloured Representatives. Something was pending, but we did not know what was going to happen. For that reason I am glad that the Minister has now made such an announcement, because we now know exactly where we stand. Now we know what our attitude should be and what we must do. It facilitates matters for us, and I am, therefore, very glad. While I am discussing Coloured education, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort suggested here yesterday, namely the establishment of an Educational Council for Coloured Education. I want to say at once that I differ from him. In my opinion Coloured education should be brought under the Education Council for White education, which is now being considered by the House. And I shall tell the House why I consider that it will be better for Coloured education also to fall under the National Education Council for Whites. It is because we shall then have the assurance that the standard of Coloured education will be maintained. Otherwise we shall have the criticism that there is a separate council for Coloured education and the standard of this education will decline. Hon. members are familiar with this type of criticism, and I should like it to be avoided. I know it is not the intention of the Minister or of the Government that the standard of Coloured education should be lowered. I therefore want to see Coloured education falling under the same council as that for White education.

For the remainder of my ten minutes I should like to confine myself to the University College of the Western Cape. I have the honour to serve on the council of that college. I am very sorry to say that the majority of the people who make it difficult for students to go to this college are certain teachers in our Coloured schools. They make use of all sorts of methods to prevent the students going to the “bush college”. One of the arguments used with this object in mind is that the standard of education is low. An argument which they are very fond of using is that certain doctrines are being propagated with which they cannot agree. As I have said, I am sorry that it is particularly some of our Coloured teachers who are arguing along these lines. There are, of course, other people who also use these arguments, and I do not want to confine my remarks to Coloured teachers alone. But I want to say that there is only one thing which influences the council of the college, namely the question of what will be in the interests of the students and how they can be made good citizens of South Africa. The consideration which weighs with the council is how the students can be trained to lead their own people. This is the great ideal. As far as standards are concerned, I want to point out that the lecturers at that college are selected people. There are no better in the country. They are in the forefront of their particular fields. As far as examinations are concerned, I need not say that they are controlled by the University of South Africa. I have made it my task to talk to the students. As a matter of fact, I do so from time to time. However, I have not been able to find one who has said that there has been the slightest attempt to indoctrinate them. There is simply no such thing. The only object is to educate the students to the best of our ability, so that, when they are finished, they can faithfully carry out their duties. I want to give the assurance that the day I discover that there is underhand propaganda being made amongst the students with the object of inculcating in them political views which are, perhaps, not in accord with those of myself and other members of this House, I shall be the first to oppose it or to get out. I know, however, that no such thing will happen. I cannot omit to mention the work of our rector in this regard. I have every confidence in our staff, and it is, therefore, unthinkable that such a thing could happen. On the contrary. I have every confidence that this college will go from strength to strength. Many people are saying to-day that this or that subject is not being taught at the college, or that students cannot be trained in this or that field. But let me give hon. members the assurance that there are plans—everything cannot be done in one day—which will, in the course of time, make it possible for the Coloureds to be trained in every possible direction. In all this we are guided by the question of whether such a student can obtain a post, and whether there will be employment for him when he leaves the college. We are, therefore, trying to guide them in directions which will prevent their being left on the streets one day, but which will ensure that they will be able to find employment.

I am very glad the hon. the Minister has appointed a Director of Education—because that is what I call him—and, moreover, someone for whom everyone in the country has the highest respect. I can only speak of him with praise, and I know that, as long as he is there, the interests of Coloured education will be looked after and furthered. [Time limit.]

When I made my maiden speech in this House in May of last year, I spoke on the Coloured Affairs Vote. I then said that I looked forward to the day when the Coloureds would have a full-time Minister and the day when we would have a full-fledged Department of Coloured Affairs. Little did I know that we would have these things so soon. That evening I also discussed the need for gymnasiums for the Coloureds and their training for employment in the agricultural industry. I am also glad to say that these concessions have been made to the Coloureds. There are approximately 900,000 Coloureds in the Western Cape. I am glad that the Minister could announce yesterday that Coloured education would gradually be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs. We are a big province and the burden of Coloured education will become too heavy for the province in future. The announcement which the Minister has now made will, therefore, represent a relief for the provincial tax-payer.

A great deal is being done for the Coloureds to-day. Far more is being done for them to-day than was being done 30 years ago for the Whites. I expect the Coloureds to appreciate it, but I often wonder whether they do. One of the Coloured Representatives objected the other day to the Coloureds having to pay 2½c on a bottle of unfortified wine. When everything that is being done for the Coloureds is taken into account, they can be expected also to contribute towards defence because if the Whites were to disappear, the Coloureds would be the first to follow them. Every speaker has pleaded on behalf of the Coloureds. It is also right that we should do so in order to uplift them. The Coloureds have, however, deteriorated in many respects. We speak of the infiltration of the Bantu in the Western Cape. Perhaps this is attributable to the fact that the Coloureds have not made the contribution which they should have made. Much of the work which previously was done by the Coloureds is being done by the Bantu to-day. And in this regard I also blame the Government even though I sit on this side of the House. Look at the railways in the Western Cape and one only sees Bantu working on those railways. The Government must give a lead and the first to be taken into employment should be the Coloureds instead of the Bantu. During the disturbances in Cape Town, when 30,000 Bantu marched to the centres of the city, I was serving on the Divisional Council of Swellendam and we immediately dismissed 100 Bantu and replaced them with Coloureds and paid them 1s. 6d. per day more. It can be done. In my constituency there are three or four canning factories. The one employs Bantu labour while the one next door employs Coloured labour. What the one can do, the other can do as well, and it is the duty of the Coloured Representatives in this House to speak to the people they represent and to encourage them so that they will not shirk work but will also do the work which is being done by the Bantu to-day.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) referred to the position of the Dunns in Natal. I want to tell him that the matter is still under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They are taking steps at the present moment to find alternative land for the Bantu living in the Dunns’ reserve, as the hon. member will apparently know. The moment they succeed in finding alternative land the Department of Coloured Affairs will take over the Dunns’ reserve in terms of the Act of 1909 as amended, for development. As far as the other groups in Zululand are concerned, the matter is receiving our earnest attention and it has been referred to an inter-departmental committee to give us the necessary advice. I am not prepared to say anything more at this stage. The position must be studied properly before we can take any steps.

Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) suggested that a National Advisory Council for Coloured Education should also be established. I just want to say that I cannot commit myself at this stage, but we shall have to consider that aspect when the legislation is drawn up. At the same time I want to tell the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) that I want to repeat the assurance that in any steps which are taken we shall guard against any form of inferiority. This is a matter which must be considered when the legislation is drawn up.

I was gratified by the hon. member’s remarks in connection with the Western Cape College and also for his reference to the recently appointed Deputy Secretary for Education, Mr. Kobus Louw. I just want to say that I think this Department is very fortunate to have the persons whom it has holding the posts of Secretary and Deputy Secretary, and also the post now filled by Mr. Louw. This is already proof of the earnestness with which we are approaching this matter.

Then the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) who is not here and the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) have approached the question of Coloured labour in effect from two opposite angles. I want to tell the hon. member for Piketberg that the point he has raised, namely the utilization of the labour of the Coloured, is a matter which in my opinion forms part of the whole question of the future position of the Coloureds in the Western Cape. Some time ago already the Cabinet appointed a Cabinet Committee to go into the whole matter, and I can say that it has already made great progress with the preparation of a proper report to the Government. The matter he has raised will be dealt with specifically as part of that report.

Then the hon. member for Boland has objected very emphatically in this regard to what I have said. He has said that he holds it against me and that he also differs from the hon. member for Piketberg. He has also criticized the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) for the fact that we have spoken along those lines. I repeat what I said here last night, and I never intended it and it was never worded as an attempt to insult the Coloured as a worker or as a labourer. I never said that. But what I want to repeat is this, namely that what is happening in the Western Cape is not only the consequence of other reasons, but is inter alia one of the main seasons for the infiltration of the Bantu into the Western Cape and the excuses used by employers for not taking Coloureds into their employ, namely the reasons I have given, such as the serious complaints against a section of the Coloureds that they are not to be trusted, that they are not prepared to work permanently and that they do not maintain the standard of productivity which they should. I repeat what I have said I said last night that I want to warn the Coloured people that they also have an obligation to try to rectify these matters. It will not help us to try to convince the Coloured leaders that the Minister has insulted them. What we should rather tell them is that they should persuade their people to increase their productivity. Then we shall be doing our duty towards them. It is pointless protesting here because that warning has been given; we must not guide the people in the wrong direction. We must guide them in the correct direction.

Are you satisfied with the wages they are paid?

I am not satisfied and I have experienced difficulty as regards wages, and the hon. member knows it. There is nothing which stops employers, if they wish to increase wages, from doing so. And many of the big employers are not supporters of the Government. There is nothing standing in the way of increased wages, but it is not merely a question of the increasing of wages; it is also a question of improved productivity. If a worker maintains the necessary level of productivity, he will be entitled to proper remuneration to an ever-increasing extent; he will make himself irreplaceable. I want to say that we must stop encouraging the Coloureds to be spoon fed. We must stop encouraging them just to ask. We must show them their obligations towards their own people and towards their country.

I think these are all the points which have been raised. I just want to convey my thanks for the appreciation expressed by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) as well as to other hon. members for the appreciation they have expressed.

Regarding what the hon. the Minister just said about Coloured wages, I want to agree with him in certain respects because one cannot get away from facts. As I said last night, my attitude when I address my supporters is to quote the example of the Afrikaner who has got where he is to-day by hard work and by using the facilities at his disposal. But there is also another side to the matter which deserves attention and I am referring to cases of which the hon. the Minister himself knows. When it is a question of the wages which the employer has to pay his employees, it does not depend on which side of this House he supports. It depends mainly on what suits his pocket, and if he can get away with less, he pays less. When Bantu labour is competing with Coloured labour in the South Western Districts and here in the Boland, particularly when we are dealing with builders, we are faced with the fact that if the employer can recruit builders and workers whom he employs as unskilled labourers at 8s. or 10s. per day, he employs such a person who has a lower standard of living, who has no expenses or difficulties as regards the education of his children, or a home based on Western standards, no matter how low his level may be. This is where the Coloureds are in difficulties. We have given the example of the district of Mossel Bay where between 800 and 900 people are unemployed. Recently a construction job, namely a new power station, was completed and the contractors concerned used imported Bantu labour almost exclusively. The hon. the Minister knows that I am interested in this matter, and I know what the decisive factor was in that regard, namely the fact that those people could not live and support their families on the wages which the employer paid his Bantu workers.

Mr. Chairman, when I sat down last night, I was telling the House how I put the position to my supporters and how I see the position, namely that they should use the educational and economic facilities which are made available to them in order to uplift themselves. I just want to add that the hon. member for Karoo has referred to the Coloured College in the Western Cape. When that legislation was before the House, my attitude was that I was not opposed to the establishment of the University College, and if there were more such colleges in our country, it would serve a good purpose. My attitude was that the stigma of apartheid would not redound to the benefit of that college and that in my opinion it was unnecessary. But that legislation is on the Statute Book and I must now accept it because it is pointless my criticizing it to-day, nor can I do so now.

Do you withdraw your opposition?

No, I do not. I still feel that my attitude was correct. But we are confining ourselves to the present position. It is pointless scratching around in the past. I feel, and I want to say it in this House and outside as well, that those who are in responsible positions as teachers and elsewhere, and who discourage, who exercise an adverse influence on and intimidate young students not to attend that university college are doing their own people the worst possible disservice. They are usually people who already have their degrees or are already studying at the University of Cape Town because they are taking a course which is not available at the other university college; they are usually people whose needs have already been attended to and my accusation against such people who discourage others from uplifting themselves, is that they are turning these people into embittered persons who will go into life so embittered, in order that they can use them for their own purposes. I have just come from my office where I have had an interview with two young students who are now in matric and whose parents have come and asked me please to speak to the children. Their parents cannot do anything with them. They both want to take courses which are provided at the Western Cape College, but there is an organization such as the Cape Peninsula Students Organization consisting of students and former students of the University of Cape Town. There is also a movement, the T.L.S.A., which consists of teachers who already have their degrees or diplomas; these needs have all been provided for because they are already at university or because they have their degrees and are teachers. They are intimidating these children in the school. They are turning these children into embittered persons who cannot obtain training such as they should have, so that they will go into life embittered and frustrated and eventually become communists. As a person who associates himself with the life and struggle of the Coloured people, I feel that these people who are acting in this way constitute a danger to their own people.

What shall we do to them?

I do not want to say now what we should do with them. But the fact still remains that as far as the people I represent are concerned, it is only through education and upliftment that we can face the future.

The transfer of education has been referred to. I personally am sorry that the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to make a statement at this stage in that regard, although we now know that the legislation is in fact coming. I am also sorry that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has raised the matter. I consider once again that this is a very delicate matter amongst the Coloureds and I feel that people who have been in politics for many years and who have used these arguments on political platforms should rather keep out of it because they only obscure the issue. It seems to me that it is now in fact the Government’s policy to do so. We as Coloured Representatives have decided to watch the position very carefully. On the one hand we have a Government which is implementing a certain policy; on the other hand we have a greater responsibility, namely towards the people we represent and whose attitude we must ascertain. When legislation is already on the Statute Book and when legislation is being implemented, then we must ensure that it is done in such a way that the people we represent derive the maximum benefit. Those who have discussed the matter before and since the announcement by the Minister have always approached the whole matter merely from the point of view of the White, namely they have used the argument that the cost has become too heavy for the province, etc. But the question which interests us is what is the attitude of the people we represent. I can now tell the hon. the Minister that the main difficulty here is the stigma of discrimination which clings to such a step. Let us be quite honest and reasonable in regard to the matter. The water which has flowed under the bridge cannot be returned to the mountains. Apartheid has always been the word which is a monster to the Coloureds, and that is still the position to-day. It is not merely I who say this, but it is realized on the Government side that we must try to get away from that word. Occasionally one still has a stray politician on the Government side who uses this word, and then he later withdraws it. As I have said, I do not want to go into the past, but this is unfortunately the position with which we are faced. What we are faced with here is a changed type of education which will be different to that which we have had in the past and to which a discriminatory apartheid stigma attaches. I hope that when such legislation is submitted to the House, it will be possible to tell us that it does in fact entail obvious and sought-after benefits for the Coloureds. The question arises, when this matter is raised: Will this be equal or will this be inferior education?

But did you not hear my statement?

Mr. Chairman, with the utmost respect towards the hon. the Minister, I am trying to see the matter as the people I represent see it.

You must put them right if they are wrong.

If the hon. the Minister is unaware of it, I shall give him proof that in all honesty and sincerity I put my people right as far as possible, in so far as I have the information at my disposal. When we consider the question of whether this education will be inferior or of equal standing, then we must ask ourselves whether the education at the moment is of equal standing. The only point of agreement between White education and Coloured education to-day is that the syllabus to-day is the same. That is the only point of agreement, and let us be honest on this matter. But I hope, Mr. Chairman, that when the legislation is submitted to the House, the hon. the Minister will be able to say that positive steps will be taken in respect of compulsory education; that it will be introduced immediately in respect of the Coloureds; that positive steps will be taken in respect of the transport and hostel facilities which the Coloured children do not have to-day and which the Whites have; and that positive steps will be taken regarding the salaries of Coloured teachers as compared with those of the Whites. Our attitude in this regard is that a teacher is a teacher; therefore his salary should be the same as that of the Whites.

I am glad the Minister has dealt with the question of church and mission schools because this ambiguity in the education of the Coloureds has caused very great difficulty in the past. There was education which fell under the churches and education which fell directly under the Provincial Administration. There was also education which was controlled by certain churches and mission organizations. The appointment of teachers depends on the recommendation of the manager, and there have been many difficulties in this regard. There have been cases which have come to my notice, here in the Cape Peninsula as well, where corruption has been prevalent. [Time limit.]

When my time expired, I had just got into my stride. I now want to conclude as far as education is concerned, except just to say this. In view of what the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has just said, I am glad that the Minister said in his statement last night that as far as the new appointments to Coloured schools were concerned, an immediate start would be made with consultations between the present educational authorities and our Department. I am very glad about that. Certain changes must be effected in the way which we appoint these people. I cannot see how we can appoint an undesirable person as principal of a Coloured school. Fourteen days ago there was a conference at Kimberley of the executive committee of the T.L.S.A. In the case of certain of the delegates, I may not say outside this House that they are communists. But here in this House I say that they are communists. They played a leading role at that conference. They even held two secret meetings, but forget about their secret meetings—I know what went on there. Their whole object and aim was that they would report to their members that they should do everything in their power in the schools to oppose in every possible way the idea of transferring their education and also to use other methods. Let us leave it at that. If these people are to be the leaders in the field of Coloured education, then I say that we cannot tolerate it any longer. Education is a very important matter and perhaps the most important.

But my time is running out and I have not yet even reached the matter which lies close to my heart. I am referring to the question of the rural Coloured. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) in a very admirable way spoke along lines that warmed my heart last night. I see that he has at least travelled around Namaqualand a little—per; haps not amongst his voters—but I see that he visits my voters. I am not worried about that. He has referred to Coloureds who have made a success of their farming activities, but there are others whom he has not mentioned. We must be honest in this regard. He has not referred to the dozens and dozens of stock farmers—each of whom has 25 sheep. And because they have 25 sheep, they cannot go to work. They are stock farmers and they sit in the shade of their houses. I know the Minister’s Department is already considering this matter. But we cannot afford to have people who call themselves stock farmers and grain farmers and who then sow half a bag of grain in a year. These people use that as an excuse to sit and do nothing. Mr. Chairman, when one goes to these places to which I am referring and one arrives there at 11 in the morning and they do not know you are coming, one does not see anyone around. But knock at one of their houses and say: I am Tot le Roux and I should like to hold a meeting. Within half an hour one has 200 or 300 people together. One did not see anyone. Mr. Chairman, we must put our heads together. We cannot tolerate these people lying in the sun any longer.

You said just now they lay in the shade!

Yes, when the sun gets too hot then they lie in the shade. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Not all these people are like this. There are many of them who do their duty.

The hon. member for Namaqualand has also raised another matter. He has praised the boards of management highly as though they cannot do anything wrong. Mr. Chairman, those boards do good work, but I want to say that the difficulties which I have in this Parliament with the result that I spend hours in my office and have to go to the Department periodically are precisely due to the actions of those boards. They also do good things which are not right. They also have their faults. I do not hesitate to say that. These boards must also watch what they are doing and use more discretion and act more humanely. [Interjections.] While I am dealing with the question of the boards, I wonder whether we cannot place the superintendents of those boards on a different salary basis. Some of them should really be paid more than they get today. I think this is something which we must bear in mind. Can we not perhaps grade the various posts according to the work done by the various superintendents?

I have not discussed the Estimates yet, and they are very interesting. But, before doing so, I just want to say this about the agricultural school which is being erected for these people. I have the highest expectations in this regard, and I hope the Minister will accelerate this matter as much as possible, because here I see an opportunity for our Coloureds who feel inclined to remain on the land to become useful workers. I do not want them to leave the rural areas and come to the cities. There are more than enough of them in the cities. We should rather try to remove some of them from the cities.

When we examine sub-head M we find that it deals with the development of Coloured areas. It is a pleasure to see what is being done and what has already been achieved in those reserves. But, because we have made good progress in recent years, we must not rest on our laurels. We must continue with each of the various items mentioned here. Hon. members will see that in every instance the expenditure is far more than it was in the previous year. We must continue, and while we are undertaking these developments, I think we should have another two or three agricultural experts to give these people further information on how to farm properly. It takes a long time to persuade these people to abandon the old methods to which they have been accustomed for years past. There is the tendency to work for a couple of hours a day and to sit in the shade for the rest of the day. It takes a long time to make them understand these matters, and we would be doing a very good thing if we would rather spend a little more money on trying to train these people. It must be so ingrained in them that it becomes a matter of faith with them. We can only do so by impressing it on them to an ever-increasing extent and every day. [Time limit.]

After what the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) has added regarding the taking over of education, I shall not take the matter any further. I should just like to express the hope that, when the legislation comes before this House, it will be borne in mind that, at the moment, we have these differences between White education and Coloured education; and if there is to be such a take-over, then it must be clear to the Coloured people that the Government is in earnest as regards giving them equal education in every respect.

The Coloured Council was discussed last night, and the hon. the Minister said that one of the things for which the Coloured Council had asked, and which they had been promised, was an extension of powers. At the time when the Prime Minister made his statement on the Coloured Council, it was said that it would be reformed or differently constituted. In this regard I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that if the Coloured Council is not to be a freely elected council, the Coloured people will be sceptical of it. The Minister must agree with me that the fact that the Coloured people have in effect refused to participate in the election of the council because the majority of the members are appointed members, has meant that we have not got the best results from the council which we could have achieved. I think the democratic system for which the Coloured people are ripe must now be applied to the election of this council. They must be able to elect the council on the same basis as that which applies when they elect their representatives in the House of Assembly.

Last year, on the Pensions Vote, I raised the question of the pensions of Coloured war veterans. The then Deputy Minister, who is now Minister of Justice, replied and said that he could not make any promises, but this was a matter which would be investigated and for which there was justification. At the moment we have the position that practically everything affecting our voters now falls under the Coloured Affairs Vote, and we must, therefore, discuss the matter on this Vote, because we do not have any other opportunity. As far as Coloured war veterans’ pensions are concerned, there is practically no such thing. A Coloured only receives a war veteran’s pension when he becomes unfit to work before he qualifies for the old age pension, and then, after an examination which the White must also undergo, he can obtain a pension which is equal to an old age pension. I do not want to take up the time of the House by giving figures, but everyone knows that there is quite a difference between an old age pension in the case of a White and a war veteran’s pension in the case of a White. With reference to the figures given by the Deputy Minister for Pensions last year, it remains a fact that there are thousands more people in South Africa to-day who are receiving war veterans’ pensions in respect of the Anglo-Boer War than can possibly still be alive. But it is difficult to investigate the matter, because it will only cause difficulties. But I feel that if we can be so generous in that respect, the time has come when we should also give special recognition to our Coloured war veterans. Such a Coloured accepted the same duties and faced the same dangers, with the chance that he might not come back. When we examine the history of our Coloureds in time of war, and the position in which the Coloureds have found themselves from time to time in the history of South Africa, I do not think it can be said that they have failed in their duty in any respect when they had to fight for their country. I hope that this transferring of Coloured war veterans’ pensions to the Department of Coloured Affairs will be characterized by special recognition of the needs of the Coloured war veterans and that their pensions will be increased.

There is also the question of the allowance paid in respect of mentally retarded children which is, in effect, only about 5s. a month more than the allowance paid in the case of a normal child under the care of foster parents. In the case of such children one has higher medical expenses and they require more care, and I hope the Minister will give his special attention to this matter. It is tragic to see in certain cases the condition of those children, mainly as a result of the fact that there is no institution to which they can go, an institution which is only now being established after all these years, but which in the foreseeable future will not be able to meet the requirements, because there will not be accommodation for all. I hope the Minister will give his special attention to this matter. It will have the approval, not only of the foster parents, but of all the welfare organizations, all the medical practitioners, and all the psychiatrists who are acquainted with these cases.

It was very welcome last year when it was announced that Coloured old age pensions were to be restored to the basis on which they originally were, namely that if 12 points are given in respect of a White pension, six would be given to a Coloured and five to an Indian. As a result of the increases over the years, the ratio was that if a White man received 10s., a Coloured, perhaps, received 2s. 6d., and last year it was restored to the 12s. 6d. ratio. On a percentage basis this is a fairly good increase in respect of the Coloureds. At that time I expressed my appreciation, and pointed out that, although this was very welcome, the fact still remained that the food the Coloureds eat and the clothes they wear does not cost half what a White man pays. Although we do have a class of people, mainly in the sub-economic houses, who pay comparatively low rentals, the fact still remains that it is impossible, if they wish to maintain a decent standard of living, for their cost of living to be half that of a White. I ask, without hesitation, and with every confidence, that something should be done about this matter, and that the taking over of Coloured old age pensions should also be characterized by the recognition that they cannot live on only half what a White needs. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay is so obsessed with wine. If it can be proved that persons who receive old age pensions drink wine to any extent, their pensions are taken away or are given to someone else to administer on their behalf. I therefore do not want to waste any time on that aspect.

In conclusion, I just want to say that when I was still dealing with the Department of Coloured Affairs, in the nature of things I had to deal with the officials, and I want to express my sincere thanks for the service which I have been given in the past, and for the way in which they have provided those services. In conclusion, I just want to say this, and this is a word of warning to the Minister and his staff, namely that they should be very careful about the people they employ. In the past we have found that, by employing the wrong people as field workers, etc., a great deal of harm has been done—I am not discussing the harm done to the Department—in connection with the services which should be provided, and also to good relations, because the wrong people were used. The person whom I have specifically in mind is no longer in the service of this Minister’s Department, and I therefore leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the hon. the Minister, I just want to say that there are many more matters that my colleagues and I would like to discuss under this Vote, but in view of the fact that according to our rules a limited number of hours has been allotted to the discussion of the various Votes, we are reluctantly obliged to forgo the right of speaking on these matters, so as to enable other important Votes to be discussed. I only want to express the hope that in future more time will be provided for the discussion of this Vote, because it is an important matter, dealing with the destiny, almost, of an entire community.

The time arrangements are of course not in my hands. I just want to tell the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) that the private children’s homes are of course registered under the Children’s Act and the subsidies granted, the allowance per head, is R90 per child per annum, in accordance with the extent to which the child is in need of care, or R120 in the case of mentally handicapped children.

