Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I wish right at the beginning to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister and with this House which I regard as very important and serious. Let me first of all take back members’ minds to Tuesday, when the hon. the Minister delivered his Budget speech. He delivered that Budget speech about three o’clock in the afternoon, and we as members of the House naturally were the first people who were entitled to hear the Budget speech, to know what tariff proposals were contained in it and, as is our privilege, to hear the whole speech of the hon. the Minister. As I have said, that was at three o’clock on Tuesday afternoon. Now, I want to draw to your attention, Sir, and that of the hon. the Minister, the fact that at two o’clock that afternoon, more than a hour before the hon. the Minister started making his speech, a certain newspaper in Pretoria, Hoofstad, an afternoon paper, had the full Budget Speech in its afternoon edition. This newspaper appeared on the streets of Pretoria an hour and more before the speech was delivered. Let me read to you what it said—

Then they went on to mention in detail all the different increases in tariffs, and this was before we, as members of Parliament, had the privilege of hearing what these tariffs were. I regard this as a very serious matter.

Disgraceful!

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to exonerate the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this regard. Let me tell you what happened, Sir. He followed the time-honoured procedure of letting the members of the Press have advance copies of his speech. That is entirely correct; he has done it before and he will do so again, and he relied on the sense of duty and of honesty and the honour of the Press, which has rarely been broken in this regard, so I do not blame him for having given that speech of his before the time to the Press Gallery, because that is commonly done. But, Sir, it is stated very clearly in that speech itself, on the very last page—

That was Tuesday—

And at two o’clock that afternoon Hoofstad in Pretoria published this news that was not yet known to us. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this action on the part of Hoofstad, whether the fault lies with its Gallery correspondent or its Lobby correspondent or its editor in Pretoria, has been a grave embarrassment to decent journalists in the Press Gallery; it has also been an embarrassment to SAPA and to the SABC, who observed the ruling and only released the speech at three o’clock that afternoon.

The Boers are becoming too quick for the English.

Sir, there can be no doubt in anybody’s mind as to what the code and the rules are in this regard. An embargo on a speech must be respected and honoured, otherwise confidences between members of Parliament and Press correspondents will not be able to continue. As far as I know, this confidence was properly honoured by all other Gallery correspondents and by their newspapers. I do not know whether the Press Gallery correspondent of Hoofstad was responsible, or the editor, but that should be found out. Sir, the rules in this respect are clear, I do not think that our Press Gallery has a set of Lobby rules. It might be a good thing if they did have such a set of rules, but in the British House of Commons they do have it and I would like to read to the House the rule in this regard in so far as it applies to our Post Office debate. I am quoting from the Lobby rules drawn up by Lobby correspondents themselves in the British House of Commons. They read as follows—

And this is addressed to the Lobby Correspondents and the journalists in the British House of Commons—

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I might add that the Lobby rules in the House of Commons point out that Press correspondents and Lobby correspondents are the guests of the House of Commons; they are the guests of Parliament.

Sir, I am not going to call for positive punitive action in this case against Hoofstad.

There you start with your egg-dance. Why don’t you have the courage to take a stand?

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to challenge me to do something, I will consider it. But, Sir, as the guest of Parliament, that correspondent and, by extension, his editor, have abused the hospitality of Parliament, and I say that a gentleman—I stress the word “gentleman”—who has embarrassed his host or who has misbehaved has a clear duty to perform if he is a gentleman; if he is not, he will not understand what I have said here.

I repeat that I do not hold the hon. the Minister personally responsible in this regard as Minister, but he has a duty to perform in another capacity, I believe. He is a director of Perskor, which publishes Hoofstad, so in his other capacity he has a duty to perform. I do not say for one moment that he knew that this would happen. I know that it took place entirely without his knowledge; that is accepted, but as a director of Perskor, he has a duty to perform and I hope he will be able to tell us what he has done about this matter, and I am sure that nothing less than a very strong reprimand from him to the editor or to the correspondent of Hoofstad would be acceptable.