Then the hon. member has discussed pensions. I do not think he can deny that both the war veterans and the old age pensions have been considerably improved in recent times, and in the latest Budget as well. The amount of the old age and war veterans’ pensions is something which must keep in step with the economic capacity of the country, but it has always been the Government’s policy within the economic capacity of the country to pay as much as possible. Do not let us disparage the improvements which have been effected during the past year.

The hon. member has referred to education, and I do not want to come back to this matter except to say that a prominent Coloured leader discussed the matter on 22 May, and I am inclined to take note of what he says in this regard. I am referring to Mr. George Golding. He said—

He referred to the transferring of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs and he said—

I do not think anyone can accuse Mr. Golding of not being interested in the education of the Coloureds. He has done a great deal in this field and he can speak with authority.

I want to add that the Union Coloured Council has an education committee which keeps in continuous touch with us and I have discussions with them from time to time, and further discussions will take place on the details. What I have now done is to announce a decision in principle and I have not gone any further, except to refer to matters which will have to receive attention in the course of time. Furthermore I shall discuss the matter with interested Coloured leaders who come forward and who are prepared to discuss these matters in a sensible way. There need therefore be no fear that the people who are genuinely in earnest as regards the Coloured child will not be given an opportunity to put their case. But I just want to tell the hon. member that the same people to whom he has referred, such as the T.N.S.A. and others, who oppose the Western Cape College so bitterly, are the people who are trying to destroy it to-day and who adopt the attitude that they want to withhold the Coloureds from these benefits. These are the people who will now once again oppose this decision. We cannot allow ourselves to be guided by them. They are a diminishing group, and the smaller they become, the more noise they make. We do not intend allowing them to influence us any further.

In conclusion I just want to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) regarding the rural areas. I am glad the hon. member has raised this matter. I agree that great success has already been achieved. At Eksteenskuil we have an excellent example of what can be done. I visited it myself, and what those people are doing, the productive ability which they have revealed and the hard work they are doing are refreshing to see. We also find this in the case of other rural areas. But the hon. member is quite correct; we cannot afford in those rural areas to have people who do not know how to farm and who do not want to farm and who want to sit in the shade keeping other people back from enjoying the full benefits of those rural areas. This matter is receiving our attention at the moment and I hope to be able to submit measures in the near future. I hope I shall then have the support of the hon. member amongst others in taking the necessary steps so that improvements can be effected in this respect.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—”Community Development”, R1,209,000,

There are Coloured citizens outside the Western Province and I want to talk for some of them, and as they have no vote at all I feel that my responsibility in this matter is the greater. Sir, Government policy has got to be implemented; it is the law, but I want to submit that where local authorities are doing their best to carry out the policy, they should be regarded as probably knowing more about local policies or regional policies than a Board. I want to deal with the East Rand, with particular reference to approximately 5,000 Coloureds who live in Benoni, mostly in unsavoury circumstances. In August 1958 the Transvaal and Free State Committee of the Group Areas Board met in Benoni to consider proposals for racial zoning. The Benoni Council recommended that Wattville, at present a Native township, should be accepted as an area for the Coloureds. At this time the Government has accepted officially that all the Natives living in Benoni must be transferred to Daveyton, the new and modern township to the east of the town. The Council was left with the decision with how best to use Wattville and the Benoni Native townships that had to be cleared of Natives. The Council’s attitude is and always has been that it is its duty to make satisfactory provision for its own residents in its own municipal area. Wattville is an eminently suitable area. It actually has 2,421 two-, three- and four-roomed municipally built houses. All have water and electricity; a large number have sewerage, and they would be sufficient to provide accommodation for a little more than the present Benoni Coloured population. It has sufficient ground to enable those who want to build for themselves to find plots too. Apart from the fact that all these houses exist in Wattville, most of the roads are made and kerbed; there are already schools, shops, churches and playing-fields. I am at the moment limiting my plea to these particular Coloureds of ours who in my view and in the view of the Council should be transferred to Wattville as soon as possible. A lot of them are living under deplorable conditions, as the Minister knows. He has been through the area. The Group Areas Board and the Minister apparently propose removing the Coloured residents from Benoni. Perhaps I should quote from the memorandum sent to me by the Council—

1. (b) to remove the Coloured residents from Benoni for resettlement in the regional area to be established for Coloureds in the Bantu Townships of Stirtonville and Galeview, Boksburg.
2. (c) as a long-term policy to zone Wattville Bantu Township, Benoni, for Coloured occupation to absorb the overflow of Coloureds when the regional area in Boksburg has been fully occupied.

So it is the policy of the Minister and the Group Areas Board, as we understand it, to utilize Wattville as a Coloured area in due course. I have mentioned already that Wattville has over 2,400 houses built by the Council previously; they are there, and Benoni very definitely wants to keep its Coloureds in its own municipal area. On the financial side, the ground cost the Council over R99,000 and the buildings to date cost R2,850,000, a total of nearly R3,000,000. I want to read again from this report—

Then they talk about Wattville and what is available; I have already mentioned that—

On 23 November last the Minister himself visited Benoni and toured the area in question, and I hope that he now agrees, having seen the position there, that the Council’s submissions are unassailable. Wattville is regarded as a future overflow from Boksburg when that regional area is fully occupied, as it quite obviously will be one day, and surely therefore it cannot be right to ignore the fact that this township is standing and will be available for occupation by Coloureds in the reasonably near future. It is at present occupied by Africans but the Government policy is to remove these Africans to an entirely different area, to the east of the town, as I have said before, so these houses will very definitely have to be vacated and will be available. I cannot understand why the Council’s request is being turned down. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he has come round to their point of view and that he will assist them in what are very admirable efforts to help these people, which efforts are being completely stopped by the present considerations.

As has already been pointed out, the time factor enters into this debate to a large extent and we will have to be brief, and that is what I propose to be in dealing with the particular matter that I want to raise. Sir, I want to talk about the Group Areas Development Act. There is a provision in Section 17 for the issue of a certificate—

to the effect that everything that is due to the Board has been paid—the fees and their share of the profit on the sale. I think the Minister knows that section quite well. The amendment was brought in, in Act 81 of 1959. It provides, in other words, that a certificate for the transfer of the property shall not be issued until everything has been paid. One of the things that is holding up the granting of these certificates by the Department is apparently the question of rates. When a person under the Act has to move from his property because of the proclaiming of that particular area and he sells that property, the purchaser is given occupation in many cases on the understanding that he has to pay the remaining portion of the rates for that year, or the rate for the period during which he has occupation. At the moment the Board is taking the view that this is a consideration for the purchaser. I think I should read out their ruling—

Then they go on to say—

So you see, Sir, what is happening when application is made for these certificates. Where a purchaser has agreed to pay the remaining portion of the rates and taxes for that year, the Board is adding this back to the price paid for the property and is also taking their share (where it comes under the Act) of that refund of rates and taxes which has been paid on the grounds that it is a rental or consideration for occupation. I think that this is something which the hon. the Minister could certainly reconsider. I accept that when a man sells his property at a loss or at no profit, this probably does not apply, but where a man is fortunate enough to show a small profit, when he applies for his certificate to register the transfer of the property to the new owner, because he has not perhaps disclosed or has not even considered that the refund of rates and taxes is a part of the purchase price, then either (a) he cannot get the certificate; the officer will not submit it to him, or (b) he has to lodge an amount of money to cover that, or (c) he has to find the money to give the Group Areas Development Board their share of that amount of rates and taxes which they regard as a profit on the sale. I think this is something which the Minister could well consider. Sir, when a person has to move from his property because it has been proclaimed for occupation by another group, he is put to extra expense, expenses which he never took into consideration, to re-establish himself in some new place, and having undergone all that, I think it is taking it a little bit too far to have to get this final kick, in that he is required to find a portion of what was given to him by way of a refund of rates and taxes. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me, because it comes usually after everything has been finalized and when application is made for this certificate. It was not the intention in the original legislation that that should happen. I think it is an interpretation which is being placed on this clause in respect of the new Section 20 (6)—

I don’t think that it is inherent there and it was not intended to put this last little kick into the forced sale (in many cases) of such property. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter. He may not be able to give me an answer to it now, but I would like him to investigate it. It is one of the little rubs that can be taken out of the Act.

The Department of Community Development is certainly a Department which is faced with one of the most difficult tasks in the Republic of South Africa. This Department must co-operate with the four racial groups in South Africa and at the same time it must implement the national policy of separate and parallel development. 1 August 1961 was a very glad day for South Africa, because on that day, this Department was established. We know that this Department wishes to do everything in its power to establish goodwill between the various races. We also know that it would like to establish order out of the chaos prevailing in South Africa to-day as regards the living together and the intermingling of the various racial groups. We know that great progress has already been made towards realizing this aim, but we also know that there are many people who place obstacles in the way of the Minister and the Department in an attempt to wreck this national policy. We know that the aim of these people is not so much to advocate and to further the interests of the various racial groups, but that they are merely trying to wreck the national policy. And seeing that I want to deal specifically with the East Rand, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) who has urged that the Coloureds at Wattville should remain, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the municipalities on the East Rand have been applying the principle of group areas since 1951, but if the Minister is to leave the matter to the municipalities, I am afraid that by 1971 we shall still not have found a solution for this problem because one cannot get the municipalities to agree where the Coloureds should be placed and where the Indians should be placed. Everyone is very eager to have the Coloureds in their municipal area to-day, because they regard the Coloureds as a labour force and Benoni would now like to have the Coloureds there for selfish motives. I want to urge the Minister to place the Coloureds where it will be to their advantage and bearing in mind how far they have to travel to their place of employment.

But I want to submit another matter to the Minister and it relates to the Indians on the East Rand. To-day we have no less than 8,867 Indians on the East Rand and this includes the area from Germiston to Nigel. These Indians comprise the small number of 8,867 and the large majority of them have concentrated on trading on the East Rand. A community must now be established for them, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is essential that a separate community must be established for them on the East Rand? I want to ask the hon. the Minister very earnestly: The national policy provides that when an area is declared a White area or a non-White area, only that specific group can live or trade in that area. For how long is the Minister going to allow permits to be granted to these Indians? The Indian is the person who has always opposed the national policy of South Africa. But he is the first one to skim off the cream if there is any, and he uses the profits which he makes in our country to oppose our national policy in every possible way: I want to make an earnest appeal that the Minister should withdraw these permits which he is granting the Indians to remain in these various areas which have not been declared as Indian group areas, in order to show them too that we are now sick and tired of the continuous agitation which they are waging against us. As far as the East Rand is concerned, I am convinced that the small number of Indians who live there do not justify a community of their own, because they are all traders and white collar workers. They will have to go to an area where they will have to work. They do not represent a labour force to us on the East Rand. We have every sympathy for the Coloureds and we should like to see an area being created for them which will be in their best interests because they are a potential source of labour for us in South Africa and they are law-abiding people.

The Minister is laughing at you. He does not agree with you.

This is not a laughing matter. I differ completely from the hon. member because I do not share in the profits of the Indians, but he does. The Indians have never yet meant anything to South Africa.

I am not going to attempt to answer the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), because what I am going to say on the same subject will show quite clearly how much we differ in our approach to this matter.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Turffontein accuses me that I do all my business with Indians.

Order! That is not a point of order.

It is an infamous lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Brakpan allowed to say that my interjection is “’n verdomde leuen”?

If the hon. member has said that, he must withdraw it.

I withdraw. But he sits with them as a director.

Order!

It has been said very recently and on the highest authority that we, the people of South Africa, and the Government of South Africa have recognized that the Indian population form a part of the permanent population of South Africa. That is not in dispute. And, Mr. Chairman, it has also been said, and I have heard it repeatedly during the course of this Session, that there is to be a new deal for all the race groups in South Africa. One of the catch-phrases which the Government Party has developed during this Session is “dynamic, not static”, another one has been “’n nuwe bedeling”. There is to be “’n nuwe bedeling” for the Coloureds, “’n nuwe bedeling” for the English-speaking people in South Africa, a new deal for everybody. If President Roosevelt were to come into this House some time, he would be amazed to find such a large number of “new dealers” sitting on that side of the House.

But let us take a look at the new deal for the Indians. And let me say at the outset that it is not a new deal, it is not a fair deal, it is not a good deal, it is the same old raw deal. I know that one cannot become popular in this Chamber by espousing the cause of the Indians, but that is a risk I am prepared to take. Mr. Chairman, no one who knows anything of the position of the Indians living in Johannesburg, and there are over 25,000 of them, will deny that the application of the Group Areas legislation has been disastrous as far as they are concerned, at least, from their point of view. Nobody will deny that.

You have to bring proof if you make that statement.

I hope I will have enough time to do that. The point I want to make is that the municipal area of Johannesburg has, to all intents and purposes, been reserved as a group area exclusively for the White population of Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister will not deny that. Now let us look at the other facts. On 27 February, this year, a telegram was sent to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Prime Minister, and the telegram read as follows—

Will anybody deny that that is so?—

It comes from the Transvaal Indian Congress.

You are an agitator.

The hon. member knows very little about the Transvaal.

On a point of order, can the hon. member for Namib call the hon. member for Hospital “an agitator”?

Did the hon. member for Namib say that?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Well, Sir, I will stand up and confess that I am an agitator, if he is an agitator who draws the attention of the House to a serious situation appertaining to a section of the population who have been recognized as part of the permanent population of South Africa. Sir, then I and the hon. the Prime Minister are both agitators.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Before business was suspended the question of agitators having been disposed of, I had read a telegram addressed to the hon. the Minister of Community Development by the Transvaal Indian Congress dated 27 April 1962.

To this telegram the hon. the Minister replied as follows—

The Transvaal Indian Congress is, as far as anybody in Johannesburg knows and as I have pointed out earlier, the only body which has any claim to speak for the Indian population there. They have no ratepayers’ association …

Are you speaking on their behalf?

No, Sir, I am speaking on behalf of human beings. We were told yesterday by the hon. Minister for Immigration that although there was unemployment in this country it was not serious. But, he said, as long as there was one man unemployed who could not support his wife and children, he, the Minister, would feel sorry for him and would exert himself to see to it that the situation was put right. I hope the hon. the Minister of Community Development will see the matter which I am raising in the same light, regardless of whom I am speaking for. The Minister replied to the Transvaal Indian Congress in terms of the telegram which I have read out. The Transvaal Indian Congress then wrote to the Minister on 3 May. They said—

Sir, the Minister did not deny earlier that, from the point of view of the Indians, the proposition that they be moved out of Johannesburg was disastrous. No one can deny it. I want to give the hon. the Minister a few facts about the dispossession of Indians of property in Johannesburg; facts as to why they live there and why they have lived there for so many years. For example, Sir, it is common cause to anyone who knows Johannesburg, that the main areas where the Indians have lived for many generations are those townships of Burghersdorp, Fordsburg, part of Ferreirastown and Pageview. Look at the value of the properties there, Sir, most of which happen to be owned by Indians at the present time. The land valuation in the case of Burghersdorp is R954,300; improvements, R1,047,780. Those figures are taken from the official Year Book of the City of Johannesburg. In the case of Ferreirastown, the land valuation is R6,824,802; improvements, R4,410,640. In the case of Fordsburg, which is divided into three areas—but I will deal with the one area in which the Indians happen to live—the land valuation is R3,995,372; improvements, R3,589,470. In the case of Pageview, which is at the present time the subject of consideration by the Group Areas Board, the value of the property is estimated at between R3,500,000 to R4,000,000. The 177 shops carry stock valued at approximately R2,000,000, and the goodwill, according to the Indian traders, is valued at about R500,000. In other words, Sir, we are not simply moving somebody from a small piece of land which is valueless to another piece of land which is valueless. We are talking about the assets of people of whom there are about 25,000 in Johannesburg; assets which run into something like R20,000,000. To say that to move them to Lenasia is disastrous is, in fact, not an overstatement; it is an understatement. Because, Mr. Chairman, Lenasia is some 22 miles from Johannesburg. I know that, according to the booklet issued by the hon. the Minister of Information, where it deals with the housing schemes for the various racial groups, it says this “Lenasia: A new Indian suburb has been built on undulating hills about 10 miles from Johannesburg.” I want those responsible for this sort of statement to go there and to see whether it is 10 miles or 22 miles from Johannesburg. [Interjections.] It is 10 miles, Mr. Chairman, as the crow flies. But I do not see a crow sitting on that side of the House, and so I say the distance is over 20 miles.

A new road has been built.

The point is this: that, at the present time, the Group Areas Board, and therefore the Minister, is well aware of the fact that the City Council of Johannesburg, which has tried to be as objective as the Government has tried to be, or rather, has not tried to be. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is developing into the mouthpiece of the communistic section of the Indian community. He says Lenasia is 22 miles from Johannesburg. That is the biggest nonsense in the world. I often drive along that road and it is nor more than 12 miles from the centre of Johannesburg. But if he wants to follow a devious route via Parktown it may be 22 miles. One finds a very clear dividing line in the Indian community. There are Indians who look after the interests of the Indians, but unfortunately we have amongst them the most venemous group of communists, and the hon. member is the mouthpiece of that small group. If he tells me that the Indians of Johannesburg are not willing to move to Lenasia, he is also talking the biggest nonsense in the world, because I know what I am talking about. Apart from Johannesburg, in Vereeniging, I have the biggest group of Indians and in the territory of the Indian Congress in the Southern Transvaal. These people are not opposed at all to moving to Lenasia as a residential area. But where does the hon. member come by the statement that their businesses must be moved? That is after all the worst nonsense in the world. No one wants to do that. That is not the intention, and where does he come by it? What agitation is he trying to initiate? But why did the hon. member not raise this matter when the Vote of the Minister of Indian Affairs was being discussed? The fact of the matter is that the Government is succeeding in gaining the co-operation of the overwhelming majority of the Indian community within the overall framework of community development. I do not want to say too much about the problems of Johannesburg because I do not know much about it, but I do know about the position in Vereeniging.

Yes, but I was speaking about Johannesburg.

We also have a group of communists in Vereeniging who would sabotage any scheme, just as they want to sabotage Lenasia. At Vereeniging there are as many Indians as anywhere else in the Transvaal and 90 per cent of them, under the leadership of the Chairman of the Indian Congress of the Southern Transvaal, are quite prepared to co-operate with the Minister. The Minister of Community Development has met those people, and they have expressed their full support, and have said that as long as they are given the necessary protection they will co-operate with the Minister in establishing separate residential areas. Why should we not encourage these Indians? Who was the hon. member for Hospital actually representing this afternoon? On whose behalf was he speaking? He was only speaking on behalf of the extreme section amongst the Indians who are the most outspoken communists in the Transvaal and who want to undermine every attempt at community development. Now he has come with this Lenasia story and says that the Indians do not want anything to do with it. I challenge him to prove that as far as racial separation is concerned, the Indians are not prepared to go and live there. It is an ideal residential area for them, and the Indians are not opposed to it, and if it were not for the group of agitators, the scheme would have been much easier to implement.

But I have actually risen to thank the Minister of Community Development for the way in which he is dealing with the whole question of community development for the Indians in the Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark-Sasolburg complex, including Residensia. I want to pay tribute to the way in which the Indian community in that area are prepared to co-operate with the Government. We have fortunately succeeded in isolating completely the few communist agitators whose mouthpiece the hon. member now is, and the attitude of the official leader of the Indian Congress in that area, in the whole of the Southern Transvaal, is that he has offered the Minister and the Vereeniging Town Council his full co-operation in proceeding with the community development scheme in that important area. Here we are not dealing with 100 or 200 Indians but with one of the biggest concentrations of Indians in the Transvaal, and they are prepared to co-operate. They are working out the schemes regarding where they must go and live and where they must establish their businesses and there is the best possible cooperation between the municipalities of Vereeniging, Residensia and Vanderbijlpark and the Minister and the Indians. I cannot condemn too strongly the role the hon. member for Hospital has played this afternoon because while the Indians are trying to co-operate he is trying to throw a “spanner in the works”, and it is only a small group of Indians who are not prepared to co-operate. I want to congratulate the Minister most sincerely on the great success he has already achieved with community development in that area and I just want to say that he need not pay any attention to the agitation by the hon. member for Hospital.

I do not propose to answer the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who has just sat down.

You cannot, because you know nothing about that area.

I would have said that if the hon. member had allowed me to continue. But I would like to say a word about what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout). I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister whose Vote we are now discussing will both dissociate themselves completely from the poisonous statements made by the hon. member for Brakpan.

There are two matters I should like to raise. The one relates to the Indians in Natal generally. The policy of the Government now is that they accept the Indians as a permanent part of our population. That being the case, I think the hon. the Minister’s attention, especially in Natal, must be directed in regard to the group areas legislation and proclamations even more to the financial implications of this legislation to the Indians, than housing. Housing is a necessary ancillary part of that legislation, but if you take a place like Queens-borough, the whole area there has now been declared White, I understand, and the Indians there have been living there for more than 50 years. It does not help them to have to move to another area where they can get another house. That is not their problem; their problem is trading. The Indians are a group of traders and merchants, and the group areas administration affects them more in so far as their businesses are concerned than it does in any other way, and it affects them more than any other group. I hope the Minister will give some indication as to what is to happen to the Indians there.

The other matter I wish to raise is one which falls within my own constituency. It is the problem of the proclamation group areas in the Greenwood Park-Redhill complex. The position there was that the whole of the area west of the North Coast Road was declared to be for Indian and Coloured occupation. I may say that an awful lot of White people had to leave that area. If the Minister cares to check on the figures at the last general election, in that polling district half of the people could not be found. An awful lot of them have moved to the east side of the North Coast Road, just to the other side of the road. I might say that they are working people, not very wealthy, and their life savings go into their homes. They know that area and like it and they have moved over the road, and having done so they now find that there is tremendous speculation as to whether or not this area will also be declared a Coloured or an Indian area. I hope the Minister is in a position to tell these people what the position will be. I say so in all earnestness. The Minister has enough knowledge of this area and of the problems of those people, because their Association wrote to the Minister’s Department and pointed out that they are now once again living under the same conditions of uncertainty and frustration under which they lived on the west side of the road. This is a very real fear so far as these people are concerned, and I cannot stress enough that these people are not wealthy and that their life savings go into their homes, which represent the main assets they have. I hope the Minister will tell us what his plan is for that area so that these people can have certainty and some sort of protection for their assets.

Mr. Chairman, so far as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is concerned, I wish to assure him that I am aware of the difficulties there and I would suggest that we rather discuss this matter privately, because it is very difficult for me at present to make a statement in public. As the hon. member knows, we have tried for the last week already to meet each other, but it was not possible.

*Before I proceed, I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) said, and together with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) I should like to express my keen disappointment that the hon. member for Hospital thought fit to be the champion here for the group of people on whose behalf he spoke. I shall tell you why. It is because the facts are that the vast majority of Indians are not associated in their heart of hearts with the I.N.C., and we are receiving representations daily—it was said the other day only in my presence and that of the hon. member for Vereeniging by leading Indians—that they wish to detach themselves from these people’s agitations and unfair actions and the manner in which these people are preventing effect being given to the policy of the Government. But I should like to say to the hon. member for Hospital, moreover, he is not talking to people who are uninformed. We probably know very much more than he thinks we know. In respect of the housing of Indians, there is the most iniquitous exploitation by their fellow countrymen, and mainly by the people who are so forward in agitating against the policy of the Government. I could give him instances that have come to my attention, where Indians have had to pay from R30 to R50 key money merely to be able to get a room. When the Government then comes forward with its housing schemes and its community development, those conditions are eliminated, but now he comes along and professes to be the champion of the people who are in every possible way trying to frustrate this development that is being planned by the Minister of Indian Affairs and myself in consultation. We do not have an easy task, and this kind of speech does not help us. I should like to test his speech in the light of the facts.

The facts are these. Take Lenasia. In this area at the present time 640 houses for Indians are being erected at a cost of more than R1,000,000, and 224 of the houses have already been completed. The hon. member has not been to Lenasia, but I have been there.

How do you know I have not been there?

Because if you had been there, you would not have talked such nonsense. Of the houses 224 have already been completed and 187 of them have already been allocated some time ago, and in terms of the contract all these houses have to be delivered by 22 August 1962. But what is more, business premises at a contract price of R32,000 and a block of offices at a cost of R43,000 are being completed and must be delivered before 5 September of this year. It is not only a housing scheme, but a modem town that is being planned. The plots are made available at R550 each, and 35 Indians have already built upon their own plots. I say Lenasia is a modern Indian town that is coming into being, in sharp contrast to a report I have here on the conditions under which Indians in India are living. I have a report here and I do not want to take it too far, except that I merely wish to say that the Indian Congress are the last people who should complain. They should rather assist their Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, for whom they are yearning so much, to clean up his conditions in India, where 80 per cent of the people are living in one little room. So I want to deny in the strongest possible terms that the statements the hon. member has made on behalf of his friends are true, and I say he has made an irresponsible contribution, and that he is only impeding the good work thereby.

Recently there appeared a report under the title “The Report of the Mission to Survey Community Development” and it was issued by the Secretariat of UNO. The whole idea of community development is a modern tendency throughout the world, and not only in South Africa, and all this raising the dust by hon. members merely shows that they are completely out of touch with the entire trend in the world to-day, namely to place the emphasis on community development. I wish to quote only a few passages from that report—

So the report continues. In other words, the whole idea of community development has become a modern tendency throughout the world, and there are numerous other countries that are engaged on the same idea, and South Africa virtually is in the lead with the creation of machinery in this respect, and if hon. members resist it, they merely show that they are not keeping pace with modern tendencies. In order to achieve clarity, particularly with reference to the questions that have been put and the charges that are being made, on how the Government will act, I should like to try briefly to give an exposition of what we want to do, and that includes our policy in respect of the Indians for whom a department has now been created, and who have now been accepted as a permanent group of inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa. Now I should like to say in the first place, that in order to make this policy of community building and community development possible in practice, I want to repeat an assurance already given by my predecessor when he said that no person who cannot look after himself will be forced to leave his home in consequence of group areas legislation, unless alternative accommodation is available. I can do no more than repeat that assurance. Secondly, I want to say that the ideal should be aimed at as far as possible to protect each racial group in their own proclaimed area against penetration by other groups. They expect that of us. The Whites expect it and the other racial groups also expect it of us. I am submitting these things to the House with the full approval of the Cabinet. The policy is not only to build residential areas, but emerging townships and urban communities. That is why the Department for Community Development is now engaged on making possible, together with the Department of Housing, by means of its programmes in respect of the other racial groups, what it is doing for the Whites, namely to enable the White community to live in their own climate. In so far as the Indians are concerned who are in White areas, the emphasis will for the time being and as a transition stage, fall upon the separation of residential areas. We are giving priority to that. In this connection I should like to refer to a special case referred to here by the hon. member for Hospital. He referred to Fordsburg and Burghersdorp, but what the hon. member apparently does not know is that those areas have been left controlled under the latest proclamations. They have not been proclaimed.

I merely referred to them.

Yes, he merely referred to them, but he creates impressions, in the same way the Indian Congress does. What is more, a Press statement has been issued by my predecessor, in which he expressly stated that that area will be allowed to remain an area where the Indians may trade, and this fact was notified to the whole world by means of a Press statement, yet all this raising of dust is still continuing. But secondly, the hon. member should have established his facts, for before the areas were declared White on the Rand, large areas were first declared for Coloureds and the development process of Lenasia had been started. With this assurance that no person who cannot provide alternative accommodation for himself will be removed from his present accommodation—why are these facts not put to the Minister? Then there will be greater co-operation, surely. I say that, in so far as the Indians are concerned who are in White areas, the emphasis will, for the time being and as a transition stage, fall on the separation of residential areas. The Indian traders who are spread out in White towns will gradually be removed. Where it is practicable, Indian residential areas will be connected as off-shoots of a corner in the original town concerned where the Indians have already been settled for a long time, because the Government has already said repeatedly, and I wish to repeat it again to-day, that the Group Areas legislation will not be used, and is not intended to deprive the present generation of Indians of their livelihood. That also is a wrong impression that is being sent abroad, that we wish to deprive these people summarily of their livelihood, and then throw them upon the State as paupers. That is not the policy. Where, under given circumstances, it is not practicable to give effect to this off-shoot policy, the Indian commerce will, in course of time, have to move to their own townships. As a rule it should be capable of being done by way of issuing of permits for which the Group Areas Act makes provision. I have said before, and I wish to repeat again to-day, that there is no Act that is more flexible for the purpose of acting as the circumstances require, than the very Group Areas Act. In large urban complexes provision will be made in specially specified areas, 16bis areas, for Indian traders. I could mention a variety of ways whereby each case can be dealt with on its merits. It is not possible for the Government to pursue exactly the same policy at all places, for circumstances differ, and that is why provision has been made in all these different directions in order to be able to achieve the principal object of community development.

I should like to say, furthermore, that the Bantu areas in towns and cities will not be specially singled out as possible customers for Indians, and that is why Indians will, as far as possible, not be placed next to Bantu, but, on the other hand, it must not be assumed that, in the placing of the Indian trader, the poorer sections of the White population or the Coloured people will have to take responsibility for his existence. The Whites and the Coloureds are equally entitled to protection in their own areas. In so far as it is practicable, non-White residential areas should not be situated in such a way that they surround White towns, and thereby sterilize the opportunities for expansion. In placing non-White group areas, regard should be had to the provision of services such as water, lights, etc., and they should be placed in a practical manner within reach of such services, save in the case of regional planning. Now the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) referred in this connection to the question of East Rand. Let me tell hon. members that it is no good establishing a small community that will not be able to support itself at every town and at every city and every suburb, and that is why there are certain areas where you will have to apply regional planning. On a portion of the East Rand it is our policy to apply regional planning for Coloureds at Boksburg, and that is why the area has already been proclaimed. There is the most cordial cooperation between the City Council of Boksburg and the Department of Community Development and Housing to make that planning a reality as soon as possible. There is the lake at Boksburg, too, which is going to be developed into a recreation resort for the Coloureds. So we cannot always permit ourselves to be guided by the less important wish of a local community and thereby make a failure of the great ideal of regional planning.

If you find that in Boksburg you have sufficient for all the Coloureds on the East Rand, what are we going to do with the 2,400 houses in Wattville?

It will not be possible to settle the whole East Rand’s Coloureds at Boksburg. But it is proposed to make provision for the Coloureds of Boksburg, Benoni and Germiston at Boksburg. It is close to the industrial area that is situated between Benoni and Boksburg. But there is the far East Rand also, and inquiries are already being made to see whether Coloureds cannot be placed also in the Geduld-Springs complex for the far East Rand. As regards Benoni, there has already been an inquiry by the Group Areas Board to see whether provision cannot be made on a regional planning basis for the Indians of the East Rand. But Benoni also has another problem, and that problem is that there are still numerous Bantu that will have to be removed from certain areas of Benoni. I am convinced that if the City Council will help us in this matter—and I have no doubt that they will help us; I am in touch with the City Council of Benoni and our relationship is very good, better than my relations with the hon. member;—then according as we progress with that idea, we shall also, as soon as we receive the report, take the final decision as soon as possible. I cannot say to-day what the Board is going to recommend in regard to Benoni nor can I anticipate the Board’s recommendation. I have to wait for the advice I shall get from the Board, but all I am saying is that the Board has investigated the matter with a view to the settlement of Indians on the East Rand.

Next I should like to say only this: The various racial groups will enjoy protection in their own areas in respect of commerce and the professions within the framework of this policy, and it is not possible to control customers. Nor is it the intention of the Government to control customers. But if these directory points I have mentioned are pursued by the Department in consultation with the Departments of Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs and Bantu Administration, as well as in consultation with the city councils, I have no doubt that we shall be able to show on a greater scale, that such a policy is capable of being fruitful, and that eventually we shall give the world an example of community development and good race relations.

It is not possible for the Department of Community Development, and it is not possible for the Department of Housing to operate simultaneously at all places. Hon. members on both sides of the House come forward and ask priority for their towns or their constituencies. We have to face this difficulty, and that is why, after I became Minister, I laid down a policy that from now onwards an annual list of priorities will be compiled by Community Development and Housing, a list of priorities as regards planning, as regards proclamations, as regards development and as regards the implementation of the housing programme. After this list of priorities has been disposed of to a large extent, the next list of priorities will be tackled. Then we shall be able to progress, but we cannot be everywhere simultaneously; our forces are limited and we make our officials’ task simply impossible if we have to think everywhere simultaneously. That is why I wish to say beforehand, that if a certain place is not on the list of priorities for a particular year, I hope hon. members will understand that it will have its turn sooner if we work according to our list of priorities.

Then I come to the matter raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). I think the hon. member raised this point as a result of the Grossi case, a case which is well-known to him and to me. The agreement was based on the following—

I am informed that that is also the policy followed by the Department of Lands and the Department of Public Works; it is an accepted policy. As the hon. member knows, I am not in a position to tell the Board what it should do. I am accused of having taken over the powers of the Board, but I have not done so. The Board is a statutory body. But I will bring this request of the hon. member to the notice of the Board. Furthermore, I am informed that should such a person approach the Board before the agreement is signed and give the Board the particulars of his difficulties, then the Board can always decide on the merits of each case. But in any case I will bring the hon. member’s request to the notice of the Board.

It is the individual that I am concerned about.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45—”Housing”, R3,810,000,

The hon. the Minister with his three portfolios of Coloured Affairs, Community Development and Housing reminds me, for some reason or another, of what has been described as the world’s greatest circus, Ringling Brothers and Barnum. Sir, I once saw this circus in action, and it is essential for the ringmaster there to ensure that in all three of his circuses operating together, the precision of the particular proceedings is kept at maximum efficiency—and that is apparently what the hon. the Minister is obliged to do. We have already heard that in regard to the one circle or circus, that of Coloured Affairs, everything is perfect. We have also heard quite recently that in regard to Community Development, everything is perfect.

Who said that?

Sir, I do not want to go into the question, but the hon. the Minister is trying to disprove some of the things that I have said, factually. He sought to prove that any criticism whatsoever was based on something like being the spokesman for Communism.

That was not criticism; it was an accusation.

Sir, I am not going to be distracted by that. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I take the liberty of examining this circle or circus where housing is of interest. There you have certain sub-divisions again. You have housing for Bantu, you have housing for Coloureds, and you have housing for Europeans. Oddly enough, in order not to be controversial about housing, I am going to discuss European and not Bantu or Coloured housing—the hon. the Minister may be relieved to hear that—because for one thing we know that a tremendous effort has been made in regard to Bantu housing, although I for one, cannot agree that the rather idealized or even glamorous version that is given in our official publication is, in fact, in the interests of the country. I refer to this sort of picture which appears in the brochure, “Each a roof of his own”, and, Sir, without any caption whatsoever but set in the middle of a discussion about Bantu housing, this is certainly calculated, overseas at least, to give the impression that every Bantu householder has a home like this, with a magnificent lounge, excellent lighting and a 5-piece Chesterfield suite. The hon. the Minister might examine this some time. Whether this is so or not I am not going to discuss; I merely say that it was a bit slanted to put out this sort of idea as being typical of our Native housing.

In regard to the question of Coloured housing, the hon. the Minister has told us that certain schemes are already well in hand, and I therefore want to concentrate on the question of European housing for a few minutes. Sir, the local authorities who provide European housing with the assistance of the National Housing Commission usually have a similar experience, and that is, that despite the fact that they obtain loans at very low rates of interest—they get the necessary Government assistance—these schemes, having been created in many cases as sub-economic schemes, nevertheless show a loss. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of that. I would refer him to two, for example, in Johannesburg, where you have the situation that in the case of one fairly new scheme, Montclare, which was only opened about four years ago—and I hope the hon. the Minister, if he is going to listen to this at all, will not tell me afterwards that I do not know what I am talking about, because that is the favourite argument.

I was listening to you.

I was chairman of the committee that was responsible for the design and the building of this township in Johannesburg, and perhaps I may know something about it. Montclare township, which is beyond Newlands in Johannesburg and which is near to what was called Claremont—which, as the Minister knows is a Coloured area—where there is a capital outlay of only R643,000, there was an income for the year 1960-1 of R58,000 and a deficit for the year of R6,730. This is a scheme with only 63 three-roomed houses and 181 four-roomed houses. In the case of an older European housing scheme, that of South Hills, or Welfare Park as it is now called, there was a capital outlay of R2,198,000 more or less; the expenditure for the year 1960-1 was R178,500, and deducting from that the revenue, you have a deficit of nearly R11,000. Those are just two cases I have selected at random. The point I am trying to make is this: the reason why these schemes, which are let at fairly high rentals, usually produce a loss despite the assistance from National Housing Commission funds at very low rates of interest, is the fact that to begin with they are usually too far from the place where the majority of the inhabitants of these townships have to work. They are therefore unattractive. I can assure the Minister that it was no easy task to fill even the small scheme of Montclare. I say this with some experience of, for example, the slums of Johannesburg, where as Chairman of the Slums Court I spent many, many long hours looking at conditions under which Europeans were living in various parts of Johannesburg, and seven times out of ten, almost automatically, if you were to say to the head of the family living, say in a slum in Jeppe or Vrededorp, “We can give a house in Montclare or in South Hills”, he would say, “No, we cannot go and live there; it is too far; we cannot go and pay the extra bus-fare; and it takes an hour to get there and an hour to get back”. They would prefer, they said in most cases, to live under those conditions in the slums, not from choice but from economic necessity. Therefore it is perfectly clear that this theory of “each a roof of his own” has to be applied in a somewhat different way to that in which we are applying it. In other words, we should not insist, as in the case of most of our schemes, with perhaps three exceptions, of providing every European with housing and a piece of ground around the house. That insistence means that your capital cost becomes so big and the distance from the working area becomes so great that (a) the scheme is unacceptable to those for whom it is designed, (b) the rentals are too high and (c) the tenant of the particular house is prejudiced economically. The alternative has been developed quite successfully in other countries, and that is to provide economic multiple housing for Europeans. There are many examples of that already, but unfortunately we in South Africa believe that when we build a block of flats in Johannesburg, for example, for sub-economic purposes, it has to be something like ten miles from the centre of the city, and therefore in many cases it involves the person concerned in travelling 15 miles or more to get to and from work. It is clearly possible to develop areas practically in the centre of a large town or city, if you adopt the principle of acquiring land at fairly high prices, instead of being tempted to acquire a lot or a large area of land at a low price per acre; if you acquire a small piece of land nearer the centre of the city, an area which has fallen into disuse or which has become a slum area or which has become an industrial area, and then develop a multiple housing scheme in that area. Two examples come to my mind, one in Johannesburg. There is the case of Jeppe, for instance, which is very well sited as far as its proximity to the central area is concerned, where the City Council has for years had the complete design for economic and sub-economic housing for European workers, providing the National Housing Committee would give its agreement. That would put people in the position, if they could obtain a house there—a fairly modern house, which need not be very large—of living within three miles or less of the centre of Johannesburg. An example here in Cape Town is the so-called District Six. I am not quite sure what the Group Area position is there, but I believe it is partly defined for Coloureds and partly for Europeans. But the point is that there you have an area which again, through the passage of time has fallen into the usual state of disrepair. I am not being dogmatic about the particular suburb, but because District Six is close to the central area of Cape Town, it is, from my point of view, an example with which I can illustrate my case. If housing of the multiple style were to be provided in an area like that, then I think the Minister will find, on the experience of other countries, that he could provide housing at approximately half the present cost per dwelling unit, if there was not this insistence on a piece of land and a detached dwelling for every man. [Time limit.]*

I have risen to bring the housing position in Bloemfontein (City) to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Last year I obtained certain information from the Minister’s Department which indicated that the National Housing Commission had not carried out one housing programme of its own in Bloemfontein from 1957 up to last year. During the preceding nine years, i.e., from 1948 to 1957, the Housing Commission through its own building programme had built 859 house in Bloemfontein at an expenditure of R3,434,780. This was an excellent programme which was carried out and it made a tremendous contribution towards relieving considerably and markedly the housing shortage in Bloemfontein. During the past four years, according to the information given me, the Commission has not undertaken any housing programmes, of its own in Bloemfontein. The Minister informed me last year that the Housing Commission did not envisage any building programmes, or schemes of its own for Bloemfontein. Nevertheless I find that of all the cities in South Africa Bloemfontein has the longest waiting-list of applicants, namely 600, who would like to make use of this building scheme of the National Housing Commission. I recently made inquiries again and I find that the position is practically unchanged. A circular has been sent to applicants whose names appear on the waiting list, asking them to notify the Housing Commission within 14 days whether they are still interested in accommodation. The applicants whose names appear on the waiting list are people who do not have permanent accommodation; they are always changing their addresses; consequently many of these letters have been returned undelivered. But the letters which have come back have immediately resulted in a new waiting list consisting of 408 applicants. I have also been informed that new applications are streaming in so rapidly that the figure in the near future will, it is estimated, total 500 to 600 once again. Just two weeks ago I was informed in Bloemfontein that there were 22 families in Toevlug and 29 in Tempe who must leave their homes and who cannot find any accommodation elsewhere. Their rentals vary from approximately R5 to R12 per month for the temporary accommodation which they are using at the moment. The housing shortage in Bloemfontein is therefore really acute. I accordingly want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister that his Department and the National Housing Commission should give increased attention to Bloemfontein. The income of the majority of the applicants varies from R80 to R130 per month, while the demand for three-bedroomed, two-bedroomed and one-bedroomed houses, is more or less equally great. I am also aware of the fact that the negotiations between the National Housing Commission and the Bloemfontein City Council did not achieve the desired success during the years 1955-60. However, I do not want to say anything on this matter, but I should like to suggest that negotiations should be recommended with the City Council as soon as possible so that the necessary plots can be obtained for the building of houses. I might just mention that the City Council has tried in the meantime also to make its contribution in order to assist in relieving the position. As recently as 1960, for example, 50 houses were erected for sale in the General de Wet estate at a cost of R144,000. This year application has already been made for a loan of R152,000 in order to build a further 50 houses for sale. I therefore want to say that the necessity for the National Housing Commission to provide housing in Bloemfontein is really great and I hope that the Minister will give urgent attention to this matter.

The question of housing is a very important question, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister has plenty of trouble in connection with this particular portfolio. I want to raise the question of sub-economic houses which are being built, particularly for the Coloured people. I think the hon. the Minister and I are probably of the same opinion, and that is that something must be done in connection with the particular aspect of housing to try to lift it out of this trend into which it has fallen, and to try to do what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has just pleaded for and that is for more home-ownership houses. I think the hon. the Minister must feel, in the light of the information which I will give him, that the type of sub-economic house which is being built to-day is a waste of our money. It is no use at all the Government saying that they have spent millions on sub-economic houses when indeed they are not fulfilling their task, because as I said as far back as 1958, the type of house which is being built does not serve its purpose. I said then that these sub-economic schemes would turn into slums. I want to quote something now to prove that what I said four years ago is in fact true. I think the House will be interested to hear a report of a meeting held by the Divisional Council of Cape Town. I am reading now from a report in the Cape Argus, of Tuesday, 29 May 1962. This is what the report says—

I read it too and it is absolute nonsense.

I am sorry the Minister said that because the people who say this are people who know and who are also experts. I think the Minister is adopting the wrong attitude. What I am pleading for is for a better type of house which will not turn into a slum. I think for the benefit of the Committee I should again say what type of house is being built to-day. It is a house without a ceiling, without inside doors and with cement floors. I want to say that although houses of this type do provide housing for the people, their health has suffered considerably since they have gone into these houses. Here I want to repeat what I think I said to this House before. During my last election we were told by Coloured people in one area of my constituency that their children were suffering more from tuberculosis now than ever before.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member says it is nonsense. Let me go on quoting this report from the Cape Argus—

What about the houses in Windermere? Those were built by the council.

Sir, Windermere has been a parrot-cry, and I want to say that anybody who condemns the old Windermere is entitled to condemn it. [Interjection.] No, Windermere was inherited by the City Council of Cape Town from the Divisional Council.

And from whom did they inherit it.

The Minister probably wants me to say …

From the United Party.

Be the position as it may, to-day I am happy to say that very many of the slums have been eradicated there and that houses are being built. I am not attacking the Minister in the way that hon. members opposite think I am. I want to make an appeal to the Minister that he should reconsider the type of sub-economic house that is being built that if necessary, until new plans can be made for a better type of house, he should subsidize those local authorities that are prepared to bring about improvements. For instance the City Council of Cape Town out of its own funds supplies a ceiling; they supply the doors and I think they give a wooden floor.

What is more important—an extra room or a ceiling?

What is important is the health of the people and the type of house that they live in. I want to make an appeal to the Minister immediately to scrap those plans for sub-economic houses which are being built for the Coloureds and for the Whites and to substitute a better house. I also want to join the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) in making a plea for a cheap home-ownership scheme under which the Coloureds can buy their own houses and pay off the purchase price at a low rental. In that way you will get better housing facilities, you will get Coloured people who will be proud of their homes and who will look after them. The hon. the Minister is with me. The hon. the Minister has indicated that to me privately that he is not very fond of sub-economic schemes.

Not for the reasons you have mentioned.

Well, the result is the same. The hon. the Minister is with me and I am very happy to say that, and I think we should encourage him in his dislike of sub-economic housing, and we should press upon the Government that something better is required. If the hon. the Minister does so, he will render a great service to the Coloured population as well as the White population of this country if he improves the type of housing. I will say nothing more on the question save to say that the Minister should consider calling a conference of interested people in this particular area and see to what extent this type of house can be improved by the local authorities and other authorities. I want to end on this note that since the Slums Act, so many houses were declared slums that I think to-day the City Council of Cape Town is the biggest slum owner in Cape Town.

Hon. members opposite have reproached this side of the House for not continuing with the large-scale immigration programme of the United Party in 1948. I just want to mention that I think hon. members have forgotten the deplorable housing conditions which prevailed just after the war and which still prevailed in 1948 when this Government came into power. We had the position that families were living in single rooms, in backyards and in garages. People were living under conditions which caused them to lose their self-respect. Fortunately a National Party Government came into power and launched large-scale housing schemes. Up to the year 1955 this Government had built as many as 50,000 houses for Whites in South Africa. And not even this was sufficient to provide the houses that were required. In support of what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has said, I want to point out that in a city like Bloemfonfontein there was still a waiting-list of 1,600 for the housing scheme in 1955. I regard the achievement of the Government in the field of housing as a national monument of this Government, because it has provided particularly for the lower paid persons who never could afford their own homes. The housing loans have made it possible for them to own their own homes. It has also made it possible for these people to take their rightful place in the community and by so doing they have regained their self-respect. The Government has tackled a far-sighted and effective plan to enable the lower paid workers to buy their own homes. They are no longer being sent backwards and forwards from one rented house to another, from one little room to another, and from one backyard to another. For this achievement the people of South Africa remain very grateful to this Government. We also want to express our deep gratitude for the fact that more than R2,000,000 is once again being made available on this Vote to meet the additional interest on these cheap loans.

But the actual matter which I want to discuss is the fact that this great system, these housing loans, is also being extended to the smallholdings around Bloemfontein. The smallholding owners appreciate this greatly. As a representative of these people I feel that there are nevertheless difficulties that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I want to direct his attention to two matters particularly. We realize that to-day different circumstances prevail around Bloemfontein. Whereas in earlier times there was a water shortage and the threat of a water shortage, I can almost say, hung over the heads of those people, the prospects have now improved since the announcement of the Orange River scheme. This can be the salvation of those holdings. Seeing that in general power is already being supplied to these people and water will become available in the foreseeable future, there is already the possibility of obtaining water and there are many of these holdings which for the moment have sufficient water. I therefore in the first place want to ask the hon. the Minister to raise the restriction of 10 morgen in the case of holdings so that any holding which is within reasonable distance of a city can be eligible for a housing loan. I want to urge that we should not cut up the pieces of land which are as big as 25 morgen and less by making sub-division essential. I want to urge the Minister that such persons should be able to obtain a housing loan in a proclaimed area in respect of such a piece of land. The second matter which I want to submit is that the housing loans should also be raised to the maximum of R4,500. I am making this submission by reason of the fact that the building costs in the case of these people are practically the same, and seeing that power and water are now being provided, the risk disappears, and because of the efficient bus service now available to these people distance is no longer a factor. When these people use their own vehicles there are always additional products such as eggs, butter, slaughter poultry, honey, fruit and vegetables which can be taken with to eliminate transport as a factor. I therefore urge that this should be taken into account. Then I want to mention a final reason, namely that this area around Bloemfontein—I want to prophesy this—in the future will become the green belt of our city, the select residential area, where the people can retain their rural background, where they can enjoy the freedom of nature and where healthy families can be built up, the labour supply of our cities, the strength of our nation.

I don’t think that we can say that the housing position is satisfactory in this country so long as there are slums, and so long as there is unemployment in the building industry. I am the first to admit that a tremendous amount has been done in housing over the last few years, but we are faced with this position, that there is a surplus of flats, and yet there is a shortage of houses, particularly for the lower income groups. I would like the Minister to indicate what his policy is in regard to sub-economic housing as against economic housing. I think there is a danger that sub-economic houses eventually will deteriorate into slums. That is speaking generally, and the emphasis should be on economic houses and on home-ownership. When we deal with the lower income groups, I want to refer particularly to houses for the Coloured and Indian people. There is a tremendous amount of unemployment among the Coloured and Indian people, and yet we find that when housing schemes are embarked upon tenders are called for large groups of houses, and they go to large contractors. I do not object to that, but I think the hon. the Minister should collaborate with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and see the extent to which he can bridge the unemployment gap. It seems to me that if provision could be made for these persons who are unemployed to be employed on these housing schemes, he would save unemployment insurance. What is happening to-day is that the Housing Board is placing the emphasis on the cheapest house, and the emphasis has recently been to get concrete houses, houses that are produced in mass, with the result that in the main a large portion of the work is done by unskilled and semi-skilled labour. We had the position that numbers of unskilled workers are drifting to the towns, are being used as unskilled labour, while the skilled labour is idle and is drawing unemployment pay. It seems to me that when the Minister examines housing schemes, he should collaborate with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to see the extent to which skilled labour can be used so that the question of unemployment pay can be taken into account as a cost factor. I think it is obvious to the Minister that if you have a housing scheme where you have a prefabricated house done by unskilled labour and, on the other hand, you find that the skilled worker is idly standing by waiting for his house to be completed, it is an unhappy state of affairs as far as he is concerned. Let me illustrate it by indicating the position just outside Durban, where a housing scheme is contemplated for Indian workers. If a tender were to be accepted for an Indian housing scheme, and this housing scheme was undertaken by a large contractor with mass production methods, it is true that the Department might get the cheapest house, but you would find that on that housing scheme most of the work being done by unskilled and semi-skilled workers while waiting for the house to be completed, would be a certain number of Indian people and their colleagues drawing unemployment pay would not be able to occupy those houses when they are finished. I suggest that the hon. the Minister might consider the advisability of putting out tenders for smaller batches of houses. He might then attract the smaller contractor who might give a very keen price and employed skilled labour and produce an article equally as good and from the health point probably considerably better than the mass produced house. I think the tendency is to produce a standard house which may suit the Highveld, but is not necessarily a satisfactory house on the coast. Anyone who knows housing on the coast will be the first to recognize that a concrete house sweats, is unhealthy and can affect the health of the people who occupy it. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us what his policy is in regard to housing, particularly housing for the Indian and Coloured groups, because I feel that it is unsound to have skilled people of these communities drawing unemployment pay while houses are being built for that community by unskilled and semi-skilled labour.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has raised the question of the housing position in Bloemfontein. I am aware of it. He quoted statistics here. The fact of the matter is that the number of residential units built there by the Commission is 887. That is to say, houses built since 1948 for Whites by the Commission itself, namely 887 at a cost of R3,439,137. As against that the City Council made 369 dwellings available at a cost of R1,518,689. At one stage it seemed as if the City Council of Bloemfontein was somewhat unwilling to proceed, and the Commission just felt that it could take all the initiative at one place, while the City Council sat back with its hands in its pockets, but in recent times there apparently are signs of change. I have been informed that the attitude of the Commission had the effect that the City Council has now itself tackled a scheme under which 50 dwelling units have already been built, while approval has been obtained for 50 more. In view of this effort by the City Council, the Commission has already decided to build a further 50 dwellings itself also.