*Mr. Speaker, I have taken some time over this part of my speech. I now want to say something about the Budget as a whole and about something else that has happened. Let us begin with our post offices in South Africa. Sir, yesterday the hon. the Minister spoke of post offices and new post offices that are going to be built in South Africa, and he said the following—

I then told him—

The hon. the Minister replied to that—

In other words, he said that he was not going to close down existing post offices, except under really exceptional circumstances. This sounds to me like another promise by the hon. the Minister, and I should like to hold him to it, and I should like to have it repeated. You see, Sir, I am thinking of a statement made by the Postmaster-General in this regard on 20th March, which to my mind contradicted this promise by the Minister, in which the Postmaster-General did not speak of exceptional cases, but only of uneconomic post offices which might have to be closed down in future.

This seems to me to be a contradiction.

*I do not regard it as an exceptional case if an essential Post Office in the constituency of one of the hon. members on the other side or in the constituency of an hon. member on this side does not yield a profit; I do not regard it as an exceptional case when post offices in a densely populated area are situated within three hundred or four hundred yards or half a mile of one another. These are not exceptional cases where I believe that the post offices should be closed down. I should like to have a repetition of the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will not lightly close down post offices, as well as a repetition of his assurance that post office buildings fulfil an important function and that they will be retained. If we should not get that assurance and if the hon. the Minister should now change his statement of yesterday, I think it would be a record; it would be the quickest about turn and repudiation of a promise I have ever seen in my years in this House of Assembly. He would be changing his mind again only 17 hours after having made the promise.

How many times have you changed sides?

When we look at the Budget I want to repeat what I said at the beginning, that this is a disappointing Budget. There is little hope of improved telephone services. We can dial the moon direct from Cape Kennedy today, but one cannot always get through from Durban to Pietermaritzburg. It has been confirmed in this debate that 54% of our telephone equipment in exchanges is outdated and more than 20 years old and that we have ordered telephone equipment of the older type to the value of R133 million for the next three years, while telephone services have for a long time been replacing that type on a considerable scale with what I called the crossbar system. That is as far as the telephone services are concerned. It was a disappointment to the country to hear about the telephone services. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport is here at the moment. He was here when I said yesterday that the Railways had introduced the crossbar system in their exchanges and that he was to be congratulated on it, and I hope he will consult with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and tell us what he did and why.

The second disappointment is that no concession whatsoever was made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the tariff increases. He hardened his heart and any hope that may have existed on the part of the aged, of the pensioners and of the ordinary public that these harsh tariffs would be reduced has been completely disappointed. Once again he has disappointed the country. The third thing that has been confirmed is that the hon. the Minister refuses to appoint a statutory electronic commission such as the Federal Communication Commission in the U.S.A. Sir, he spoke of a Cabinet committee which is trying to coordinate matters in this regard. That Cabinet committee is a farce. Our electronic industries, the industries which have to make our television sets and sell radios, are at their wits’ end because there is no coordination in regard to this matter; and I foresee chaos as the introduction of television approaches if the hon. the Minister does not take the lead in establishing such a body or commission, not necessarily statutory, but a similar one.

The last disappointment is the hon. the Minister’s refusal to have salaries and wages adjusted to the rising cost of living in future. Once again there is disappointment, particularly on the part of the staff. He has disappointed the public. He has disappointed industry and commerce and he has disappointed the staff with this Budget. Therefore I say that he cannot escape the responsibility for these things, but we in the United Party, as the alternative government of South Africa, know what is required and we shall continue to do our duty as the driving force behind the Post Office in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to join the hon. member for Orange Grove in his campaign against Hoofstad. I think that Hoofstad can deal with him itself in that connection. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about four disappointments which he had suffered: he was disappointed about the alleged lack of sufficient planning for telephone services; he was disappointed about the tariff increases and that special exceptions were not being made for certain bodies and persons; he was disappointed because the hon. member did not consider it necessary to establish an electronics board; and, finally, he was disappointed about the salary increases and the cost-of-living allowance, which he wants to be added yearly or monthly. But he did not mention a fifth disappointment, and that is his great disappointment that this Budget offers so little for the Opposition to criticize. Ever since I have been a member here, Sir, the Post Office Budget debate has never yet had such a calm passage through all its stages. I suppose it must have really been a pleasure to the hon. the Minister. It was such a pleasure that he remained faithful to the tradition of the Post Office yesterday, as he has always done, by replying to all the questions and complaints of the Opposition in a courteous manner.