That is still too few.

Yes, but I should like to indicate another way. The hon. member has referred here to certain income groups, and I think the City Council should help us to have more individual loans taken up, for at the moment all individual loans are controlled by the Commission in Bloemfontein directly, and I think the City Council should do much more in this connection to be the channel through which such individual loans are concluded. Then many of the people falling within the income group referred to by the hon. member could be assisted, for an interesting point is this, that the Commission grants 90 per cent loans and then the plot on which the house is built usually is taken as the one-tenth the person who wishes to build the dwelling, should possess, but the Commission helps such persons also to pay off a part of the plot price, and does so by including it in the loan. This really amounts to this that the Commission awards a loan of 100 per cent to the person if he has a plot. I think many of these problems can be solved if city councils were more active and will co-operate with the Commission to encourage these individual loans. Then I should like to say to the hon. member that I hope to go to Bloemfontein myself in the near future, and we shall then have further discussions with the City Council. But the City Council should be jogged on a little, and I should like to appeal to the hon. member to encourage them a little from the back to contact the Housing Commission, and the Department, and then the problems will be capable of being overcome.

To the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) I should like to say only this, that the City Council has not recently made representations to the Commission on the problems he has raised. If the City Council could make available more centrally situated areas, the Commission will readily avail itself of them. I may tell the hon. member that we are now engaged on a scheme in Vrededorp where the Commission itself is making dwellings available and is engaged on a building programme, and then I should like also to refer the hon. member to the enormous undertaking the Commission is going to tackle at Sophiatown where about 1,200 dwelling units are going to be built and where plots will be made available to individuals also, and Sophiatown is in fact being planned with a view to the lower-middle income groups. But I agree with him that if land could be made available more cheaply nearer, that is the ideal solution. But it is not possible always to get land nearer the place of employment at a cheap price, and you have to have regard to land prices as regards the type of housing you are providing too.

Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Schlebusch) raised the question of the loan limitation on plots. My information is that there are no such limits. The question simply is what does the man make a living out of: Is he a farmer or is he not a bona fide farmer? I think the hon. member is asking a little too much. I do not know whether one can just open the sluices. We have a great shortage of housing, but my information is that the limitations referred to by the hon. member does not exist.

The amount is limited.

The risk factor also is involved in it. But I want to join this at once to what I want to say with reference to the remarks of the hon. members for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and Boland (Mr. Barnett). Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa are inclined to want to build too luxuriously, and we should get away from that idea of wanting to build luxury dwellings with all kinds of frills and fancies with State aid.

For Ministers too?

I agree it should apply to all. Fortunately I do not live in one of the luxury homes. I should like to say that we in South Africa can do what is done in other countries, namely to build effectively and nicely without putting up these excessively luxury dwellings. We cannot afford it as long as there is the shortage of accommodation we have in the country at the present time.

But I should like to say that I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that housing has not yet been placed on a satisfactory basis in South Africa. But compared with other countries, I think we have much to be proud of. Nevertheless I am not saying we have gone far enough. Yet I should like to show how far we have in fact progressed. I have here in front of me a return of what has been done from 1920 to 1948. I am not doing so by way of comparison between Governments, but only as regards periods. From 1920 to 1948 we established 22,301 dwellings at a cost of R47,733,000 for Whites. Since 1948, we have succeeded in erecting 37,993 residential units for Whites at a cost of R144,570,000. In other words, South Africa has made tremendous progress in regard to the provision of housing for its White population. I should like to say at once that I am not trying to suggest hereby that our problem of White housing has been completely solved. I should also like to use this opportunity to say that I think a wrong impression is created when it is contended that no more White housing is needed. In certain centres there is in fact a need for housing for White people still. That is why the Commission has this year already made available an amount of R7,200,000 out of the total amount voted for the housing programme for the next financial year, for European housing and there is more money in reserve to finance certain projects if they are to be tackled. I think that will indicate to hon. members that the Housing Commission and the Department of Housing are aware that there is still a need for housing particularly in respect of the lower-middle income groups. Now I come to the position as regards the Coloureds. From 1920 to 1948, 19,999 dwellings were built as regards Coloured housing—that is to say, commission schemes, sub-economic schemes and schemes of local bodies—at a cost of R19,781,000. But since 1948 a total of 31,212 residential units have been built at a cost of R31,106,000. So tremendous progress has been made there also.

Now hon. members are asking my views regarding sub-economic housing. My attitude accords with the attitude adopted by the experts of the Housing Commission. They have discussed it with me and I agree 100 per cent with it, namely that if we have a choice and if all the circumstances enable us to do so, we shall try to get away from sub-economic housing. It is not our object to place emphasis upon sub-economic housing. But I should like to differ from the hon. member on one point, and that is that it is not correct to say that sub-economic housing must necessarily lead to slum conditions.

The type of dwelling.

That has nothing to do with the type of dwelling. In the first place the position is that even by means of sub-economic housing you eliminate over-occupation, and you are placing people on their own plots, a surveyed plot. In the second place there is nothing to stop a sub-economic scheme leading to an economic scheme, according as the person who occupies it improves his position and becomes financially able to afford an economic basis. So it is wrong to adopt the view that a sub-economic scheme necessarily must lead to that. But in the second place I should like to say that it is wrong, when sub-economic funds are made available, to want to build economic schemes with those funds. That is why I agree 100 per cent with the Commission’s decision that there should be minimum-standards for sub-economic housing. The Commission has laid down certain minimum standards, not arbitrarily; the Commission has laid down those sub-economic standards in accordance with and after consultation with the Building Research Institute and the Health authorities. And whether the hon. member wishes to believe it or not, I should like to tell him that it has been scientifically established that a cement floor is no colder than an ordinary timber floor. So the whole argument regarding health falls away.

[Inaudible.]

No, look, the people you normally accommodate in sub-economic homes come from tin shanties and hovels, and if he still has such a low level of income that he cannot afford an economic home at the standards on which we make it available at the present time, I say he has no right to expect the State to spoon-feed him. No, we have much too great a housing shortage for that. In any event, whatever the position may be now, I should like to say publicly so that all city councils may know it once and for all—for there is an agitation on this matter—that it will not avail City Councils to try to get to me past the Commission or to try to get to me past the Department in respect of these matters. I adopt exactly the same attitude the Commission adopts and I am adopting this attitude on the basis of expert advice I have been given by people in whom I have the fullest confidence.

I have never discussed it in the City Council.

No, I am not saying he does it, but I wish to say this to city councils this afternoon. There is the other point about cement bricks. I have now had an opportunity to look at housing in another country, and I found there that cement bricks are being used effectively for housing purposes in a country that has rainfall throughout the year. I also reject the story we hear here in the Western Cape that the cement bricks are no good.

What about houses built of wood?

Experiments are being conducted with wooden houses and we are encouraging them. Now I come to one point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I should like to tell the hon. member that there is the greatest measure of co-operation between the Building Employers’ Organization and the Department of Housing. I also opened their Congress and I was impressed by the good understanding there exists between the Building Employers’ Organization and our Department. On that occasion I referred to a problem that evoked criticism in the past, and that is that there has been too much departmental building. On that occasion I pointed out that the tendency is to get away more and more from departmental building and to leave it more and more to private initiative. I think that will help largely to overcome the problem referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown. In the second place, in as much as the building societies have now once again started to grant loans for housing freely, I think we shall also be able to overcome gradually the problem of unemployment in the building trade. But in the third place I should like to emphasize what I referred to just now, that it is my point of view that we should as much as possible encourage people to become home owners. That is why we are guaranteeing to a certain extent the moneys made available by building societies, as the hon. member knows—an amount of R2,000,000. But apart from that, the Commission has its scheme for individual loans for both Whites and non-Whites. So the Commission is encouraging the taking up of individual loans, and all we are doing is to impose a maximum limit upon the amount that may be borrowed. But we do not impose a limit on the shape of the house or on the plan the person wishes to adopt. Of course he has to submit his plans and specifications so that we may check whether it is within the limits. But we are encouraging individual loans. I think the sooner we in South Africa can progress to the point, both as regards the Whites and the Coloureds, where people will be owners of housings and plots to the greatest possible extent, the more effective it will be to combat Communism. I personally believe that. I wish to assure the hon. member that during the few months I have been in charge of this portfolio, I have gone out of my way to have discussions with the Commission, the officials and the building experts, to see whether we cannot do more in this direction to bring a home within the reach of every man. I think we can do it by bringing down the cost structure. The Commission is convinced already that they can build a proper home according to their standards, as e.g. at Crown Gardens on the Rand—that a neat and effective home for the individual can be built for about R4,000. I am mentioning the round figure. I personally went to Crown Gardens to see the position, and any hon. member who has seen Crown Gardens, will be convinced that we have in fact succeeded in bringing down the cost structure to such an extent that at the present time you can give the man in the lower and middle income groups an opportunity to acquire his own home. I agree that it should be encouraged.

I understand that at the present moment experiments are being conducted by the Bureau of Standards in regard to prefabricated wooden houses. If the reports are favourable, will the Commission be prepared to make advances for the building of such dwellings?

Yes, definitely. I said so in public last year when I opened a wooden house at the Pretoria industrial exhibition.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 49.—”Information”, R2,361,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half hour? This is in a sense a new Vote, Sir, in that we are discussing it under a separate ministry, the Minister of Information. It is necessary, therefore, that we take into consideration, when we discuss the Minister’s policy, the background of the State Information Office. This background is that this office formerly functioned under the Minister of Foreign Affairs as a section of that Department. Since the establishment of the Department of Information, as announced in the December issue of the Government Gazette, we have not had any statement of policy from the Minister since his assumption to this important portfolio. We discussed this matter on a former occasion earlier on in this Session. We thought that the Minister would have availed himself of that occasion to make a policy statement. Had he done so we would then have been able in this debate to criticize that statement of policy and to carry on an objective discussion. But all that we have really had from the hon. the Minister have been a series of critical statements most of them revolving around the Minister’s attitude towards the English-language Press of this country. You see, Sir, when considering this Vote, it must always be borne in mind in discussing the policy of the hon. the Minister, that the hon. the Minister himself has no special knowledge of the task which he is expected to carry out. He has no background or special experience in the sphere of information activities. I may remind the House that the appointment of the Minister was a political appointment in this sense that it was made with a view to seeking the support of the so-called English-speaking voters of our country.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Vote.

I only mentioned that in passing, Sir. We must also bear in mind that we are now discussing an Information Office whose functions are much wider than those of the Information Office which functioned under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to deal with certain of the functions of the Information Office as enunciated in the Government Gazette of last December. I also notice from the latest report of the State Information Office that one of the functions of this Office is to disseminate information internally as opposed to the functions of the former office which were primarily directed to the dissemination of information abroad. Since this hon. Minister has assumed office a certain emphasis has been placed on the internal functions of the Information Department.

Let me say at the outset, Sir, that we on these benches have as much concern with and deplore as any member on the Government benches, slanted and false and fraudulent propaganda about our country that is mainly disseminated overseas. We deplore it, Sir, and we will be the last persons to support any of these slanted and false statements that are made about our country overseas. It is generally known that slanted reports have appeared in the so-called gutter Press. We would be the last people to say that there has not been a certain measure of justification for some of the criticism which has been levelled against this country, particularly against this Government’s policy. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not know why hon. members get so agitated when I talk about Government policy. Do they want to be like the proverbial ostrich and bury their heads in the sand and say that there is no such criticism?

Let me now discuss the three main aspects of the Minister’s Department. It falls under three distinct heads. The first is the function to disseminate information abroad; Secondly, it has to disseminate information internally, a function which has been stated to be one of the main functions of the office. The third aspect is the administrative working of the Minister’s Department.

The first question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is this: What is his programme in respect of the dissemination of information abroad? The Information Office reports, particularly over the last few years, have indicated a deterioration in the esteem and reaction on the part of people in the Western countries, also in the Eastern countries, in respect of the material regarding the policies of the Government disseminated by the Information Office. Let me take, for example, the report of the Information Office for 1960, when it still functioned under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. One of the first items in that report states exactly this—

It says “far from abating they are increasing in virulence”. I can quote from other reports, but to bring the matter right up to date I have here the latest report in which it says quite clearly that there has been no sign of slackening and that there is still political pressure being applied on the Government from abroad. After all the expenditure which has been incurred over the last few years, after all the efforts of the Information Office, there has been no improvement in the position abroad in respect of the activities of the Information Office. That is not what we on this side of the House say, Sir. It is an official statement made by the Minister’s own office. If that is so, Sir, I think it is right that we should ask the hon. the Minister what his programme is. What further efforts does he intend to make in order to bring about an improvement in the situation? Because no such improvement is reflected in the current reports of the Minister’s Department. When we discussed this matter on a former occasion with the hon. the Minister he said that we were faced with adverse criticism abroad because the hostility against South Africa was as a result of the fact that we had been dragged into a cold war. He attempted to indicate that this cold war was due to the attitude of the so-called liberal West as opposed to the views of the Communist East. He said that there was nothing which the Government or his office could do in regard to improving the position because of this cold war. And he posed this question to us. To what extent we were prepared to change the policies of South Africa in order to bring about an improvement in the position. He posed the direct question. He asked whether we were prepared to change the racial policies of this country so that they would conform to western conceptions of human dignity. By posing that question, the hon. the Minister openly admitted that as long as the Government pursued its present racial policy, which does not conform to the concepts of the West in regard to what they consider to be in accordance with human dignity, the Minister was wasting his time and the officials were wasting their time because they would not make any impact whatsoever upon either influential persons or the general public abroad. The Minister admitted that himself. So I think we should ask the Minister this pertinent question: What is his programme; what steps does he intend to take to try to bring about an improvement in the position? In the Minister’s own words of to-day “he still meets stiff sales resistance”. He said “We are meeting stiff sales resistance abroad, increasing sales resistance”. Let me say to the Minister that his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has tried for a number of years to sell a bad product to the people abroad and as long as this Minister attempts to sell the policies of this Government abroad, he will continue to meet stiff sales resistance.

What is that bad product?

The second point I should like to make with the Minister is this: How does he intend to organize this programme overseas? Before the Minister assumed office, the Director of the Office, Mr. Meiring, apparently assembled all our information offices abroad for a general discussion of this terrible position that they were faced with, this stalemate position that they were faced with. He announced certain policies. He said that if the efforts of the office were to be effective it had to fix certain target audiences; they should direct their attention to certain areas, the others could be written off. According to the Press report which appeared in the Star in September last year, Mr. Meiring indicated that they had decided to pay special attention to North America and the United Kingdom. Mr. Meiring added a great deal more in respect of that programme. What I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is this: Does he intend to adhere to the programme which was announced by the then Director? The programme that they were going to contract into a smaller area abroad the activities of the Information Office; that they were going to seek special target audiences and that they were going to write off as a loss certain areas, areas where the sales resistance was so stiff that it was not worth while to attempt to improve the position there; and that they looked upon the United Kingdom and North America as possibly the most receptive areas for the activities of the office. I put this to the hon. the Minister that if he wishes his office to be successful, even in a confined target area, such as North America, let us say, how on earth can the Minister hope his services and the work of his office abroad ever to be successful, when the Minister himself is guilty of making statements which are anathema to the people of those territories? I refer to an article which was recently written by the Minister and published in an organ of the Nationalist Party, called the South African Patriot. Amongst other things, the Minister made this statement in that article. He was talking about the political situation in South Africa vis-a-vis the Nationalist Party. He said this—

Where the Prime Minister is trying to get away from the “baasskap” atmosphere the hon. the Minister of Information is propagating it. Where the hon. the Prime Minister talks about equality between the racial groups in South Africa by voting in their own areas, the hon. the Minister of Information makes speeches and writes articles for general dissemination and publication saying that the real object of the White man in South Africa is to adopt a master attitude towards the lesser privileged groups, which is an attitude which is completely anathema to the people of the Western world. I want to say to the Minister that as long as he adopts that attitude he makes himself as guilty as other members of this Cabinet in making statements which are not acceptable to the people in the world at large.

But there is another aspect, Sir. There are 15 information offices abroad. I wish to raise a point with the hon. Minister which I raised with him on a former occasion namely this: What is the extent of the liaison between the Minister’s office and the Department of Foreign Affairs? You see, Sir, if the accent is to be placed on foreign activity there must surely be some arrangement between the hon. the Minister himself and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Because I think it is accepted that in international representation, the representative of a country is the accredited representative, namely the diplomat or the ambassador. It seems to me that we will have a position arising abroad where we will have information attaches proceeding under the directives of this hon. Minister, and if there is not satisfactory and adequate liaison between the policy followed by the Minister of Information and that followed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it may well be that information attaches of the hon. the Minister may be committing diplomatic blunders and disseminating information which the accredited representative, the ambassador, the diplomat, may find completely unsuited to the activities on which he himself may be embarked upon at the time. That position can arise. It has arisen in the past. That was one of the reasons why the Information Office was originally placed under the control of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It used to function as a separate unit, but that was the main reason why it was placed under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement as to the extent of the liaison which there will be between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his own ministry. Because in terms of the money we are being asked to vote here, part of it is in respect of the information offices abroad.

Let me turn to the internal aspect, Sir. I repeat what we on these benches have said before namely that we on this side do not see any necessity for a Ministry of Information directed to the internal aspect for the purpose of disseminating Government information to the electorate of South Africa. There is no other country that does it. And apart from that, it will amount to this that the money of the South African taxpayers will be spent on a Ministry of Information to disseminate Government policy internally; the taxpayers’ money will be used to finance the Minister of Information as a party propaganda machine for the benefit of the Government.

I want to ask the Minister another question, a question which I believe to be important. As I said at the beginning we have not had a statement of policy from the hon. the Minister but he has made statements from time to time. And one of those statements is to this effect—

If you have to analyse this statement. Sir, you will have to ask yourself the question what truth the hon. Minister is talking about. Is he inferring that there are certain media of dissemination in South Africa which do not tell the truth to the people? What media are there Sir? To what media can the Minister direct the attention of the Information Office? There is the radio, in the first instance. There is the Press in the second instance and there are the films, the cinemas, in the third instance. Those are the three main media that disseminate information to the public of South Africa. If you refer to the report of the Information Office where the functions of the office are stated quite clearly, you will see that one of the functions internally will be to co-ordinate the publicity service of the State and to arrange the publication of official statements. Further down in the report the Minister states that one of the main sources of slanted news and prejudiced writing is still in South Africa itself. The hon. Minister stands by that statement, I take it, because that is the report of his Department.

Let me deal with the radio. Is it his policy to have officials of his department appointed to the various programme advisory control boards of the S.A.B.C.? Because there is one official on the Bantu Programme Control Board of the S.A.B.C. I am referring to Mr. Prinsloo, who is now one of the under-secretaries of the Department. I want to ask the Minister, if this principle is to be established, namely that senior officials of his Department are to sit on the other advisory control boards of the S.A.B.C., the control boards of those other sections which serve all the sections of the South African population? We want some clarity from the hon. the Minister in that regard.

Then I come to the Minister’s relationship with the Press. Obviously the Afrikaans-language Press is one of the least of the Minister’s worries. He need not worry about the Afrikaans-language Press because in the main that is the Nationalist Party Press controlled by the Nationalist Party. The Minister’s worry is the English-language Press.

Is that controlled by the United Party?

As usual, Sir, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is quite off the rails. Now, the Minister has made several accusations. He has done it in this House well backed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and other hon. members. I again want to turn to this article which the Minister wrote in this organ The Patriot. In dealing with the English-language Press, the Minister said this—

If the Press is still the biggest obstacle to the Minister, I think I should ask the Minister a pertinent question. I think it is the Minister’s directive from the Prime Minister to channel all information about the Government through the Minister’s own Department. Apart from that particular directive, it is clearly stated in the Departmental report, because in the report there is a chapter headed “State Liaison”, which says that liaison must be maintained with all Government Departments. All information is channelled through the Minister’s Department, and a liaison section exists, and the report goes on to say that a particularly useful service was rendered during the Parliamentary Session when, for example, Cabinet decisions taken during the morning were prepared for release to the Press in both languages immediately the announcement was made in Parliament by the Minister concerned. But of course there are also examples of statements being released before the Minister ever made a statement in the House, but it was quite in order for the Minister’s office to issue that statement, because he had already been informed. How then is the attitude of the English Press an obstacle to the Minister, and how does he think he can overcome that obstacle by channelling everything through the information service? How can he hope to force the dreadful English Press to publish what he himself said, or what he propagates or disseminates? I say that one of the only results will be, when normal access by the Press to the Departments, as has always been the practice, is shut off, because of the allegation made by the Government that these reports are slanted and given wrong headlines …

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) entitled continuously to say “Downright lies” to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant)?

The hon. member is asleep. I did not say so. I said the newspapers publish downright lies.

One of the effects of this policy will be that all that is issued by the Government will have a big question-mark put behind it. It will all be labelled as propaganda, and the same accusations will be made against the Minister’s Department, that what comes from the Minister of Information is slanted news presented in order to show the Government’s case in the best possible light. That is the natural reaction. It has happened to other countries where a so-called Ministry of Information or Propaganda has been established in the past. I want to ask the Minister this question: If he thinks that the English Press does not tell the truth, and that his prime task is to convey the truth to South Africa, internally, if the Press is the main channel for conveying that, if the Press is accustomed to telling lies all the time, how does he intend to get over the difficulty, because the Press will view with a great deal of doubt everything that comes from the Minister’s office.

Then there is a third aspect I wish to raise with the Minister about his Department, and that is the administrative aspect. As I said in the beginning, the Minister has no special qualities for this task. We know that, and I think he will admit it himself, that he has no special background of information. But there are two other senior officials. The Secretary for Information we know was a diplomat abroad, and he has gathered wide knowledge and experience. We also all know of the difficult task the Director of Information, Mr. Meiring, has had to carry for a number of years and the burden he had to carry in working with the Minister of External Affairs. But how does the Minister view his own personal function as Minister of Information? Does he intend taking trips overseas to gain information, as a sort of roaming ambassador at large? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) took the Minister to task because he said in an article that we want the Whites to remain masters in South Africa. He knows full well what the Minister meant in the context of the whole article, that he wants the Whites to remain masters in what we call “White South Africa”, with full opportunities of development for the other areas. But why should the hon. member take the Minister to task for making a statement like that? Is that not his policy and that of his party also? Do they not want to see the Whites in a position of leadership for as far as they can see? Instead of taking the Minister to task, he should praise him. But the hon. member made this statement which, if I could believe him, would make me just about the happiest man in South Africa. He said: “We deplore false statements about our country just as much as anyone else.” Now I am going to test him. I am going to give him a few false statements which have been made about this country, and ask him when he deplored them, and I will go further and I will challenge him to deplore them now. Firstly, I want to read this—

He knows that to be the truth. He knows there is a terrific demand for scandalmongering and that there is a terrific source of scandalmongering flowing from this country from the offices of the English newspapers in South Africa. Has he deplored that at any stage, or his party? But let us come to the examples. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that this is slandering South Africa—

I want to ask the hon. member whether this is a truthful picture of South Africa? I ask the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) whether it is a truthful picture to say that the non-Whites have no say in the Government and that they are refused all opportunity for economic and educational advance? Is that not a dastardly lie against this country? Let the hon. member deplore it. Let the hon. member for Germiston-District deplore it. No, they cannot deplore it because it was written by one of them, by the honourable bright boy from Durban-North, the younger Pitt. They know it is a false picture, but that is why they cannot deplore it. After the 1958 election, Mr. Stanley Uys wrote in The Observer that that election took place amidst tanks moving through the streets of Johannesburg. Did that hon. member deplore it? They always defend Mr. Stanley Uys. I will give another example. After the referendum Mr. Stanley Uys wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that Dr. Verwoerd won the referendum with nonexistent votes. In other words, he cooked up a lot of votes, or else the ballot-boxes had false bottoms. But did any hon. member on that side deplore it? Let them do so now. [Laughter.] It is no good laughing now. I make the accusation that they do not deplore it. [Interjections.] All right, that hon. member says he deplores it. Where did he deplore it when it was said that the referendum was won by false votes? Let us make an attack here on the Sunday Times and Stanley Uys, and they are the first people to jump up to defend him. But these are the people who deplore attacks on South Africa, who deplore false statements about South Africa. Every one of those statements I have read so far is completely and utterly false, and not a single one was deplored by those hon. members. Here is another article—

Is this a truthful picture of South Africa? Has any one of them attacked this type of reporting, this slandering of South Africa? They say they deplore false statements about South Africa as much as anyone else. I now challenge them to get up and tell me where one single member on that side publicly deplored any false statement made by a local journalist and a local newspaper. I am not talking about journalists overseas and overseas newspapers. That they are willing to deplore, but they are not willing to deplore these false statements sent overseas by local journalists like Stanley Uys, by the Sunday Times and other English newspapers.

But let us go on. [Interjections.] Now listen to that silly argument. I am asked whether I accuse the whole Press in general? Sir, I have been doing nothing else so far but giving specific examples of how the name of South Africa was blackguarded, and I am not talking about the whole Press. I want to know this from that heroic member: Where did he deplore these things? In his speech he said that he wants to make it clear that they all deplore the blackguarding of the name of South Africa. I want to prove to him that he has never deplored a single false statement about South Africa. I challenge him now, and he can have a chance to get up after I sit down, and let him give specific examples of where he deplored such false statements.

Here is another article written by Stanley Uys, and there is no doubt about it that however much I detest Uys, he is widely read in this country and overseas. He is a very influential journalist, and some people regard him as capable. Whether he is or not I do not know. I just cannot make up my mind about him because I dislike him so intensely, and so I am prejudiced. But this is what he writes—

What a miserable lie! They know that if people are being banned, it is not because they oppose apartheid, not because they oppose this Government, because if we banned people who oppose the Government that whole Party should be banned. They should all be confined to certain areas. I would like to confine some of them to certain areas. I would rather not mention those areas because you, Sir, would rule me out of order. But this is the story which is sent overseas that this is the way the Government deals with its political opponents. It is a lie. When did the hon. member for Turffontein deplore this? Let him do it now. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) having spoken for ten minutes, failed to refer to a single function of the Minister of Information.

Will you reply to him?

Why should I reply to something which, in my opinion, was merely a red herring drawn across the trail of the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), which was an objective discussion of the functions of the Ministry of Information and its prospects of carrying out the functions for which it was established? That is what I understood it was all about, and not about this or that article written by Stanley Uys or anybody else, or by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell).

You are drawing a red herring across the trail now.

I want to say that this article to which the hon. member for Turffontein has already referred, in the “South African Patriot”, gives a very unfortunate impression of how the Minister himself regards his function. It is not commonplace for any Minister in South Africa or in Britain to write articles for newspapers, but here we have a so-called newspaper, which happens to be no more than the organ of a small and very insignificant branch of a political party—I do not say the political party is insignificant—which publishes a monthly document which is called a newspaper, the “South African Patriot”. So far, in two successive issues, we have had articles in it from the Deputy-Minister of Bantu Administration and now from the Minister of Information. Does the Minister think that he is creating the right impression here or overseas by meekly submitting whenever someone who runs something like this asks him for an article? He only gives the impression that he does so merely because it happens to be the organ of a branch of the National Party, which, journalistically does not cater for anyone. But you get an article like this in it. It is headed, “The World and South Africa”. The world, Sir, has to be discussed in the “South African Patriot”, all four pages of it, and then it says that it is a “frank” article—”frank” obviously, because the Minister’s name is Frank—outlining the unfortunate effect of the English Press on world opinion by the hon. Frank Waring, Minister of Information; and then comes the signature to this article, Joyce and Frank Waring. Now I want to know, who is the Minister of Information, or who are the Minister of Information? With respect, to commit this sort of gaffe is far beneath his station as a Minister, and he must try to remember that he is now in fact a Minister, and no longer whatever he was before. In this article one gets statements like this—

With despair. Does that make sense? Did the Minister despair about this boycott? I certainly did not. Then it goes on to say—

I feel they have got something, too, but I would not like to mention it—

With respect to the hon. Minister, it is not the place of a Minister to lower himself to that level where he writes such articles and attacks a member of Parliament who happens to be the leader of another political party in a province of the Republic, and to make these rather ludicrous assertions about him. Surely he must have better things to do, or else I prophesy he will take all the R2,361,000 that has been voted for his Department and throw it down the drain, if this is the sort of thing he does, I forecast now that we will not have one cent’s value for that money. As I see the position, the internal aspect of the Minister’s function falls into a sphere which can be defined as one of three concentric circles. At the very centre of that circle is the Cabinet itself. The first circle is the Government, the second circle is South Africa, and the largest circle is the world. Now this Minister, as I see it, has an obligation to provide factual information about South Africa, and the world, not only in one direction but in both directions. He must provide it to the outside world, but he must also provide us in South Africa, and more particularly his Cabinet colleagues, with information about what people in the world are thinking about us and why they are thinking it, and not simply to assure us that all is well because he happens to have a large budget and a large staff; he has a budget of over R2,000,000 and a staff of 232 people, and he has set up a lot of new offices and he prints a great deal of material.

Dealing with that material, I want to give an example. When I asked the Director of Information for some of his currently available material, that gentleman with his usual unfailing courtesy let me have some immediately, and I got a bagful of 23 pieces of material about all sorts of aspects of life in South Africa. To show what this cost, one only has to look at this Vote. We are going to spend on printing, stationary, advertisements and publications the sum of R632,000 this year. That is an awful lot of money to spend on printing. Some people are going to do very well out of this. And when you see what comes out of it, you wonder whether this money is being well spent, however well produced the material may be. I say that because I asked the Minister a question some time ago in regard to one piece alone, and that was “The Coloured People of South Africa”, which in my view is the best example of “Technicolor” publication I have ever seen—a beautiful job. I asked what it cost, and how many copies were printed, etc., and this is the answer I got: that the printing order was 29,400, and that up to then, 4 May, the distribution was 450 etc. In answer to the question, how many had been distributed overseas, the answer was nil. In answer to the question where they intended to distribute it, the answer was “through the usual channels”. Now I want to tell the Minister that I have been through many of those so-called “usual channels”, because I have travelled fairly extensively. You can get all this material at the South African offices in Europe, or in Britain, but what do you think happens to it? Who are the people who get this sort of material? It is not the man in the street, who reads his newspaper and listens to the radio; this material is obtainable on application by people who may be thinking of visiting South Africa, or investing money here. But what is the Minister going to do with 29,000 copies of these? Does he think he will distribute them to people who should get the story about South Africa? That is a question he must examine very carefully. The printing cost of this was R8,454, and there has been no distribution expense so far,’ nor can the production cost be determined because it was produced in the Department. If you were to add the value of the labour applied to this production, I would not be surprised to find that every copy cost at least R1, and I prophesy now that unless the Minister makes a very determined effort to get this sort of material moving in the outside world we, the people of South Africa, will be stuck with the cost of it and it will moulder in his office for years to come. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to devote too much attention to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I merely wish to ask him whether he thinks that when once a Minister has been appointed, he should no longer be a politician? Does he think that once a Minister has been appointed, he should cease to be a member of a party? Does he no longer have the right to write an article in which he can put his own point of view or that of his Party? He says the appointment of the Minister was a political appointment. Of course it is a political appointment. What Minister does not get a political appointment? If his Party were to come into power to-morrow and appointed him as a Minister, would it not be a political appointment? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein talks incessantly.

The hon. member for Turffontein has quoted from a report of 1961 dealing with the year 1960, to say that during the past three years there has been a deterioration in the relations between foreign countries and South Africa, but that is what one holds against hon. members opposite. He knows that in 1960 Sharpeville and Langa occurred, and then there was a deterioration, but he knows that during the past year a change of climate towards South Africa has taken place overseas. Yesterday I quoted an extract from the Star in which the Star admitted that there was a change of climate. But hon. members opposite, through their mouthpiece the hon. member for Turffontein, will not admit there is a change of climate. To them it is not good news. They do not want things to go better with South Africa. On the contrary, they still want the countries overseas to say that the attitude towards South Africa is deteriorating. It is this kind of political sabotage hon. members opposite are perpetrating, that we ascribe to them and about which we can tell the world that they are discrediting the good name of South Africa. The hon. member said he could not appreciate the necessity for a Department of Information as far as home information was concerned. He says there is no democratic country that does it. England does it. I have here a booklet issued by the Government Information Services in 1961, a White Paper which says—

That is what Mr. Churchill said. Then they say it is the Minister of Information who does the co-ordinating work in regard to the information service of Great Britain. Here they say this—

Then I should also like to quote from an article to show that this person also gave attention to the home services. I have here an article on “Do we need Government Information Services?” written by T. Fife Clark. From this it appears also that a person had been appointed there to control this service—

That is the whole point.

Yes, I do not wish to mislead the Committee; and that is why I am mentioning this. The position is the same with us, while a Minister has been appointed to co-ordinate the various information sections of the Departmental services to overseas countries. I merely wanted to show the hon. member how extensive the British Information Service, established by the Government, was at home. For instance, here you have all the “chief regional officers” of their service. They have a “Northern Region”, and “East and West Ridings Region”, “North-Midlands Region”, Eastern Region”, “London and South-Eastern Region”, “Southern Region” and “West and Welsh Office”. In other words, the information service of the British Government, with all its co-ordination, covers the entire Great-Britain. In other words, to come here and say that there is no democratic government that has such a service, is quite incorrect. Mr. Chairman, any government in a democratic state has a mandate to carry out; it has a policy to carry out, and it spends the taxpayer’s money. In this White Paper they also say that the government has the right to tell the taxpayer how it spends his money and what services it makes available to him and how it carries out its policy. There is the complaint always that you may politically abuse the information service. I should just like to quote what is said in this regard in “Public Administration”—

In other words, even under the British system of Government that distinction has been made, but the British Government has the right to tell the British nation what they are doing for the British nation and how they are spending their money and what they are producing for the money they are spending.

The hon. member also referred again to the policy of “baasskap” (domination) to which the Minister referred in the Article. Mr. Chairman, I have said this time and again in this House—and that is another complaint we have against the Opposition. They are pretending to South Africa and the world that their policy will satisfy the world. There is no evidence of that. On the contrary, what is happening in Rhodesia at the present time—and I regret that I have to mention the name of Rhodesia for they are friends of ours—just look at what is happening in Rhodesia now with all the concessions that are being made. What right have hon. members opposite to come along and suggest to this House and to the world that their policy will satisfy the world? What right have they to use that argument? It is merely another attempt to say to the world: This Government is a bad Government and we shall be a good Government. They know as well as we do that even their policy will not satisfy the world. I wish to say, moreover, that we are living in times of the Cold War, and that is why I welcome the appointment of a Minister of Information. In South Africa all kinds of forces are active to try to bring about chaos and anarchy. It is a good thing that we should tell the world what the Government is doing for the Coloureds and for the Indians and for the Bantu. [Time limit.]

When the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was speaking, I got the impression that he was trying to show the Committee why he should have been Minister of Information rather than the present incumbent. I am happy to say that I am sure that he convinced nobody on this side. He also had the same difficulty in convincing anyone on this side that there have been actual lies published in the so-called English Press as the hon. member for Venters-dorp (Mr. Greyling) had when he wrote a two-column letter to the Cape Times and could not mention a single instance of a lie having appeared in that paper.

I believe that the change-over of head of department from the present Minister of Foreign Affairs to the present Minister of Information is a change for the better. Indeed, nothing could be worse than the position in the past. I only hope that this rejuvenation that we have been having will not prove an idle dream like the idle dreams of rejuvenation by Voronof and Bogomolets, the Russian scientists. The hon. the Minister has three main tasks. His first task is to sell South Africa to the world as a great and a grand and a growing country. In that he has my full support. His second task is to see to the difficult matter of press liaison and to assist foreign visitors coming to South Africa. There he has my full sympathy. His third task is to build up a strong and an efficient central organization and department, in South Africa itself and abroad. There too he has my sympathy. However, in the report that he has presented to Parliament he has put his finger on the crux of the difficulty that he is experiencing. In that report he states clearly—

I agree with that part of the report; I agree that the market is stiff with sales resistance. But why try to sell these ideologies? A Latin-American country does not sell its revolutions; Spain does not sell Fascism. They sell the good points in their country. I am not saying that we have revolutions and Fascism in this country but I do say that we have many good points which could be sold abroad.

My chief complaint against the Department of Information at present is the way in which it is becoming a propaganda medium for internal propaganda in South Africa instead of a medium for publicity in the outside world. If you look at the Estimates before you, Sir, you will see how the staff of this Department is divided. In South Africa there are 192 public servants in the Department of Information. Do you know how many there are in the whole of the rest of the world? There are 35 officials in the rest of the world and 192 in South Africa itself. Why this imbalance? Does that not prove that the Department is more and more becoming a medium for disseminating Nationalist propaganda in South Africa rather than doing the excellent task of selling South Africa to the rest of the world? Sir, there is no information officers, except in Rhodesia, in the whole of the rest of Africa, according to the Estimates. There is not even an information officer in Tokio, in Japan, where I am quite sure hon. members of the Government are awaiting the chance to declare all White Nationalists to be Japanese.

Sir, let us look at that unholy tie-up that is taking place between the Department of Information to-day and the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. One of the two Deputy-Secretaries of the Department of Information is Mr. C. W. Prinsloo. That gentleman has been appointed to the Bantu Radio Control Board under the control of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. There is a direct liaison now between the Minister’s Department and the S.A.B.C. which as we all heard, is supposed to be such a wonderfully independent organization. Now the Government is going even further. Not only is the Bantu Information Service being brought under the aegis of the Minister but also the Coloured Information Service, and in this report they state that the Indian Information Service will also be brought under his Department. Why all these different departments when his chief task is to sell South Africa to the rest of the world?

Let us look at some of the publications to prove what I am saying. The Department publishes Panorama. The losses on Panorama amount to tens of thousands of rand a year and those losses are continuing, yet the major part of the circulation of Panorama takes place within the borders of the Republic and not in the outside world. Let us look at the Digest of South African Affairs. Again the major distribution is in the Republic itself instead of outside. That publication is on occasions very inaccurate. I can mention two instances. Recently that paper reported that Onderste-poort had given assistance to the Republic of China. That was untrue and the Minister of Agriculture had to deny it. It reported that the Minister of Bantu Administration had given a motor-car to a certain Bantu Authority. Again that was untrue and the Minister of Bantu Administration denied it here in Parliament itself. Another publication issued by the Department is Bantu which has now been taken over from the Department of Bantu Administration.

Distorter (“verdraaier”).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distorter

I withdraw it.

This publication Bantu has been taken over from the Department of Bantu Administration and is now issued by the Minister’s Department. Thousands of copies of this publication are distributed free. The paper has no income. What has the distribution of Bantu to do with the work of the Department of Information? The cost of publishing Bantu has increased threefold since 1956 from R18,000 a year to R55,000. A weekly newsletter is being sent by the Department of Information to 30 newspapers within the Republic. Why? What has that to do with the task of the hon. the Minister of Information?

One of the tasks of the hon. the Minister is a reasonably pleasant one and that is the task of his Department to welcome distinguished visitors to this country. I see that provision has been made for R33,000 on the Estimates for this purpose. But, Sir, there is one question that has intrigued me. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the role of his Department was in the entertainment of a certain very distinguished visitor recently from a certain Latin-American country. I refer to a regrettable incident when our distinguished visitor, together with representatives of the Ministries of Information, Bantu Affairs and Foreign Affairs were merrily sailing down a river on a Sunday afternoon, on a pleasant Zambesi cruise when suddenly the bottom dropped out of the boat and the occupants found themselves in the water. The boat lost its bottom, the hon. the Minister lost face and only our distinguished visitor, to his great credit, maintained his savoir-faire and sense of humour. Now, Sir, this could have been a very bad incident and I am glad that it went off so well. The bottom could have fallen out of the whole Department of the hon. the Minister. I should like to know who was responsible for organizing the trip, inspecting the boat and abandoning the ship? Was the Minister of Information the Lord High Admiral in charge of the Zambesi flotilla that did not float? Or was the person responsible the Flapping—I hesitate to use the word “Flying”—the Flapping Dutchman of the Bantustan Navy, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs? I should like to have clarity on that point. [Time limit.]*

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) as well as a colleague of his raised the question of certain officials of the Department of Information that are alleged to be associated with the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, and the impression is now being created, as was said in previous debates, that in the information emanating from the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is information that has been edited by this Minister and his Department beforehand, as if that is such a terrible offence. I shall welcome it, and I want to say to the Minister that if that liaison and that representation of the Department of Information with the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation has not yet been established, then it should be established as soon as possible. It is not an unheard of thing. What is the position in Britain? I am reading from the British Government Information Services booklet—

Therefore it is not an unheard of thing. I am quoting further from the publication Public Administration …

Of course that is a police state!

They say this about the B.B.C.—

There is nothing wrong with that. It is to be welcomed that there should be absolutely close contact between the Department of Information and the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation.

But I wish to return to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. the Minister has a tremendous task overseas, and one of the great sub-divisions of his problem overseas is the false picture of South Africa that is being presented. Hon members opposite have come here with all kinds of talk. They have been asked to help South Africa, to help the Minister, and to say that some of these things are not true. The hon. member for Vereeniging has mentioned some examples for them. If they do not wish to refute it, do help us with one thing then, the thing that during the last month has done us tremendous harm overseas, and that is the allegation that South Africa is a police State. Let one of the hon. members Opposite rise on behalf of the United Party and say that South Africa is not a police State. That is all we are asking of them. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging will be satisfied if only one of them will rise on behalf of the United Party and say that. Let the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Bijl) who has written two letters to the Argus, stand up here and say: “I now say to countries overseas, and I say to the hon. the Minister that he may tell countries overseas, that the United Party says that South Africa is not a police State.” That is all we are asking of them; then we shall believe the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that they also disapprove of this false allegation against South Africa. Is the hon. member willing now to stand up and say that South Africa is not a police State? That is the kind of Opposition we are dealing with here.

But I wish to proceed to another matter. I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister that he may possibly consider. One of our great problems, and a great problem of himself and his Department, is that we have to contend with false and slanted reporting about South Africa, false and slanted reporting emanating from the offices of English language newspapers in South Africa. Our other problem is this, that the persons in South Africa who have to present a picture of South Africa to their Governments and their other embassies, particularly the diplomats here in South Africa unfortunately are not familiar with Afrikaans. The majority of them can only read the English language newspapers. I am not blaming them for it. It is simply a fact that they are not familiar with Afrikaans. What is the position now? In order to form an opinion of what the atmosphere and the line of thought in South Africa is, they are dependent upon what they read in the English Press. It might have been true in former years that the picture painted by the English language Press in South Africa, particularly in their leaders, constituted the point of view of the majority in South Africa; they presented a good picture of the line of thought in South Africa, but at the present time the leaders of the English language Press are no reflection of the general line of thought in South Africa. It is not the line of thought of the Whites at all, nor is it the line of thought of a very large proportion of the non-Whites. What is the position of the diplomat in South Africa? He has to furnish his Government and his other embassies throughout the world with the line of thought and the policy in South Africa, and for that he is dependent upon the English language newspapers that do not represent the views of the South African public, and which present a slanted picture of conditions in South Africa. I have wondered whether it will not be possible—and I do not think it is a very big task that will have to be performed in the Department—for the Department of Information to translate the daily leaders in the Afrikaans newspapers into English and French and make them available to the diplomats in South Africa.

Now you are advocating political propaganda.

All I desire is that the diplomats here in South Africa, who have to present South Africa to their Governments, should know the points of view of everybody in South Africa. I do not want them to be dependent upon the English language Press for their knowledge of what goes on here. Mr. Chairman, let me say very clearly that those translations should be handed to them without any comment. The diplomats in South Africa are able to read the Rand Daily Mail. They can read the Cape Times, the Cape Argus, the Star and the English newspapers in Natal, but most of them cannot read the Afrikaans language newspapers, and all I am asking is that the Department of Information should make available every day to the embassies in South Africa and overseas also, a translation in English and French of the leaders of the Transvaler, the Vaderland, Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, the Burger and the Volksblad.

Why not supply them with the English newspapers too?

The English newspapers are available. In any event, I have very good authority for the statement that the English language Press are presenting a very distorted picture of what is happening in South Africa. Listen to this—

And of course also the leaders of the National Party, as we know—

That is written by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in the Weeklblad of 23 February 1962. So I say I also have his support that a distorted picture of South Africa is presented to the world; that the diplomats in South Africa do not have the opportunity to know what the views of the vast majority in South Africa are; that they do not have the opportunity of knowing exactly what the policies are because they are unable to read what is written in the leaders of the Afrikaans newspapers from day to day. I do not say that every leader in the Afrikaans newspapers is brilliant; I am not saying that everyone is good, but any diplomat who has been reading the English language newspapers leaders for a year, and who has also had the privilege of reading all the leaders in the Afrikaans language Press, will know what the line of thought is in South Africa; he will be in a position to present a much more balanced picture of South Africa to his Government and to his other embassies in the world. My request to the Minister is that he should consider making available all the articles in all the Afrikaans newspapers in English and in French every day to all the diplomats here and to all the offices overseas.

I wish to refer to Item D on page 290, “Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”. The case I have to make is a factual case and it arises out of the replies which the hon. the Minister gave me in the House last month. It arises out of the printing of South African Quiz in French. Last year the Government called for tenders for the printing of South African Quiz in French. The tenders closed on 11 December last year. A certain firm, Pioneer Press, submitted a tender on 7 December. This tender was received because the firm received this wire from the State Tender Board—

In reply to that telegram the firm replied, after repeating the telegram—

The firm did not receive any further communication, and on 12 February, that is to say, two months after the tenders had closed, they addressed this letter to the Tender Board—

The letter went on to say that they would like a reply as soon as possible. That letter was addressed on 12 February to the Tender Board. They did not receive a printed reply to this letter, but the letter was returned to the firm and, underneath, written in ink, was the following, signed by the Secretary of the State Tender Board—

Order! How does that point affect this Vote?

Sir, this is money spent by this Department on the printing of South African Quiz, and that is what we are considering.

That is the responsibility of the Tender Board.

No, Sir, the Department is paying; the Tender Board simply receives the tenders. It is quite in order. The hon. the Minister replied to my questions. I am simply giving a factual report. Then on 26 February the firm addressed this letter to the Secretary of the State Tender Board—

There was no reply. Then on 9 April, four months after tenders closed, the firm wrote this letter—

I am now taking it to the highest authority, to the hon. the Minister, and to assist the Minister, I put this question on the Order Paper in this House on 18 May. I asked the Minister of Information—

The reply to the first part of the question was “Yes”, and in respect of the second part, the Minister gave us five amounts, of which two are significant. I also asked—

1. (b) What was the amount of the tender accepted?

   The answer was: R3,515.73.

2. (c) What was the name of the firm whose tender was accepted?

   The reply was: Hayne and Gibson.

That was not the lowest tender and therefore I came back with another question to the hon. the Minister, and the question was this—

1. (a) What was the name of the firm that submitted the lowest tender for printing South African Quiz in French?

   The reply: Pioneer Press.

2. (b) For what reason was the tender of this firm not accepted?

I want to say, not to be unfair in any respect, that the tenders were these: Hayne and Gibson, a tender of R3,515.73 minus 10 per cent, a concession given because of the material used. And the other firm’s tender, Pioneer Press, R2,964, without any deduction. I am not arguing about the deduction as such. Making a simple calculation, I find that the tender of Pioneer Press, even with the 10 per cent deducted from the other, was R200 lower. Now I come to this final question, and this is a long reply that the hon. the Minister gave, and it is not the same reply as the first one. He said—

Now in the first place it was less 10 per cent, and now it is less 10 per cent plus another 5.6 per cent. Why 5.6, I don’t know.

Order! It seems to me that the information the hon. member requires does not fall under this Vote.

Sir, this is a waste of public money in the Minister’s Department. But after the 5.6 per cent is deducted it is still not the lowest tender.

Order!

On a point of order, may I point out to you that there is an Item on this Vote for printing and publishing, and the hon. member is investigating whether the money under that heading is spent properly.

That falls under the control of the Government Printer.

Sir, to my knowledge in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, questions of this nature are directed at the Secretary of this Department.

Sir, may I say on a point of order: I summited this question to the hon. the Minister of the Interior because the Government Printer falls under him, and my question was diverted to the responsible Minister.

And in the reply it was stated that the information was obtained from the Government Printer.

That may be so, Sir, but the hon. the Minister gave me the information, and this is an information department. I want to say this: I am asking to-day for a thorough inquiry into the manner in which this tender was awarded. I want an inquiry conducted by the highest authority. The highest authority that occurs to me is the Auditor-General, and the report should be submitted to this House without delay.