The long and the short of this debate has really been that the Post Office went through a fairly difficult period last year in respect of capital and operating revenue. One makes no secret of that, but if one takes into account that in spite of that the Post Office really succeeded to a very great extent in effectively facing the problems with which it had to contend, one can only be thankful for a very efficient Post Office and system of communication. The hon. member said in his Budget Speech that a change would have to be effected in the postal services without our neglecting or abandoning our basic services. I should like to hear more from the hon. the Minister in that connection. To give you an example, Sir, in the delivery of post, it takes a postman a lot of time to go from house to house placing letters one by one in the letter-boxes of the house-owners. But a great deal of work is done before that stage is reached. In the sorting department of the Post Office those letters are first sorted into the various beats and the postman takes the letters for his particular beat, puts them into his bag, gets on his bicycle and rides to the suburb or the area where he has to deliver the post. He starts early in the morning—round about 6 a.m., I take it, calling to mind the days when I was still there—and by 8 o’clock or 8.30 a.m. he starts out on his rounds and only at 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the afternoon does he return to his home once again. I have been wondering whether the hon. the Minister has considered the introduction of self-service postal delivery systems in certain new urban areas, i.e. instead of the post being delivered from house to house, in the form of a hall in a very convenient and centrally located place, a place which is within very easy reach. I am thinking, for example, that it could be placed in the vicinity of bus stops in order to serve a certain number of inhabitants, 200 or 300 or 400 as the case may be; an inexpensive but very effective construction of steel, or of steel and concrete, with a roof, where letter-boxes such as private post office boxes, are provided for the inhabitants of that particular area, with a key for each inhabitant of the area so that he may collect his post at his convenience when it suits him, on his way to the bus or when he drives past in his car on his way home in the evening. In the same way, I think, provision can be made for a post box in which people can place the letters which they have written —in the red post boxes which we know and the blue ones for air mail—but at the same time they will also have, on those premises, the convenience of a stamp-vending machine into which they may insert coins and obtain stamps for their letters. Another idea would be to have a public telephone call office at such a self-service unit for the convenience of the inhabitants of such a suburb. Another idea would be to provide at such a self-service unit a writing-table for the convenience of the public. The benefit involved—and perhaps the hon. member for East London City will give his attention to this—is that instead of the postman delivering mail from 6 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the evening, he will take an hour at the most to sort it in that self-service unit; then he would be free to go to the next suburb. Such a postman could serve four or five suburbs in this way and so eliminate a tremendous amount of labour. The hon. the Minister said that rising costs were actually the problem with which the Post Office had to contend. If one considers that labour costs actually account for two thirds of its costs, this is perhaps a matter to which serious attention can be given.

Another matter which I want to mention, is the increasing demand which can most probably be expected in the Bantu residential areas around the major urban complexes. As a result of an increase in the purchasing power of the Bantu population of South Africa, one can expect the demand for telephone and other postal services to increase progressively. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the planning section of his department has made allowance for the provision of such services in the Bantu areas and whether the department will be capable of satisfying that increasing demand.