I reject the allegation by the Opposition that the hon. the Minister and his Department are developing into a propaganda machine. It is an untruth. What the Minister is doing is first to get the home front in order, and I am specifically mentioning the home front, for I see no salvation for us unless we manage to effect two things, and the first is that we should rectify the reporting by our newspapers internally. Now I should like to mention an example this afternoon of the kind of reporting South Africa is fighting against. Our esteemed Minister may spend millions of pounds, and I am saying this in complete seriousness, but for every million pounds we spend we shall suffer damage for every penny as long as this kind of thing I shall quote here goes on. I should like to quote two reports, and then I should like to point out how one of our local newspapers in an unworthy, disloyal and I could say dishonest manner distorted this report and sent it out into the world. I shall first read the correct report to you, and then I shall read the other report. The correct report came from London, and it was published in the Burger, a Sapa report, not a report from the correspondent of the Burger—

That is the one report, now, and I shall now read the report that appeared in the Cape Times the next day, and then I should like to ask, after I have read this report, whether there is an honest man on that side who will tell me that this is not a scandalous crime against South Africa. Here is the report in the Cape Times—

I now ask whether this is not an eternal disgrace. Now I am waiting for one of the members opposite to agree and to say that it is scandalous. Sir, our information service may spend millions and millions, but as long as this fraud is committed against South Africa, we shall not effect a thing. It is clearly deception, and it is a crime against our country. And when we say we do not need this kind of Press freedom as one of the pillars of democracy, then we say we do not need it. The sooner we realize that, the better. When one talks about this, one can talk about nothing else, particularly when you see the faces of the hon. members opposite, for if you look at their faces you simply fall into more thoughts of doom. That is the first thing I wish to mention. But I should like to mention a second thing. I say firstly that unless we throttle this kind of thing, our money we spend in foreign countries to state our case will be wasted.

Is that the best example you can find?

He wants it still worse.

It is a brilliant example. But secondly, I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister to-day that he, supported by all the things that are possible in a country to provide him with ammunition, should avail himself more frequently of the personal visit overseas. We have a mighty economy, a flourishing and progressive economy, behind us with which he could go overseas and state our case. I regret that I am unable to say that he can go overseas with the support of a worthy Opposition, for the role the Opposition has played in recent times here in the House of Assembly, is a damnable one.

What are you saying?

Just look at that hon. member. His whole being in this House is a joke and nothing else. Our hon. Minister may avail himself of personal visits overseas, and now I should like to ask one thing, and that is that the hon. the Minister should go in person, but the Minister should make use of informed people who are able to state our case overseas, even if it does cost money.

Such as you.

In any event in preference to the hon. member. I shall in any event not go and present such a slanted picture of South Africa overseas, as the hon. member presents in his own fatherland. Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, and I have been pondering this thought quite a while, that he should persuade our esteemed Prime Minister to go and attend the next ensuing Session of UNO. I shall tell you why I am saying that. Even Mr. Carpio came here and said that he found the Prime Minister to be an entirely different person to the one they had imagined. I think that our hon. Prime Minister, with his personality, with his affability, with his purposefulness, will be able to fulfil the same role there that he fulfilled at the Commonwealth Conference where he brought only honour to South Africa. That may be one of the ways in which our position overseas could be improved. At the Commonwealth Conference our Prime Minister emerged with full honours to South Africa in spite of all the fire that was flung at his head, and he returned not as a man who had suffered a defeat, but as one who had gained the victory. [Interjection.] Just look how restless hon. members opposite are becoming. They are afraid that the Prime Minister should make his appearance there, for they are afraid that he will achieve success there. [Time limit.]

I have studied with interest the Estimates of the Information Vote and I would like to deal with D, the first Item “Printing”, R535,400. The other Item which I want to raise is “Advertisements”, R28,000. I feel that the ratio between those items does not seem to be quite right. To spend R535,000 on printing and only R28,000 on advertising, seems to me out of proportion. I take it that this means advertising overseas. I don’t know whether that is correct. But to me to overcome prejudice overseas, it would appear that we would have to spend a much greater figure than what we find here in the Estimates.

The other point that I would like to raise is in the report of the Department of Information, the annual report for 1961-2, “Television”. I note with considerable interest that there were some 300 productions made for television. No doubt these were shown overseas with considerable success. I would like to know from the Minister if he would enlighten us as to his attitude towards the success of these television viewings, and whether we can’t have them in this country too, what the films were. Furthermore I can’t find anywhere in the Estimates what these have cost. It would be of considerable interest to this side of the House to know what these productions cost and what the cost of showing them was.

The hon. member who has just sat down is a member who normally speaks with a great degree of reasonableness, and he is not really someone to use the tone adopted by the hon. members for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). One is actually surprised that the debate has set off at such a pace and so noisily, and that we have already reached this stage. The hon. member for Turffontein has made one or two statements from which one can determine the whole approach of the United Party towards this matter. Inter alia he has said—

The old parrot cry.*

I say that in the light of these remarks we can determine the United Party’s approach to this matter. As I understand the United Party, they are in fact saying: There are false reports about South Africa abroad; there are incorrect reports; there are misrepresentations—but basically (they say) the picture which the outside world has of South Africa is a true reflection of conditions in South Africa and the Government’s policy. The hon. member for Turffontein has said this very specifically in a previous debate and we are repeatedly told by the Opposition, and we read in their newspapers, that it is not correct to say that the world is incorrectly informed about South Africa or poorly informed, but (they say) it is because the world is too well-informed that the outside world adopts this attitude towards South Africa and the Government. That is what they claim, and on this they base their attitude. It is on this that they base their approach to the outside world and to South Africa. The United Party tells the outside world that the picture which the outside world has of the policy of the Government is correct and true, and then the United Party adds that it is an immoral and indefensible policy, and just as the outside world is opposed to this policy, so is the United Party together with the outside world opposed to this policy. That is to say, they are opposed to our policy as misrepresented in that distorted picture of South Africa which the outside world has.

I say that despite the denial of the hon. members for Turffontein and Orange Grove, the United Party welcomes this distorted and incorrect picture of South Africa in the outside world. The United Party leaders welcome this distorted picture.

Absolutely untrue! That is a scandalous allegation.

This distorted picture which the outside world has of South Africa is described by the United Party as a reflection of the position in South Africa. The United Party is actively or tacitly encouraging this mistaken impression, as happened again when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) once again challenged them just to rise and to repudiate their former leader, Adv. Strauss, and just to say that South Africa is not a police state. Then the hon. member for Green Point, a dignified man, did not even have the courage to do so. Mr. Chairman, they welcome it, because it is on this that the United Party bases its hopes of coming into power again. This is the method used by the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in May 1960, here in Rondebosch: “We must make clear in the eyes of the world that the Opposition in South Africa disagrees with the Government.”

Must we then say that we agree with it?

No, wait, what did the Leader of the Opposition mean by saying that? Why did he address himself to the outside world in discussing his differences with the Government? Why did he address himself to the outside world? What does he want of the outside world? Does he want the outside world to put him into power, or does he want the voters of South Africa to put him into power? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he should not try to encourage his supporters to ride on the wave of distortions and misrepresentations of South Africa. He has another duty to South Africa and another duty to his own supporters. He should rather warn them that they are being used by all sorts of elements against the interests of South Africa. That is what he must do. In what position does that party already find itself as a result of its attitude? Where have they got themselves by this applauding of every setback suffered by South Africa, this delight in the vilification of South Africa? Matters have already reached such a stage that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said the other day at a women’s meeting in Cape Town that the United Party’s main task was to get rid of the “label that it has gained”, the “label” that it is an un-South African party.

When did I say that?

According to the Cape Times he said: “Since 1956 under the leadership of Sir de Villiers Graaff, the United Party had begun the rebuilding process aimed at ridding itself of the two ‘labels’ it had gained of being un-South African and that the United Party could not be trusted with the safety of the Whites in the Republic.” Is there a more humiliating admission?

Your low propaganda.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

If the hon. member was incorrectly reported, then he knows that it was his duty to tell the Cape Times so and to put the matter right. But I ask whether there is a more humiliating admission which a political party can make, namely that it admits that it does not belong to the country in which it exists, that a South African opposition party which has the name the United South African National Party, admits that it has the label of being un-South African. Sir, there is one reason why the United Party has had this label hung round its neck, and not only this label around its neck, but also this mark on its forehead: It has that mark on its forehead because it delights in every setback for South Africa and disparages everything which is to the good of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I am replying to the allegation by the hon. member for Turffontein that South Africa to-day needs the efforts of the Information Department because South Africa’s reputation must be improved as a result of the policy of the Government. I say that the responsibility rests with the United Party, and particularly its leaders, because I can assure the United Party leaders that in their attitude towards South Africa they do not reflect the attitude of the ordinary United Party member. The ordinary United Party member sees in this vilification and besmirching of South Africa, and these distortions, exactly the same motives as this side of the House sees.

Order! The hon. member must as least discuss the information aspect.

I want to conclude and say that this is the light in which these attacks by the United Party should be seen. This is why they are trying to ridicule the Minister and this is why they are in fact trying to place a curse on this Department. Despite the actions of part of the Press in South Africa which sends news abroad, despite the attitude of the Opposition whose contribution we need in correcting the picture which the outside world has of South Africa to-day, I say that South Africa is showing the world that in Africa it is only under the policy of this Government that there can be political stability, economic progress and racial peace.

Will the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) now refute the allegation that South Africa is a police state?

The hon. member who has just sat down accused this side of the House of being un-South African. He had the nerve to do that, a member who belongs to a party which supported the enemies of his own country in time of war, a member whose party wished to see …

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that? The allegation “om te heul met die vyand” was ruled out of order by a previous Speaker as unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman, I go further seeing that the Chief Whip wants to make an issue of it. I say he belongs to a party whose leader was found by the Supreme Court of South Africa to have distorted news in our newspapers whilst he was an editor, in the interests of the enemies of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

What the hon. member said about identifying himself with the enemies of South Africa.

I did not say the hon. member had done that, Sir. I said he belonged to a party …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that

I will withdraw what you rule to be unparliamentary, but I am not clear what I must withdraw.

The hon. member must withdraw what he said about making common cause with the enemies of South Africa.

The party, Sir?

Yes. [Interjections.] Order!

I said that the Nationalist Party sympathized with the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The court never said that; you know that too.

Order! Did the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) hear me say “Order”? The hon. member must withdraw that the Nationalist Party made common cause with South Africa’s enemies.

Very well, Sir, I will withdraw that. But I say a member whose leader was found by the court of South Africa on five specific instances, to have falsified news. We are dealing with the Minister of Information, Sir, the presentation of news and information. His leader was found by the court to have falsified news and I say that member has the nerve to accuse us, this side of the House, of a lack of patriotism. I say what I said publicly, as reported in that report which that member quoted, that we will remove the false label of un-South Africanism, the false label which politicians have pinned to this party and which is untrue. I say it ill behoves the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) to make statements such as he made in the House this afternoon.

I quoted what you had said.

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Yes, Sir, I am coming back. I am dealing with the case as discussed by the hon. member for Innesdale and his concept of a Minister of Information in relation to the problem which we are discussing this afternoon. I dealt with the hon. member’s views.

I want to come back briefly to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). [Interjections.] If the hon. member’s friends would leave him alone I can ask him the question which I wish to ask him. The hon. member for Vereeniging …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party not being unparliamentary when he says that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is a bully? (bullebak).

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Vereeniging quoted certain newspaper cuttings in this House this afternoon. He quoted them as examples of misrepresentations of South Africa. I want him to join with me in condemning a quotation which I wish to read to him. It reads as follows—

I want to know from the hon. member for Vereeniging whether he regards that as misrepresentation? An allegation that this Government are the same enemies that the soldiers fought up North; that this Government is in fact a Nazi Government and that the ex-soldiers will have to fight it. That is the implication of this statement. And I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging will condemn that because those are the words uttered by Mr. Blaar Coetzee … [Interjections.]

What are you reading from?

I am quoting from the Evening Post of 25 May 1962 which reminds its readers of the views of the hon. member for Vereeniging in relation to the statement which he made on 6 May 1962 when he said “We must grab the English Press by the throat before it finishes us That was on 6 May 1962; and that was at a meeting which described him as the Nationalist Party’s “evergreen”—”evergreen” what, I do not know, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman we are dealing with misrepresentations, misrepresentation of news. I have quoted two interesting examples of the sort of picture which the hon. member for Vereeniging is painting of South Africa, a picture in which the English Press is to be throttled, to be grabbed by the throat; a picture of a country whose Government, according to the member for Vereeniging, are the same enemies as those we fought during the war. Mr. Chairman, let these members point no finger at this side of the House. [Interjections.]

In the last few minutes left to me, Sir, I will reply to the challenge of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) regarding the police state. I have said that South Africa is on the way to becoming a police state. Every time that a right or a freedom of a citizen is taken away, we have the right to say that that is another step on the road to a police state. I am prepared to say that from any platform. This hon. Minister is given the task of counteracting the impression of South Africa which is being created abroad, created by the actions of this Government and by the way those actions are interpreted. [Time limit.]

The only contribution which this Committee has had from the Opposition during this debate this afternoon has been a very negative one. The speech made by the last speaker on their side was a typical example of this negative contribution. I shall therefore not reply to his speech.

This is the first opportunity this Committee has had to discuss the State Information Vote as an independent Department with its own Minister and as such one would have expected that, as this great step forward is being taken, the Opposition would have approached the Vote with a view to making a positive contribution towards this extremely important work which the Department must do and the extremely difficult task which rests on the Minister. But what have we had? Unfortunately they could not let the opportunity pass to make a personal attack on the Minister. This is what we have had hitherto from them—merely a personal attack on the Minister, and they are doing so for these reasons. In the first place because he is a former United Party supporter and then joined the National Party and became a Minister. That in the first place is a bitter pill which they have had to swallow. In the second place, Mr. Chairman, they are doing so because he is English-speaking. That is something which the Opposition simply cannot tolerate. They see the possibility that as a result of the course adopted by this Minister, other English-speaking South Africans will follow his example and more of them will openly join the National Party. That is why we are having these personal attacks—not a discussion of the State Information Vote, but a personal attack on the Minister.

Order! But the hon. member must also come back to the Vote now.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to show what is the Opposition’s underlying motive. While we have had this opportunity to make an objective contribution over a wider field towards helping the Minister in his difficult task, we have not had such a contribution, but the Opposition have taken the opportunity to make these personal attacks on the Minister. I say it is a great pity that this has happened. Just look at what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has said: “The Minister has no special qualities for this task”. As though he is the person who can lay down the norms and qualifications which the Minister should have for carrying out this task! As though he is the person who can determine such norms and qualifications! Then he has also asked how long the hon. the Minister has been a member of this party. Can you see, Mr. Chairman, what venomous political attacks form the basis of this debate?

And on the Prime Minister as well.

Yes, I do not even want to descend to what the last speaker opposite has said. I say it is a great pity that when we are dealing with such an important matter as State Information, the hon. member who has opened the debate has had to descend to the level to which the hon. member for Turffontein has descended. There are indeed very significant and important matters which can be discussed on this Vote.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has prescribed to the Minister what tasks he must carry out. The hon. member actually wants to prescribe to the Minister what he should do, and then he also wants to prescribe to him how he should do it. What contribution is that to a debate of as important a nature as this? And while I am dealing with the hon. member for Orange Grove, I want to say that he has referred to “selling these ideologies overseas”. The policy of this Government does not consist of export articles which must be sold abroad. If the hon. member thinks that is the task which the hon. the Minister must carry out, namely to sell our policy to the outside world, then he is missing the mark completely. The primary task of the Minister is to put our position clearly and objectively to the outside world, and not to sell it. Mr. Chairman, separate development is after all not an export article. Our object is that the Minister should try to put it to the outside world in a truly objective way not so that the outside world will accept it, but will understand it. That is our primary task, and then the hon. member says that we want to sell our ideologies. No, we are not dealing with propaganda. It seems to me that the hon. member is under the impression that we are dealing with propaganda. No, we are dealing with information and there is an absolute and vast difference.

I then come to the second point which the hon. member has made. The object of the hon. member’s whole speech was to prove that State information to-day, and particularly under the policy of the new Minister, is aimed at providing more information to South Africa itself than to the outside world. He has given a whole series of figures to prove his submission. Then he has said: What point is there in providing State information in this country itself? It shocks me to hear him express such an opinion. We most certainly have an important task to carry out in the outside world. It is most certainly one of the primary objects of this Department to fulfil the functions which it is striving to fulfil in the outside world, but in doing so abroad, it cannot neglect the provision of information in this country. There is no country which is faced with such a complicated racial problem as South Africa; there is no country in the world where that complicated racial problem is subject to so much pressure as in South Africa; and to so much distortion and varying interpretations as in this country. All these things we find here. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, is it not the real task of the Department of State Information to try to put the position in the correct perspective by showing the various races what positive steps are being taken for the sake of the prosperity of the various racial groups? Does he not think this important work of State informations is making a tremendous contribution to the creation of good race relations internally? While the hon. member has now accused the Minister of concentrating his Information Service mainly on the wrong place, namely internal information that is exactly what the Information Service should strive to do namely to do this important work in this country in addition to its important task abroad. Take this excellent and important work “The Coloureds in South Africa” which has just appeared. Does he not think that this pamphlet, if it is distributed amongst all the races, will not also make a tremendous contribution towards the creation of good local race relations? But the hon. member does not want us to strive after that object. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go so far as to say that the hon. member wants to fish in troubled waters and thereby to strengthen their political position. The actual position, which has come as a big surprise to me, is that the hon. member who previously was a journalist has completely ignored the fact that the Information Service also has an important task to carry out in this country. When one listens to him, one would say that we have no friends abroad at all, that we have no one who is well disposed towards us at all. It so happened that while he was speaking I had in my hand a translation of an article which was written in a French journal Le Capital of 28 October last year. This gives a full summary of what these various countries, which always attack us so strongly at UNO are doing to prove that they are the guiltiest of them all as far as discrimination is concerned, and that they are the very people who claim for themselves the right to criticize the South African people. Then this journal concludes with these important words—

I am only giving this one example. There are three articles in this journal Le Capital which was published last November. Each of them was of this nature. I merely mention this to prove to the hon. member that also in the outside world this policy which the Government is following and the groundwork being done by the Department of State Information, have made great progress. Here we already have the results.

Then I should like to conclude by just saying that we welcome wholeheartedly this newly-established Department with its new Secretary, Mr. du Plessis, whom we all know, and that we give it our support. Let us hope that when the debate continues, we shall do so at a level which will lighten the task of the Minister, that we shall further the achievement of his objects, and that we shall not confine ourselves any longer to personal and venomous attacks which bring us no further. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) could not have been listening when I was speaking. I was not the one who referred to selling ideologies. It was the Minister of Information and his Department who stated the following in their report. I will read it again—

I did not say that; that was what the hon. the Minister said. I challenge him to say why he should try to sell such a very hard-selling commodity as that ideology as they have at the moment. Why not sell the good things? Why sell difficult things?

Sir, I am sure that the hon. the Minister, having listened to some of the speeches from this side, is saying “Please save me from my friends”. There have been two constructive suggestions, so-called constructive suggestions, from that side as to what the hon. Minister has to do. The first one was this that the leading articles in Nationalist newspapers should be translated for members of the diplomatic corps. Sir, I cannot think of anything that will do our country more harm than for the leading articles in the Transvaler to be presented to the rest of the world. The second suggestion was even as bad, and that was the suggestion that the hon. the Prime Minister should personally represent South Africa at the United Nations. It might well be that he will represent South Africa well, but he should remember that the record for the lengthiest speech at the United Nations is held by Fidel Castro, who spoke for three hours. We have an excellent candidate to break that record if the Prime Minister goes to UNO.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to get back to the new organization under the hon. Minister. I am sure that the hon. the Minister cannot be satisfied with all that has happened in regard to the re-organization of his Department. In the past we had a hard-working head of that Department of State Information, a man who, under very difficult circumstances, did his best, Mr. Piet Meiring. I am appalled at the way in which that gentleman has been shifted aside in this new organization. Whereas he was head of a Department in the past, he is now one of two deputy-secretaries. Why was a gentleman who was head of the Africa Institute and who is now the Secretary of Information, placed at the head of that Department over the head of Mr. Meiring? Why was a second deputy-secretary, Mr. Prinsloo, appointed, the man who was at the head of the Bantu Administration’s Information Department? Why is he there? Why two deputy-secretaries? Not only that, Sir. This new deputy-secretary has been given vast powers in this new Department. One would have thought that seeing that he was head of the Bantu Administration’s Information Department he would have been given only that part of the Department which dealt with information to the Bantu. But he has been given much more than that according to the organization set out in this report. He has been made head of the whole public relations department of the Ministry of Information. He is head of the public relations department for Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and for the Indians. But not only that; this new deputy-secretary is also boss of all the 16 foreign departments. In the past Mr. Meiring was the head of the 16 Departments abroad. To-day the new head is Mr. Prinsloo. But not only that; I go further. This same gentleman has also been made head, according to this organization programme which we have here, of all the 14 home offices in South Africa, while Mr. Meiring has been delegated to a technical post as a journalist and publicist.

In the light of this there are certain items in this Vote which alarm me. The first item is item (A): “The expansion of the establishment”. There is a new huge sum of R140,000. This never appeared on the Vote before. This is for the expansion of the establishment. We need more information on that, Sir. We want to know from the hon. the Minister what sort of establishment he envisages. On what establishment is this huge sum to be spent? Then I want to know why there is an additional amount of R200,000 on the Vote in respect of printing. I should like to know further what that vague increase of nearly 80 per cent means in the item “Publicity”. There is an increase of R153,000. We deserve to know more from the Minister of Information on items such as “Publicity lists” and “Expansion of Department” running into tens of thousands of rand. And that is not all. There is a little item of R500 for “Secret service”. Now, Sir, what will that R500 be used for? We should like to know. Will it be a secret service as part of the Bantu section of his Department? Is the position to be that not only will information be given to the Bantu but that information will be obtained secretly from the Bantu? I want to know whether this policy of creating a Department where all the stress is laid on internal propaganda and on the dissemination of information within the Union, is not a disastrous policy which will kill the Department? Is it to become a cloak for a vast secret subversive propaganda machine, bound up with the South African Broadcasting Corporation and the new Press empire of the Prime Minister?

This is a department which should be above suspicion. I say to the hon. the Minister that he has our sympathies in the great task that he has in selling South Africa overseas. We say to him: Do not allow the Prime Minister to push you and your Department around; do not allow yourself to become a mere figurehead. Make publicity your task not propaganda. Tell the rest of the world that South Africa is a great country but do not try to tell this side of the House that this is a good Government. The hon. Minister had a splendid career as a Springbok. He played centre in the Springbok team. He is the centre in his Department of his team. Do not play full-back where you have to cover the mistakes made by the rest of your team. He is the captain of the information team. He should not allow himself to be influenced by the Prime Minister and he should not allow interference in the Department of Information on the part of Broederbonders.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who introduced the Opposition debate on the Information Vote, started off with what I thought was a rather personal remark. He spoke about the fact that I had no special knowledge or background, and he spoke about factors of that sort. I appreciate that he may have that background and possibly may be more adequate to do the job, but the position is that I am doing it and he is not. But I do not want to follow him on that path. I want to try to attend to some of the matters which have been raised in the debate.

The hon. member started off by saying that there should be a statement of policy coming from me as Minister of this new Department. I want to try, as far as possible, to give an outline of the situation in the Department of Information. To do so, I want to say briefly that the history of the Information Service in South Africa dates back to 1937, 25 years ago, and this, as hon. members will appreciate, is the atmosphere in which we have our silver wedding during this debate. Twenty-five years ago it started as the Bureau of Information. During the first stage of its life it really concentrated on the war effort and during the period from about 1939 to about 1945, during the war, it was used as an instrument to maintain the morale of the public and to sponsor recruitment for the armed forces. It was used to engender a spirit for the war effort and from that angle hon. members will appreciate that if at any stage this section could be called a propaganda machine it was a propaganda machine at that date, and I find no fault with it. I never found any fault with it then, and I find no fault with the fact that the Government used that Information Office for that purpose. Then we had the second stage, which was the period from about 1945 to about 1955, when there was no real expansion of the Bureau. And it therefore only really faced up to what one might call mild attacks from outside. It did not concentrate to any extent on internal information, but only endeavoured to meet the mild attacks from outside. After that, we had the third stage, from 1955 to 1959, when the strongest attacks came on South Africa from UN. Finally, I would say we are now in the fourth stage, from about 1959-60, in which it had to meet attacks on South Africa which were in the nature of a cold war attacks on our country. It was not an attack on the basic policies, as I will show hon. members, but it was an attack by a section of international politics on South Africa. I am giving this to try to sketch the basic pattern of this Department. Admittedly, it has now increased its dimensions and its expenditure, increased by almost R1,000,000 from last year to this year, and its total budget is now almost R2,500,000 for 1962-3. But if one looks at it in relation to a Department of Information or sections for information in other countries, it is not really a large amount. I do not want to try to compare South Africa with the amounts spent in the U.S.A. and Britain, but even if you compare it with the amount spent by the Federation it is not a large amount. The Federation is spending about R1,500,000 a year. I think hon. members will agree that if one compares our two countries, one would say that South Africa should be spending more on information.

Hear, hear!

I would say on the whole that as far as the Government is concerned, as shown by this increasing amount, which some hon. members obviously feel is excessive, the Government was quite prepared to meet any reasonable demands made to meet the services of this Department. There was no question of niggardly treatment or trying to cut down the amounts required. This amount which has been set down is really the pattern of things which I as Minister and the Secretary of the Department put forward to the Government. In Britain or America or France or the Federation it must be admitted that information is not only concentrated on the overseas information. It is concentrated also on the internal side of information. It was the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who pointed out that there were 192 members of the staff employed in South Africa, against 35 overseas, and said it was quite out of proportion. But that is not the correct relationship. There are 7,500 people in Britain itself doing information services, and outside there are very much less, only a small percentage. Why? Because the whole effort of obtaining the information of your country does not mean that you must have 200 people outside and 35 inside. You must have 200 people in your country finding out the information and feeding these people outside. The hon. member says the figures show that we are concentrating on internal propaganda, but that is quite wrong. I think he himself must admit that on that basis, if that is his criterion, he is quite off the rails.

But I wanted to tackle, first of all, the basis of our external position. Hon members quite rightly read the report of this Department and I would like to read it again. I do not pretend to run away from it. It says in the first paragraph—

There has been no slackening. I have not seen any slackening. Even last week, to give you an idea, a man who was in South Africa sent a story over the the New York Times on May 27, and this is what he said. He was talking about apartheid or the separation of races, which is our basic policy, and he said—

Now I want to ask hon. members whether they agree with what this writer said. He said this, that this is the policy we pursue. He said it was anathema to the Western world. He indicated that it was our policy which was creating all the unfavourable comment. I want to point out to the hon. member that it is not the Nationalist Party policy; it is the South African policy. Whether you call it apartheid or segregation, the fact is that we in South Africa are determined, one way or the other, to do it, whether we do it on a federal basis or on a separate basis, but we want to be masters of our country. That is the South African policy. I do not think it is any good bluffing ourselves that it is anything but that. I know Opposition hon. members say: Give them a chance and you will see how well things will go. [Interjections.] But look at what is happening at UN. Rhodesia was never criticized in the days of Gen. Smuts, but to-day Rhodesia is an issue on which UN is voting, and UN demands that there should be an inquiry. [Interjections.] The hon. member says there is no adverse criticism of Rhodesia abroad, yet the Rhodesians spend £750,000 to put over a picture of Rhodesia to try and satisfy other countries, and even with the power of Britain behind them, and America, the Afro-Asian form a bloc and vote them down. [Interjections.] And they follow a policy which goes much further than the policy of the hon. member over there. It is a partnership policy, and a policy of social integration.

Do you say that Rhodesia is continually faced with criticism in the Press of the Western world?

Rhodesia is just beginning to face the music. Yet when I hear these exaggerations and an attempt is made to create the atmosphere that it is only this Government which is on trial in world politics—I cannot understand the hon. member. On the basic issue of what we are fighting for overseas, it is not a matter of this side of the House alone; it is in any case the majority of the members on that side of the House, and that is why I cannot understand how it is that hon. members really create an atmosphere which in itself does the country a lot of harm. I fully understand that the Opposition is there to fight. Do not imagine that I don’t. The hon. members will read out quotations from Hansard to prove it. I fully appreciate it, but it is not anything about our policy. Let me put this to the hon. members. I want to read an extract from a report that appeared in the Argus. It was not an inch long and it appeared on the third page, and it is not a matter of party policy. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should not speak so loudly.

They are not really interested.

It was in the Argus of 14 April this year, and the heading was this: “3,000 Slaves are Freed in India”, and the report was this—

Now India is one of our most severe critics at UN, and this report comes from Calcutta. It refers to slavery in India, which we know of, but this does not get any headlines. It is put on a back page of the Argus. They did print it, and I give them full marks for doing it, but do you ever hear the Afro-Asian bloc saying: Look at the terrible state of affairs in India; we want an inquiry into India? Because that should be the ethics of the case when they pick out South Africa.

Let me read another statement to hon. members, a statement about Abyssinia. I want to read it because Abyssinia is a country which is taking South Africa to the International Court, and this comes from an American paper, and it was on 1 June this year, and it says—

Now that is Abyssinia, one of the countries which accuses South Africa at UN, and the amazing thing is that the King of Abyssinia, if he goes to New York, gets a ticker-tape reception. Where is the case then that South Africa is just one part of Africa? Slavery goes on in Abyssinia. It says here—

[Interjections.] What I am trying to convey to hon. members is this, that when it comes to South Africa, our picture and our record and the image of South Africa, it is so different from this picture, and yet these are the people who attacked us at UN, and hon. members think that a small change in the Group Areas Act, etc., which they want, will make such a change in the pattern overseas. [Interjections.]

How do you want to sell South Africa overseas?

Of course one understands it. One feels that all these nations which have a low wage rate and low standards of education and which do not do anything for their people—you can go to India and Pakistan and find similar terrible conditions are the harshest critics. Why then is South Africa always condemned as the most terrible nation and the polecat of the world? That has nothing to do with the facts, because if these are the facts, and they are the facts, then those are the countries which should be condemned. When it comes to the problem of South Africa, I put it to the hon. members that they claim that all that is needed is a change of government. That has nothing to do with it. [Interjections.] If they do not believe me, surely they will believe what Gen. Smuts said, and Gen. Smuts described the position as “a wall of prejudice”, and that was almost two decades ago. Since then the attacks on South Africa have become worse and worse.

Why?

It Is not because of this Government. It is because of the basis on which South Africa is determined to survive, and I am sure hon. members opposite also want to survive, and the alternative is not partnership or federation, but a system of communist domination through the Black people of this country, and one knows it; one sees it and one hears it. Later I will read the hon. members broadcasts that were made from Moscow. Now let me get on to the problem of what we are doing about all this. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) should stop making interjections.

I do not know why hon. members get so upset. I have made no attempt to attack their particular policies. I have just put facts before them. Now, coming to the basis of world politics, obviously it is not an easy matter where you have a situation which, as Gen. Smuts said, was a wall of prejudice and a determination not to give South Africa a chance. We do not have the conditions they have in Ethiopia, and yet Ethiopia does not get the bad Press we get. So it has nothing to do with South Africa alone, but it is this pressure of international politics. But the hon. member for Orange Grove read out one part of the annual report. The report said that we are at pains to explain that the market for our ideological commodities is so stiff with sales resistance that any protestations of our high quality intangibles are greeted with scepticism. That is quite right, but that is what we stated. But then he should have gone on, because it says that “nothing short of total racial equality such as exists nowhere in this world will ever satisfy our critics”.

That is your opinion.

Yes, and the report goes to say that, “it is futile to insist that the White South African is the only guarantor of the political as well as the economic advancement of the non-White in our sub-Continent”. How then can we penetrate the curtain of prejudice and unbelief?

How then does the hon. member suggest that we should tackle the tangibles? But that is what we say. We say—

Let us show them what conditions are in this country. Let us show them by pictures and by films and by statistics wherever we are doing something positive instead of just talking about it. Conditions in South Africa, for Whites, for Blacks, for Coloureds, and for Indians, are amazingly high—for all sections of our population. After all, we would not have a million Black illegal immigrants into this country if this were such a bad country. Why should they come and look for work here if South Africa is so terrible? And the Indians who complain have the opportunity to go back to India. Why do they not go back to India? [Interjections.]

Tell us about your job.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is continually interrupting. If he wishes to ask a question, he should do so in the proper way. I warn the hon. member now.

My job is to put over the picture of South Africa correctly. I know that hon. members feel that the position is not put over correctly. They have indicated that they think money is not spent in the right direction. Let me put it to the hon. members that the men who are operating this Department have a great deal of experience. They have been at their posts, whether it is in New York or Washington or London, for years. They know the climate of the people over there. They know what to put over. They know that there is a way you can approach them. I want to say that so many of the people in this Department in South Africa and overseas carry on a job under very difficult and almost impossible conditions. If they have a case, that case is not accepted. If they want to put over something and they go and see editors, those editors are not interested, because good news is no news to a newspaper. I have heard criticism about buying space. I also feel that is is not so good to have to buy space, but the only way you can put over the tangibles of South Africa in Britain is to buy space. [Interjection.] I know of my own experience when I answered certain questions that this was the principle enforced, that immediately they tried to kill whatever good impression I tried to create. I cannot understand why. One would think that we were an enemy country, aliens as far as the British people are concerned, and this is the atmosphere that is created. And now, what is the situation? Britain goes to UN representing Rhodesia and finds the whole of the Afro-Asian bloc and the communists attacking her. We have always said that you cannot trust those people. They do not go on the merits of the case. They are not interested in the merits. They are determined to damage South Africa. Now I say to hon. members opposite that this Department and its officials want their full co-operation and help, and I think they should be able to claim it. I do not say that there are not issues on which they can be very critical. They may say that money is spent wrongly on certain items, and I would like to hear that sort of criticism brought up in the House, but look at how unfair the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) was on this issue of “The Coloured People of South Africa He referred to the reply I gave him to a question in which I indicated that we had ordered 29,000 copies. He asked me how many were distributed and I said 450, and he indicated that we would be stuck with all the rest, although he said it was a very good magazine. I appreciate that, but look at how unfair he was. Do you know why that hon. member got that book immediately? Because we pulled 450 out of the printers so as to give them to Members of Parliament and Senators. We said we wanted the first release to distribute to them.

Did I not thank you? And did I not go on to ask how you intended to dispose of them, and was that not the core of my argument?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member put his question the day after he got his magazine, and then he asked how many had been distributed, and I gave him the figure. He asked me how they were going to be distributed, and I said through the usual channels. I might tell the hon. member that since then we got the 29,000 copies and they have all been distributed, and they are acceptable to all sections of our people. The Coloured people had never known that any Government had done anything like that for them and they asked us to print more. The Minister of Coloured Affairs, who bore the cost of them, was anxious to get more printed, and the hon. member for Hospital was amazed to find that the standard of living for the Coloureds in South Africa was such that South Africa could be proud of it. I want to say this to the hon. member. Why always condemn South Africa and whatever is done for South Africa? Why be inclined to be so critical and so extravagantly critical when there are big issues which we are supposed to meet jointly?

With regard to the overseas organization, the hon. member asked me what were our plans, and on what would we concentrate, and on what areas? I will tell him. The areas of North America, but predominantly the United States and also more particularly on the United Kingdom. The hon. member said that very little success was achieved, but I want to tell him that the success is amazing in the United Kingdom at the moment. There has been a complete change in the United Kingdom. Then the other sector is Germany, covering Europe. In Germany we are opening another office in Hamburg. In America we have the Hamilton Wright Organization, which is a distribution organization which makes films on television. Then take the Transkei project of self determination which was done in this country by our people and was so organized as to be released at the same time as the actual news. If you do not do it at the same time it is stale news overseas and they do not want it, so everything was done beforehand and it was conveyed overseas and released simultaneously with the Prime Minister’s statement in the House. We had a great T.V. tie-up. It was news in America because it gave the basis of our plan for the development of a Bantustan. They accepted it as news. Had it come a week later they would not have accepted it. The Hamilton Wright organization itself has made films in South Africa. One film was shown in the Radio City Cinema in New York, or at least I think that is the name of it. It was shown to 10,000 people daily and it went on for six weeks. That gave a truer picture of South Africa. So in that way we are trying to convey to the other countries a different picture of South Africa from the picture which is conveyed regrettably by the Press. Mr. Chairman, I think we are making progress. I am not saying that we are making progress because the Department is so wonderful or because we are doing the job so wonderfully, but I think the climate has changed. I think there is a tremendous realization on the part of the world of the true position. I think that after the Congo debacle people are wondering what this is all about. A newspaperman from overseas, who is no Government supporter, he still writes what will be classified as anti-Government stuff, said to me that he had never been so shocked in all his life to see 300 Black people being killed daily with their bodies lying about rotting because nobody would bury them. He said that went on for weeks and week’s. I can tell you more things that he said to me but I would rather not. But that, he said, was the state of affairs in the Congo. I think people are beginning to realize that you cannot just do what the world demands. That we should do in South Africa and follow a policy of one man one vote. And we are not going to do it.

You want to do it in the Bantustans.

The hon. member is quite wrong. Hon. members know that as far as the Bantustan is concerned they are determining the system they want. If they want one man one vote they can have it but they are not getting one vote in South Africa.

What vote have they in South Africa?

I am not going to argue with the hon. member across the floor of the House. I am giving hon. members the true position. I am saying that the climate is changing and as far as Britain is concerned, do hon. members feel upset that the position has changed. I will say this that after Kenya and after the Federation’s experience at UNO, I think there will be a great difference in the climate. I want to compliment the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) on the line he took in the Press. I have already told him that but I want to say it to him again to-night. I think that that is a line which an Opposition member can take and still criticize. But he stuck up for South Africa when South Africa was being unfairly attacked.

The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know how these information offices were now going to work, now that they have been separated from Foreign Affairs, whether they were going to work independently from the ambassadors. Of course, they cannot work independently from the ambassadors. The ambassador is in charge in whatever country he is and the information officer is directly under him. Every letter which I have seen ever since this has been made a separate Department, has testified to the full co-operation which exists between the ambassador and the Information Office. I might also say that we work on a basis of co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs in trying to create the right climate for South Africa. There is no clash between the Departments; there is no effort on the part of the one to try to ride the high horse against the other. If this Department wants information it goes to any of those embassies and gets it. There is the fullest co-operation.

Your report does not say that.

The overseas offices are fully informed as to the position in South Africa. Everyone of them gets a daily cabled report of two and a half thousand words as to what is happening in South Africa. This information is taken from all sides of the Press; it gives the climate which prevails in South Africa. This is being extended all the time. We are now going to operate this service to South America and in Austria; Everybody is well informed. As the hon. member for Turffontein will probably remember, in the past the complaint was that there was not enough information about South Africa, but to-day that information goes over daily in that form. Nobody in any of the embassies or in the information offices or anybody else for that matter should not be well informed about South Africa.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the internal organization. The hon. member referred to the State liaison report. He read the following—

I think the hon. member tried to indicate that this office was now preparing speeches, that everything was channelized through this Department of Information and that it was working as a closed compartment, as it were, in respect of internal organization. I want to say this to the hon. member. All that is happening is that this Department is co-operating with the Press. It is no good anybody saying to the Press: Look here, you must not go to the Department; you must only come to me or you must only come to our Department. They have full access to any Department. The Department of Information is trying to be helpful; we are not trying to prevent the Press from getting in touch with any Department whatsoever. I want to say this about the English Press. Hon. members can ask any member of the English Press whether they have not received the fullest co-operation from us; whether we have not made all facilities available to us, available to them. We have never hesitated to try to help them in their work. This report refers to certain Press people who write articles overseas, like Stanley Uys. Because we criticize that sort of action in this report, it is quite wrong to say that we are attacking the English Press. We will continue to attack any person who attacks South Africa like Stanley Uys does. Because we feel that a man who does that does not deserve to have any support whatsoever in this House, not only not from the Government but also not from the Opposition. Of course it is very convenient for hon. members opposite, whenever we criticize articles like that, to say that we are attacking the English Press because that is an attempt to appeal to the English Press to support them. Mr. Chairman, I will attack those people who write in the English Press and who say things which I do not think is fair towards South Africa. But that is not an attack on the English Press; that is an attack on individuals. The hon. member seems to think that speeches are channelized in this Department, that statements are channelized, because it is stated in this report that during the year 50 speeches and statements were prepared for the Press per month. We make these statements and speeches available to the Press in a form in which they can use them; and the Press is very pleased about this. Why does the hon. member interpret that to mean that we are a channel withholding information from the Press. That is absolute nonsense.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department has made available photostatic copies of Press reports which were used in this debate?

Your side is doing that.

We have not got the equipment here in Cape Town; we have in Pretoria. And I can assure the hon. member that it did not come from my office. I understand it came from the party office. The United Party also has these facilities.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) talked about Mr. Prinsloo and the fact that he was on the advisory board of the S.A.B.C. I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is not a new appointment. Mr. Prinsloo has been on the advisory board for a number of years; while he was attached to the Department of Bantu Administration. This was not a new appointment; this is an appointment he has been holding for years and years. The hon. member tried to create the impression that this was a new field that we were going to operate in; that we were trying to operate in the field of broadcasting. That is nonsense. No member of the Information Office is on the S.A.B.C. Mr. Prinsloo has been on the advisory board for years because the Bantu programme of the S.A.B.C. was a new venture. In any case I want to point this out to the hon. member. I have reports here which I think he will find quite shocking and these are reports on broadcasts from the Moscow radio. These broadcasts are done with the sole intention of getting at our Native population. I want to say this to the hon. member that if you want your Bantu people to get this type of information, then you are doing South Africa a great disservice. If we, through liaison with Mr. Prinsloo or with anybody else, do not see that we counter these radio broadcasts, if we do not block them, we are looking for trouble in South Africa.

Does that apply to the Whites too?

No. As far as the Whites are concerned, that is a matter which we are quite able to sort out ourselves. But as far as the Bantu is concerned he can be influenced by these radio broadcasts from Moscow. I would therefore say to the hon. member that he should not think that there is some ominous idea behind the appointment of Mr. Prinsloo on this Bantu Advisory Board. Just listen to some of the broadcasts from Moscow Radio Sir—

Then they deal with South Africa—

May I ask a question? Because Mr. Prinsloo is now on the advisory board in respect of the Bantu, is it the policy of the Minister to appoint officials of his Department on the advisory boards of the other programmes?

Mr. Chairman, I have told the hon. member that he has been on the advisory board since the inception of that programme. He was still attached to the Department of Bantu Administration. It was not a question of me, as Minister of Information, appointing him to that advisory board to put propaganda over. I think the hon. member should leave that matter alone. The matter of Bantu broadcasts is one which I am sure can safely be left in the hands of the people responsible for it. The hon. member is imagining things which do not exist. I want to ask him not to sow suspicion: All we want to do is to keep the Bantu in a frame of mind which will prevent him from responding to these calls from Moscow.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that we do not regard Panorama as a publication on which we want to make a profit. We regard it as a publication which will put over the true picture of South Africa to the rest of the world. Let me tell the hon. member that the Department has received compliments from Alaska to New Zealand regarding this publication. As far as wastage is concerned, I have the figures here. There is a wastage of 2.8 per cent; there is a 20.8 per cent free issue.

Why do you distribute the majority in this country?

I think it is a good thing to distribute Panorama in this country. But I want to point out to the hon. member that we are going to increase the circulation of Panorama up to 100,000. We are going to send more and more copies overseas. We have an amount down here for the distribution of Panorama in Germany; we are going to have it issued in German. And we hope to have it printed in French and distribute it in France. We think there is nothing better than Panorama to put over the case of South Africa. It is not a question of whether we are making a profit on it or suffering a loss. I see the hon. member for Kensington is here. He knows what mining companies do. I have a few shares and I get wonderful booklets from them. It must cost those companies a fortune; there are maps, designs, they are colourful; they have everything. Those companies are prepared to spend that money in order to sell their shares. Are we not prepared to put South Africa over to the people of the world?

What about the printing tender?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should leave that alone. I do not think he should make an issue of that. When the hon. member for Kensington asked me a supplementary question I told him that this was a matter which was entirely in the hands of the Tender Board. I told the hon. member that I had given him all the information which I had received from the Tender Board and that if he wanted any further information he should approach the Tender Board.

How can I approach the Tender Board?

I do not think the hon. member does himself any justice to raise this across the floor of the House.

May I ask a question? When the lowest tender was not accepted, did you inquire from the Tender Board what had happened?

Order! I have ruled that matter out of order. That question is not under discussion.

The Minister paid for it.

Order! The hon. Minister may proceed.

Let me come to another matter raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I mentioned previously that there was a good spirit in this Department of Information. I have told the hon. member this on a previous occasion, but he still comes forward with the idea that Mr. Piet Meiring has been very badly treated in this Department.

Of course he has.

I want to say what I said before: There is the fullest co-operation between the heads of this Department. There is no petty jealousies between any of them. The hon. member said that Mr. Meiring had such an inferior position in the organization, that he had been superseded in every way, that Mr. Prinsloo had now taken over the most important work.

That is a lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) in order to say “that is a lie”?

Order! Did the hon. member for Ventersdorp say that?

Yes, Sir. I withdraw it.

I want to tell the hon. member for Ventersdorp that he is very inclined to make unparliamentary remarks and I must ask him please to desist in future.

I did not want to interrupt the Minister in the middle of a sentence but in regard to the matter which was raised just now, on page 288, item D you have “Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”—what does that mean but the printing of things like this …

Order!

Here it is under his Vote.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. Minister may proceed.

Sir, the hon. member seems to think that Mr. Meiring has such an inferior position in this Department. Mr. Meiring is chief of the publicity division. When he looks at the chart he will see that publicity entails visual publicity, films, television, radio, cultural exhibitions, etc. On the other side you have documentary publicity, Panorama, Digest, Bantu publications generally, etc. I think Mr. Meiring has a great deal under his care. I have spoken to Mr. Meiring and I know how his mind works. I can assure the hon. member that technical publicity of this nature is far more in his line than what you might call the administration and the organization of the undertaking. I can assure the hon. member that whether it is Mr. du Plessis, whether it is Mr. Meiring or whether it is Mr. Prinsloo, everybody in this Department is fully aware of the task they have to do and they are not interested in the petty issues which the hon. member has raised.

To crown it all, Sir, the hon. member referred to the secret service vote of R500. When he asked “What is this new secret service; what are you getting at?” I was really tempted to say to him that this secret service vote of R500 was to buy the Kennedy Administration. It is so ridiculous, Sir. Five hundred rand for a secret service! This is an amount which has been appearing on the Estimates for a number of years.

What is it for?

What it says “secret service Secret service with the Bantu. It is for the Bantu affairs information section. This R500 has been there for a long time. We are not ashamed of that secret service vote, because we want to know what is happening among the Bantu… [Interjections.]

What is it for?

This is an amount which is described as a secret amount; it is used for purposes of that nature. It is to get secret information to know what is going on. Is that such a terrible thing? After all, Mr. Chairman, had it been something like R50,000 I would have understood hon. members asking questions. Had it been R50,000 for the internal information service, I would have said hon. members had a case, but R500 on Bantu information is hardly a matter worth wasting one’s time on.

Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate—I agree with the hon. member—that as far as a particular knowledge of this Department is concerned or particular experience, I have had none. But I do say this that this Department has many people who know their job; they are the experts. I do not regard myself as a man who can go to New York to get firsthand information. The men in New York get that first-hand information; they have been there for years. I am prepared to do what I can and I am anxious that the job should succeed.

May I ask the Minister a question: How can the Minister say that the investigation into the contract is not his affair? Will he give this House the assurance that he will refer it to the Minister concerned?

Order! I cannot allow further discussion on that point.

I am not discussing it.

Order! I have given my ruling on that point. If the hon. member disagrees with my ruling he knows what to do. The hon. Minister may proceed.

Everyone who is a South African and goes overseas has always been anxious to be an ambassador for South Africa. I would say that the main issue on which the South African information service is fighting namely the issue of South Africa, is one in respect of which there should not be the violent differences which we have seen this afternoon. I feel that there are so many things which we have in common on this issue that both sides of the House should go ahead and see whether we can do the job and do the job properly.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) asked me a question in regard to the printing costs compared with the advertising costs. I must say that in actual fact the final amount required for advertising is R70,000. A great deal of that will be spent on overseas publicity. With regard to TV—he said it was not referred to in the costs—he will see that the last item in respect of publicity is television services R30,500. That also is not the full amount because television services and films are to a certain extent combined—they overlap. We pay for films which are used not only in cinemas but also on television, so we cannot separate the two. The television item is really what we do in this country ourselves for overseas distribution.

I think that covers most of the points, Mr. Chairman.

We have now been listening to the hon. the Minister or one hour and five minutes. He has not attempted to reply to certain points of policy which have been put to the Minister across the floor of the House since the commencement of this debate. Certain points were raised in connection with the policy to be followed by his Department. The Minister said at the commencement of his speech—I made a very careful note—that he would now give us an outline of the policy of the Department of Information both in respect of the foreign aspect and in respect to the internal policy. What did we get from him, Sir? For over an hour and five minutes we have had horror stories about Africa and alleged slavery; about dead bodies and corpses in the Congo; about the troubles of the Federation, about India and slavery; about the prejudice which South Africa faces and last of all, Sir, the difficulties in regard to the actions of the Moscow Radio. We did not get a single word from the Minister in regard to his policy. Admittedly he replied to one point. The Minister stood up with an air of puzzlement and said that he could not understand why the policy which his Department was attempting to present was not acceptable overseas. He asked us why we condemned South Africa? Let me tell the Minister, Sir, that he must not equate the policies of the Government of the day with South Africa. The Minister must not equate the policies of South Africa with any criticism which we make in respect of the policies of the Government. That is another matter altogether. I want to ask the Minister what does it help him to come and draw parallels between Africa and alleged slavery in India and other examples. The work of his Department must be directed to presenting a picture of our country in the Western world as such. The Minister admits that he can do nothing in the United States in spite of buying millions of viewers on television. He admits it is a write-off; it is a dead loss. He says the position has slightly improved in the United Kingdom. What about the other friendly countries like Greece, Israel and countries in Western Europe? We have not heard a word about them. Instead we had an outburst from the hon. the Minister that he was trying to present tangibles. Let me tell the hon. the Minister this that before he took over this Department the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I can produce many records from Hansard in this regard—also alleged that there was an improvement overseas towards South Africa because of the policy of presenting tangibles. Tangibles have been presented for years but the policies of this Government as presenting our country, are still unacceptable to the Western world. Let me tell the Minister, in simple language, because he is obviously puzzled. The Minister talks about buying advertising space in the publications of the United States and in the United Kingdom, advertising space in respect of which he is asking us to vote R28,000. The Minister says he has to buy this space because the Press overseas, when they are presented with tangibles, or objective matter, or good news, do not find that that of necessity makes good reading material for their readers; that they look for the scandal-mongering stuff. I have here in my hand a report issued and published and circulated by the Minister’s own department dealing with the reaction of the Press overseas, and here, Sir, is a very typical example of what you get from month to month. This is the report of the Minister’s department for February, and it quotes here the reaction of the British Press to South Africa in respect of adverse propaganda, and let me quote to the House what is said in this report—

Mr. Chairman, who caused this propaganda in the first instance? Was it not Government policy that introduced legislation of this kind? Was that propaganda initiated by this side of the House? How did that law come to be placed on the Statute Book of South Africa which gave rise to a case of this nature which means millions of lines of adverse criticism of South Africa and the White people of South Africa? Purely as the result of Government policy!