A moment ago I referred to the courtesy of the hon. the Minister when I made mention of his reaction to the questions put by hon. members of the Opposition. I should like to place it on record again that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is probably the department in South Africa which has the most daily contact with members of the public. I am sure that on the strength of my experience I can bear witness to the fact—and I am sure that this has also been the experience of all hon. members in this House—that one encounters nothing but the highest degree of courtesy among the officials of the Post Office. I am not aware of a single complaint in recent years concerning insolent treatment of the public by Post Office officials. That is really something for which one can be grateful, if one considers it against the background that those officials come into contact with the public so many million times every year.

Something else which I should like to say to the credit of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is that today, under the National Party regime, there is probably not one single post office in South Africa where the public cannot be served in either of the official languages. The officials of the Post Office are, in othe words, fully bilingual. One is very grateful for that. In the days when it was my privilege to be in the service of the Post Office, things were different, but then another Government was in power, namely the Government of the United Party. Do you know that only one language, namely English, was the official language medium of the Post Office in those days? There was no recognition for Afrikaans. For an official to have any hope of promotion in those times, he had to speak the language of those in power. I can bear witness that today, in that sphere, the Post Office makes no distinction regarding the language spoken by an official. If he is Afrikaans speaking and shows merit, he is promoted, and the same goes for the English-speaking official. The Post Office does not in any way discriminate against an official on the grounds of the language spoken by him. One is very, very thankful that this is the case. In this regard, therefore, the Post Office has rendered the country as a whole a very great service.

In conclusion I want to mention that I am grateful that Bantu, Coloureds and Indians are trained by the Post Office to serve their own people. I am particularly grateful that this is the case, because the demand for services on the part of those population groups will increase. The need to train these people will increase as that demand increases. I should like the hon. the Minister and the department to continue with that policy to an increasing extent. It fits in with our whole pattern of separate development. When the demand is there, it must be possible, where necessary and wherever it is practicable, for each population group to be served by its own people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston District disappointed me, particularly as regards the Hoofstad matter, which he passed over so glibly. If there is one matter about which there should at least be unanimity in this Chamber, it is the manner in which a Budget is to be dealt with by the Press outside. What I expected from the hon. member, was not to say that the Hoofstad matter could just be left at that. No, he ought to have protested against the fact that that newspaper placed the hon. the Minister in this embarrassing situation. I expect an hon. member opposite to ensure that this kind of thing will not happen again. The introduction of a Budget is an extremely important matter. For the consideration of the hon. member I just want to put it as follows: If we were to have the same state of affairs next week when the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget, what would the position be then? The hon. member should know that in other countries it has already happened that Ministers have resigned because information concerning budgets has been made available to the public in advance.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I only have a few minutes. He ought to take a strong line. If he agrees with us on the question of the introduction of Budgets, he ought to protest in order to protect the Minister who has been placed in an embarrassing situation by this matter.

The hon. member for Boksburg found it necessary to ask whether we should follow the example of mother England.

Where? When?

Yes, the hon. member for Boksburg did say that. It was an interjection. I just want to say this to the hon. member: As far as the operation of this hon. House is concerned, if we were to do away with all the practices of old mother England, the hon. member would find that we would have to do away with most of the practices which obtain here today. But it does not seem to me as though the hon. member is really interested in that.

But you are still tied to England’s apron strings.

The hon. member’s problem is that he has had an obsession about mother England all these years—for that reason he is a Nat. He just can not believe that the Anglo-Boer War was fought 72 years ago.

I want to return to the Budget. I want to say at once that I listened to the speeches which were delivered here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg must contain himself.

I listened to the speeches on the Budget and I read those to which I could not listen. I want to say right at the start, that in my experience of the Post Office, I have never yet had the slightest problem concerning the courtesy and the willingness of the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of South Africa. I believe that here we have to do with people who are not only courteous at all times, but, if it is within their power, also prepared to render the service one expects from them. That is not my problem; my problem concerns the question of overall planning on the one hand, and on Post Office policy on the other hand.