What about Rhodesia?

The hon. member for Vereeniging talks about scandalous reporting and that these papers are looking for sensation. Ofcourse it is a good news story when a man is not allowed to live with his legally married wife because of the policies of this Government. And does the Minister think for one moment that his Department by buying a mere R30,000 worth of space can ever hope to counter this type of adverse criticism of Government policy to millions and millions of people? Does he think he can counter that by buying a few advertisements in an attempt to show in perspective really how good and how just the policies of the Government are when millions of people have already judged it on the basis of humanity? Will the hon. member for Vereeniging now get up and ask me across the floor of the House, as he did earlier this afternoon, “Do I deplore this type of adverse criticism?” Ofcourse I don’t, and neither do I blame those newspapers, because it is obviously a human news story. And that is the difficulty of the hon. the Minister, and that is why to sum up his speech this evening, one can say that he has given up the ghost as far as overseas is concerned to attempt to present an objective picture of our country South Africa, because he is encumbered and shamed by the policies of this Government with which the rest of the world will have nothing whatsoever to do.

Tell me is South Africa a police state or not?

I am coming to that.

When?

Because hon. members on the other side have been unable to discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister in an objective fashion in this debate, the only thing they can attempt to draw across the trail is “do you or do you not say that South Africa is a police state?” Let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that South Africa is heading towards a police state as long as we have laws like the so-called anti-sabotage Bill. What hon. members fail to appreciate, Sir, is that we do not have to say that South Africa is a police state, because foreign journalists coming to South Africa, looking objectively at this type of legislation which has recently been introduced by the Minister of Justice come to their own conclusions. What hon. members there fail to realize is that these journalists have a parallel upon which to judge this type of legislation which the rest of the world has already condemned. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask who reported to Mr. Speaker?

May I point out that there was a Chairman in the Chair. It has happened repeatedly that the Chief Whip takes the Chair and that happened in this case and he reported to Mr. Speaker. It is quite a permissible procedure.

The point of order is that the Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair as Chairman and he reported to the Deputy-Speaker. The Rule however is that the Chairman should report to Mr. Speaker.

I just want to tell the Senior Whip of the Opposition that I was in the Chair and the ordinary procedure was followed. Surely the hon. member must take my word for it. He was so busy that he did not observe what was happening.

On a point of order, who was in the Chair when the motion was moved that the Chairman report progress?

The procedure was quite in order.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has moved an amendment which meets my requirements and I therefore do not want to press my amendment but I should like to move—

I think I indicated to the Committee on a previous occasion that a cropped ear is the thief’s brand. Now, Sir, to legalize it in the way in which the Minister has it here in line 31, I think is not correct, because at the end of the Bill there is a Schedule in which all the old Acts are withdrawn. I think the Minister knows what I am trying to get at. In the Afrikaans text we get the exact meaning of “cropping”, namely, the removal of the ear. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment of mine because in all the old Acts of the Union of South Africa and the provinces there was a special law prohibiting the removal of more than one-third part of the ear. It was necessary then, and I think it is more essential now.

I want to support the hon. member for King William’s Town. I think it is highly irregular that cropping should be allowed under this Bill because tattoo marks as far as sheep are concerned is allowed as a brand, and if cropping is allowed then that tattoo mark can be entirely removed or damaged. I should say that no cutting of the ear should be allowed in excess of at most one-third. I expressed regret at the second reading that tattooing of livestock other than sheep is not regarded as a brand in this Bill, and in that respect I think this Bill has shortcomings, but (e) in Clause 1 states here that a brand will not include “any tattoo on any livestock other than small stock”. I think there is a definite flaw here and I hope that the hon. the Minister will inform the House that he will look into the matter and rectify it in the Other Place. But quite apart from that, cropping should be discouraged. It is not only cruel to the animal, but will also make the Bill less effective. And I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment, and I also appeal to him to investigate this question of tattoo marks on all livestock and have such included as a brand.

At the second reading we appealed to the hon. the Minister to amend this particular clause, because as the hon. member for Albany has stated, and also the hon. member for King William’s Town, and I myself gave instances—that you get cases where the police come looking for stolen sheep and finding the right number where the oil brand has been combed out of the wool and the sheep are there with bleeding ears, and it is impossible to take action at all. Unless we stop cropping and make it a crime to own sheep with cropped ears, we will not be able to stop the sheep stealer from stealing sheep. Mr. Chairman, an oil mark can be combed out if the wool is longer than half an inch, and if on top of that the ear is cut off, what proof have you got that that sheep is yours and that it is not a stolen sheep? The hon. the Minister has met us very well indeed in practically every other instance where we gave practical instances of difficulties which would arise under the original Bill as it was before us at the second reading. Where we asked him to stop the obliteration of brands in respect of other than big stock and, make it a crime to remove or interfere with anybody’s brand, he has met us in such a way that I am surprised that he will not meet us on this clause, because several of us made the point and gave him instances to show that it is essential if we want to stop the thief from getting away with his ill-gotten goods, the only way to do is would be to make it a crime. The few sheep that by accident get into fences and tear their ears, in such a way that they are badly mutilated the owner can kill the odd sheep and it is no loss to the ordinary sheep farmer. But if you allow two-thirds of the ear to be removed, then you are looking for trouble. Then you will go to the reserves and find 50 or 80 sheep with two-thirds of the ear off. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister, if he cannot do it at this stage, that before it goes to the Other Place he will see to it that it is amended in such a way so as to make it a crime to own a sheep that has two-thirds of the ear removed.

I am very glad the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Captain Henwood) has said that I have tried, as far as possible, to comply with the suggestions which I received from both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate. I now want to give the reasons why I cannot accept this proposal by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). The reason is simply that as a result of this Bill, we shall, for the first time in our history have a Livestock Brands Act in terms of which we shall be legalizing brands if they are placed on animals on certain parts and in accordance with the law. Consequently anyone who wants protection under this legislation has to apply for registration and have his brand registered. We are therefore providing in this Bill that as far as small stock is concerned there will be a place for a tattoo mark which will be located where the Registrar lays down it can be made, which will be registered and which will serve as proof that such a registered tattoo mark will only be made on small stock which belongs to him. We are not legalizing the cutting of ears, whether it be the whole ear or a third or a quarter of the ear. We are not legalizing marks made on ears. These cannot be registered. We have deliberately excluded them from the law in order to permit the farmer to use such marks for his private purposes. But because the ear can be cut off and because the crop marks and all the other marks which one can make on an ear can be removed, by natural means or by accident, we are for that very reason excluding such marks from the legislation. The hon. member for King William’s Town now says that because I am excluding the word “cropping” I am legalizing the cropping of ears. But that is not so. If I, to give an example, want to protect dogs and I were to give a definition of “dog” and say “a dog means…, but does not include jackals, polecats, meercats, crossbred elephants” or anything else, then it after all does not mean that I am now encouraging the breeding of polecats or meercats because I say “dog” does not include them in terms of the definition. I want hon. members to appreciate and to admit this. We are not legalizing anything, and we are only excluding any mark which is made on the ear of a sheep from receiving protection under this law. Those marks which the farmer takes privately cannot be given protection but the farmer can nevertheless use them for his own convenience. But I am not legalizing such marks nor will they be recognized as brands. If it has been recognized in the past as a brand, very well; then the farmer makes the mark and he does not use a tattoo mark or a brand on small stock. But the farmer who wants further protection and wants to have a brand or tattoo mark registered in his name, can apply for such a registered brand, and he can in addition place a tattoo mark or brand on the ear or anywhere else other than where we have prescribed. That is his affair, but this legislation gives protection to the farmer who wants to have a brand registered in his name so that he can have the protection under this legislation that he is the sole owner of that mark.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? Under the present Act it is illegal to cut off more than half the ear?

Under what Act?

The Act now being repealed by the Schedule.

Not that I know of. What we are repealing are the laws which relate to the registration in the various provinces of brands in order to establish a national system for the whole Republic. But we are not repealing the offence for example of causing physical pain or suffering to an animal. We are not saying: You can now cut off its ear or its leg, because we are now registering a brand. If such protection must be provided as regards the causing of pain or suffering, it must be done under the Animals Protection Act but not under this Act.

I think we understand sufficiently about this to be able to tell the hon. the Minister that this is an actual fact. You have got the repeal of Act 12 of 1890, which includes the clause making it a criminal offence to remove more than 30 per cent of the ear, or at least a certain percentage of the ear. You have got a number of these old Acts which had clauses in them with a prohibition against the cropping of ears, and these old Acts are being repealed. Why has the hon. Minister got “cropping” in the English and there is nothing in the Afrikaans? What does the word signify? At the end of the Bill you have the Schedule repealing all the old Acts that had included clauses prohibiting the removal of a certain portion of the ear. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will see my point, because the moment he repeals these Acts, it then becomes legal to cut off the ear, or crop the ear, as I have indicated.

The Schedule lists certain Acts which are being repealed.

I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the Schedule is not under discussion now. I have permitted a reference to it, but I should not like the Minister to enlarge on it.

The point is just that what we are now doing is that, in the place of the Acts being repealed, we are introducing a measure which will establish a nation-wide, uniform, recognized and legal system of the branding of animals or the marking of animals in a certain way only—not on the ears, but on a place which will be prescribed. We do not only want to validate that, but we want to give farmers who comply with the requirements the opportunity to register their mark so that that mark can be the proof that such a farmer is the sole owner of that stock. When we do this, it follows inevitably that we must repeal the other laws which are on the Statute Book and which recognize other types of marks, which differ from those envisaged here, and that they should lapse. After all we cannot do two things, namely pass this Bill and retain the other laws. If there will now be a greater danger of stock theft than previously existed then the hon. member for King William’s Town and the other hon. members would have a point, but that is simply not the position because the marks which the hon. member wants to retain on the stock are not behind the ear, but on a prescribed place. The hon. member for King William’s Town is not so much concerned about the cruelty of cropping the ear, because if that is so, why is he not equally concerned about the cruelty of cutting off a third of the ear because to cut off all the ear and to cut off a third of an ear is surely the same as far as suffering is concerned. The hon. member is concerned about the marks which will disappear with the ear. But this is not the Animals Protection Act. If there is any necessity to afford protection so that an animal’s ear may not be cut off, then hon. members should not limit such protection to small stock, but should extend it to any animal. However, that in any case has nothing to do with this Bill nor with the objects of this Bill.

Order! Hon. members must please confine themselves to a discussion of Clause 1, the definition clause.

I regret that the hon. the Minister apparently does not see our point. I will read this paragraph (vi) “earmark” means “any mark made by cutting, cropping, punching or slitting the ear”. Now what is wrong in the dropping of “cropping”? “Earmark” then would mean any mark made by cutting, punching or slitting the ear. I can’t understand the hon. the Minister’s resistance to our appeal. Now I am not only appealing from the cruelty side, because I see that the hon. the Minister will not accept that, but I will say this that any tattoo mark on a sheep under this Act is recognized as a brand.

No, only if it is placed on the animal in accordance with the rules.

Small stock are not exempted.

You did not read the amendment.

On a point of order, the Minister has now moved his amendment. If the Minister will move his amendment we will see how the Bill will read.

He had it before him for more than a week. Why did he not read it?

Order! The hon. Minister has moved his amendment.

I think the difficulty is that hon. members have not read the whole definition. What is excluded are these specific marks which are not brands, namely, (a) any mark made or placed on the horn or hoof; (c) any earmark; (d) any clasp, rivet, etc. Then the definition goes on to define an earmark. Now I do not know what the hon. member for King William’s Town’s object is in wishing to omit “cropping” from the English version or “van die oor weg” in the Afrikaans version. If he wants to omit it from paragraph (xiii) in the Afrikaans version, then he has still made no progress because here we are only dealing with the definition of an earmark which is not a brand. The “earmark” definition contained here merely lays down what an earmark is and it is not a brand. He now wants to omit “cropping” or in the Afrikaans version “van die oor weg te sny”. And “cropping” is after all an earmark. I cannot see what the hon. member wants to do. The Minister could omit “cropping” ten times over and the hon. member would not be any further. He would still not be able to prescribe that one cannot cut off the ear. It will therefore not have that result. It will only mean that it is not a brand; in other words, if the ear is in fact cut off, it is a brand. It will therefore not be excluded. Then a “cropped” ear will be a brand because it will then not be excluded. This is what it amounts to and I therefore trust that the hon. member for King William’s Town will not argue this point any further because it will not prevent a person being able to cut off an ear.

I am sorry to say that we are not yet satisfied. I want the Minister to realize that all sheep farmers of importance tattoo the ears of their sheep …

They are still allowed to do so.

Yes, but you are allowed to cut it out. This Bill permits of that tattoo being cut away altogether.

Order! That is not under discussion now. It does not fall under this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I only want to explain what happens if you do crop an ear …

Order! All that is under consideration now is what is the meaning of “earmark”.

I am objecting to the provision which in the Afrikaans text reads “om die oor weg te sny”, i.e. “cropping” in English which means that you can cut the ear right off. I say to the Minister that it is in the interest of the sheep farmers that he should protect the scientific farmer who marks his sheep by tattooing. On the two ears up to 400,000 different marks can be tattooed and the mark can be put a little further back so that it cannot be obliterated by ordinary earmarks. The Minister knows that a reasonable farmer does not damage an ear to any great extent. He generally tries to put one mark fairly far back on the ear so that a considerable portion of the ear will have to be cut off before the mark can be removed entirely. I cannot see what the Minister will lose by conceding us this point.

Order! The hon. member has given his reasons now. He cannot discuss the matter further.*

We realize that this Bill deals exclusively with the registration of brands. We also realize that it has nothing to do with animal protection. The hon. the Minister is quite correct on these points and we realize it. The fact of the matter remains, however, that 80 per cent of our farmers will still continue as always to mark their sheep on their ears and will not register brands. This is once and for all the traditional way in which our farmers mark their sheep and despite all the difficulties involved, they will continue to do so. This is the way in which the farmer can identify his sheep. We now want provision to be made in this Bill that no one should be allowed to cut off those earmarks. That is all we want. If that is not done, it will be to the detriment of the farmer and will encourage stock theft. As I have said, we appreciate all these other aspects, but we want to help the Minister and the fact remains that 80 per cent of our farmers will still continue to mark the ears.

I should just like to point out that hon. members cannot make this request on the clause containing the definitions because this clause only defines what an “earmark” is—whether it be a swallow tail, a half moon, a cropped ear, or a slit. The definition only defines what an “earmark” is. The representations made by hon. members are therefore not relevant to this point. If they want the Minister to make provision in this Bill to prohibit a farmer from cropping an ear, or removing an earmark which can also be a cropped ear, they should do so on some other clause. If hon. members do not want the point of the ear to be cut off, it is after all essential that the definition should say what an “earmark” is, that is to say a cropped ear, a swallow tail, etc. A later clause can be inserted which will prohibit a “crop-ear” being one of the marks because it means that the point of the ear must be cut off.

Mr. Chairman, I have given notice of an amendment which can be found on page 759 of the Order Paper. As the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister covers what I intended to cover, and as the Minister has accepted what we asked for during the second reading, I should like to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the Minister’s.

I have already said that I agree with the Minister as regards the meaning of this clause and I have also said that I do not want to amend it in this particular respect. Nevertheless I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot introduce such a provision somewhere in the Bill.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that matter on this clause. I have already ruled accordingly!

On a point of order. You have said that we cannot refer to the Acts in the Schedule.

Not at this stage. The hon. member’s argument is based on the Schedule. He can do so at a later stage, but not on Clause 1.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. Warren put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

1. (2) If for a period of six months a person did not make use of a brand registered in his name, he shall on the expiry of such period notify the registrar in writing thereof, and upon receipt of such notice the registrar shall cancel the registration of such brand.

and in line 8, page 7, to omit “sub-section (1)” and to substitute “sub-sections (1) and (2)”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 13 of the Bill put and negatived.

I move—

1. 13. If the owner of a registered brand changes his address, he shall forthwith and in writing notify the registrar of his new address.

Agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 18,

I move—

1. (c) the branding of his livestock by a person who is a member of a group of persons, and resident in an area, determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 20,

I move—

I have no objection to the amendment proposed by the Minister to Clause 20. I should like to point out, however, that the Minister proposes to take out the word “unlawfully” in line 32. The paragraph will then read—

1. (d) without lawful reason has in his possession, or sells, or otherwise disposes of, or offers for sale or disposal in any other manner, to any other person any livestock on which a brand has been altered, mutilated or cancelled…

As I read this paragraph, the words “without lawful reason” applies only to the words “has in his possession”. Consequently, I think the Minister should also take out the word “or” otherwise the paragraph will read in line 32—

i.e. not necessarily altered “unlawfully”. A person might alter his own brand and if he disposes of the animal he will be committing an offence. I ask the Minister to consider this before the Bill goes to the Other Place and, if necessary, to make the amendment there.

I shall certainly do so.

In view of the fact that the Minister has met our requirements in a previous clause, I do not propose to move the amendment to Clause 20 of which I have given notice.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

1. 25. The Minister may from time to time by notice in the Gazette declare that the provisions of this Act shall not apply in any area defined in such notice, or in respect of any group or kind of livestock specified therein, and may in like manner amend or repeal any such notice.

Agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

One of the fundamental requirements for sound agricultural development is the continuous improvement of our means of production. These include adjusted and improved plant varieties. The object of this Bill is to encourage plant breeders in our own country to concentrate with even more enthusiasm than in the past on the breeding of new and improved plant varieties, and to give them that protection to which they as research workers are entitled. For the first time it is now being made possible for breeders to register their rights in regard to new plants—whether they are propagated vegetatively or whether they are propagated by bulbs or seeds. It is felt that these breeders should be encouraged and that a plant breeder who breeds something which can be of benefit to agriculture, should be able to register his discovery in his own name. That is the object of this Bill. It also makes provision for the determination of royalties in respect of those rights. Only varieties that are new varieties, and have proved to be better or equal to the best varieties of their type already available, will be taken into consideration.

In the past it was mainly the plant breeders and research workers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services who were responsible for the breeding of plants. Here I am thinking for example of all the new small grain varieties which we have in our country to-day and which we are cultivating. These varieties were bred primarily by the plant breeders of the Department. The large number of agricultural, grazing and garden plants which we have makes it possible for many people to specialize in this field. It is also our desire to recruit the services and interest of these people. We cannot only comply with the requirements laid down by departmental breeders. In 1952 the Patents Act was amended and provision was made for the patenting f plants which are propagated vegetatively. This provision has apparently not been adequate. No person who had bred new varieties from bulbs and seeds could patent his product. The result has been that in the past ten years 41 foreign roses have been patented in our country as against only 26 which have been cultivated in this country. Four foreign varieties of fruit have been patented as against two varieties bred here. It has gradually become clear that the patenting of plants does not belong under the Act dealing with the registration of industrial patents. That is why this Bill has been introduced. I should now like to discuss one or two of the main principles embodied in this Bill.

The first principle is that the Minister himself will be able to determine which groups of plants will fall under the legislation. Theoretically however all groups can be included. This will mean that the breeders of plants which are propagated by seed or bulbs can now also register their rights in respect of such plants. As already stated, at present under the Patents act, only plants which propagate vegetatively can be patented. Another provision contained in this Bill is that the Minister can appoint a registrar to deal with the registration of plant breeders’ rights. He can also co-opt experts as advisers to assist him in a matter on which he must decide. The registrar will be expected to keep a register. In this register the necessary details will be noted. Plant breeders’ rights will only be granted in respect of new plants which are bred in this country or which have been bred or developed in this country as well as in respect of plants which are not yet known to the trade or generally to the public and which are reasonably stable and uniform.

An applicant can first submit a provisional and later a final application. Provisional plant breeders’ rights can be granted for periods which can vary from two to five years. During this period the holder of the plant breeders’ rights has the sole right to such plants. After final plant breeders’ rights in respect of a plant have been granted and after the lapsing of the sole right which, as I have already said, may be effective for from two to five years depending on the type of plant, the holder of the plant breeders’ rights must grant a licence to another person who applies for it subject to conditions which can be prescribed. An opportunity will be allowed for the lodging of objections to the granting of provisional plant breeders’ rights and the procedure for dealing with such objections is prescribed. The total period of duration of plant breeders’ rights is 20 years in respect of fruit trees or vines, and ten to 15 years, as determined by the Minister, in respect of all other plants. Any person who is not satisfied with a decision of the registrar can lodge an appeal. Such an appeal will be heard by a board of appeal. This board will consist of at least three members who will be drawn from the Department and the industry concerned.

The Minister can determine by regulation the royalties payable in respect of each plant variety. The Department will of course have no control over the prices which growers ask for their trees. The intention is merely to fix royalties at such a level that they will not be unnecessarily high but will nevertheless give the holder of the plant breeders’ rights a reasonable remuneration.

Agreements can be entered into with other countries on a reciprocal basis which will enable their citizens to obtain plant breeders’ rights in South Africa, with the exception of rights in respect of ornamental plants. Because climatic conditions differ and overseas varieties do not always do well here, I think that the emphasis in future should fall to an even greater extent on the breeding of varieties to meet our own needs—something which we can expect this legislation definitely to encourage.

The provisions of the Patents Act relating to the patenting of plants are consequently being repealed. Rights which have been granted under the provisions of that Act will however not be withdrawn as a result of the passing of this Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill. For the rest, the Bill requires little explanation and I want to express my thanks in advance for the support which it will receive.

On this side of the House we approve in principle of the registration of patents for new plants, seeds and trees which might be developed. As a matter of fact, we should like to see that people are encouraged to develop such new plants and trees. However, this is a very technical Bill with important legal issues involved. Consequently, we make a very strong protest against its introduction at this late stage of the session. It was introduced in the Other Place only a week ago while its third reading was taken there only about three days ago. Certain bodies, such as the Institute of Patent Agents, take exception to certain clauses of the Bill. As a matter of fact, they wrote about it to the Minister about three weeks ago but as yet have had no reply. I know that they would like to meet the Minister on this Bill. Accordingly we make a very earnest appeal to the Minister to allow this Bill to stand over so that it could be examined properly. Surely, there is no need for its adoption this session. There is no need, as far as I know, for any particular hurry.

The Minister knows that he has always had our assistance with Bills which were in the interest of agriculture in this country. We believe that this Bill also is intended to be in the interest of agriculture in this country and, consequently, we should like to support it. For the reasons I have stated, we should like, however, this Bill to stand over so that it can be examined properly by all the parties concerned and if necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry in the meantime or refer it to a Select Committee next year. We do this because not all interested parties have had an opportunity of studying and making representations on this Bill.

This is a Bill which deals with a very complicated aspect of our law and I must say that it is unfortunate that such a Bill is being brought in at such a late stage of the session with the result that it has to be rushed through. It surprises me that the patent agents, people who are experts in this field and who have great technical experience of this matter so that they are equipped to say whether we are moving along the right lines, have had no reply to representations they made in regard to the matter. There is no doubt that this Bill might affect valuable private rights. I regret that in terms of this Bill the Minister will be able to decide what should be covered by patents. Clause 2, for instance, provides—

I am not concerned with the technical details of this Bill at the moment as others on this side will deal with those aspects. For my part, however, I should like to impress upon the Minister and upon this House, that this is a Bill of very great importance. Only if we have a satisfactory law in regard to plant patents, can we get the necessary research from private sources. This is absolutely essential for the development of new varieties suited to the conditions of this country. The Minister has referred to the splendid work which was being done in this field by the officials of his Department. I, for my part, should like to pay tribute to them for having rendered a very valuable service to this country in this respect. I think it is fair to say, however, that it will be greatly admitted—when one examines the history of plant breeding throughout the world—that this is a field in which private enterprise can play a very important part. Although the departments of agriculture of various countries have played a very important part, the development of plant breeding has been, in large measure, especially in the initial stages, the work of persons with a genius in this particular field. Starting from bedrock they have for the benefit, in the way of food, and for the pleasure of mankind, made an enormous contribution. The Minister probably knows of the contributions to this field of probably one of the first great hybridists, namely Luther Burbank (?), the Californian. We are indebted to him for our spineless cactus which has been of such great value to this and other countries. It was realized in the early stages that when one could get rid of the spine of the cactus, it could be of immense value to mankind in that a food could thereby be provided which would enable animals to be kept in parts where they could not be kept before. It was the result of the genius of this man who, by means of experiments over a period of years and by the importation of various types of cacti from countries as far as Mexico, accumulated a collection of some 200 different varieties of plants of the prickly pear family. After many failures, he eventually found that the secret of disposing of the cactus was to cross those varieties having the biggest thorns. In that way he produced the parents of the present day spineless cactus.

Here is an example of a person who in his private capacity took an interest in the matter. I can also give further examples. There is no question, however, that in the field of vegetables, fruits and flowers this particular person’s name is still famous and many of the varieties which he produced are still being used throughout the world and are being regarded as amongst the best of their kind. This is, therefore, a field in which there is a very special place for the private plant breeder. I regret, therefore, that this Bill leaves entirely open the question of the types of plants for which patents may be issued. That is being left entirely in the hands of the Minister to be dealt with by regulation in terms of Clause 2. The Minister’s Department will, no doubt, have information as to the extent to which private plant breeders have played a part in the breeding of plants.

They played such a small part that they could produce only the few types I have been able to refer to.

That is the position in this country and the reason so little has been done here is that anybody seeking to produce plants could get no return because immediately he produced something of value he could not protect himself as he could have under a proper patent law.