I should like to dwell on the question of planning, because I have examples of a lack of planning in my own constituency. The outside public do not understand that a block of flats containing 20 or 30 luxury units may be built, each of which will be occupied by people who will have to pay well over R100 a month in rent and each of whom will automatically want a telephone, but that, when the block of flats has been completed, there is not the slightest proof of the future installation of telephone services, certainly not in the near future. The public already finds this difficult to understand. But let us forget about the private bodies and persons. What happens when the State, the Department of Community Development, constructs a large housing scheme. I have two examples in my constituency where the State has done wonderful work to supply economic and sub-economic housing to the workers of South Africa. What do we find? Those housing schemes are completed over a period of three years. Only then does the Post Office want to install telephone services which, in my modest opinion, should already have been installed three years previously. What happens now? The people who have established their gardens at great expense and with great difficulty and the municipality which has built pavements, must look on a few years later while the Post Office digs everything up to lay the cables for the telephone service which is being introduced. Here it seems to me that we need liaison between the State body which must supply the housing on the one hand, and the Post Office on the other hand. I see no reason why there cannot be cooperation between the Department of Community Development and the Housing Commission on the one hand and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the other hand in order to ensure that these services are supplied simultaneously. This would not only save expense and inconvenience for the user but I believe that this should be so in any modern state. There are two areas in my constituency, i.e. Sand-drift with hundreds of houses and Bothasig also with hundreds of houses. There are numbers of people who are still waiting for telephone services. I believe that they have still a few years to wait before they will get those services. I do not believe that this is the way in which a housing scheme should be tackled by the State, particularly when the hon. the Minister is in such close contact with his colleagues who are responsible for housing.

Then there is the question of policy. In this connection it is my opinion that the Post Office has a problem to contend with. Let us take note of the basic facts. The telephone services pay for themselves. In addition they also contribute towards carrying the loss on the postal services as such. We cannot continue by simply increasing telephone tariffs. Consider what has happened in this session. It is easy to talk of R36 per year. But what about one’s old pensioners. Is it not terrible to think that the monthly income of a pensioner is almost equal to the yearly rental for a telephone? I cannot comprehend why the hon. the Minister does not want to give way on this point. There are these pensioners as well as others whose only source of income is their pensions, although they may not all be social pensions. Why can an arrangement not be made in terms of which these people are granted cheaper services? The hon. the Minister will tell me that he can do so but that this will simply increase his losses. I realize that. But as far as this matter is concerned, the Minister is rendering a service to South Africa. I think that under the circumstances he has the moral right to approach the Treasury for assistance. I do not believe that we can proceed and expect a pensioner to pay a rental at R36 for his telephone.

A telephone is no longer a luxury today. For the ordinary man in the street it is an extremely necessary article. For many pensioners—and I am speaking from personal experience—the telephone is an article of vital importance in the house. The question arises whether we are not making it impossible for these people to make use of this service today. If one thinks about the cost of telephone calls, the telephone has become an object of terror to the man in the street today. The ordinary worker cannot afford to pay a rental of R3 per month today, let alone the increase in tariffs. I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister is making a mistake as far as his revenue is concerned. He will not get the revenue which he expects. People will be forced to use fewer telephones and to make fewer calls. I definitely think that he will have a problem to contend with as far as his Budget is concerned.

As I have said, we cannot expect to increase telephone tariffs continually in an attempt to cover the losses incurred by the Post Office. We know what the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has to contend with and we do not want to be unreasonable. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs must render a high percentage of uneconomic services. Now, where exactly are these so-called uneconomic services? To a large extent those uneconomic services are being rendered in the country areas. How can that loss be eliminated? One can either increase the postal tariffs or one must abolish the uneconomic services. There is no member in this House who will say that uneconomic services in the rural areas must be abolished. We cannot expect that. But nor can we expect the city-dweller to pay for the uneconomic services in the rural areas. After all, that is not fair either. Somewhere a balance must be struck. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that the time has arrived when he will have to approach this matter on a totally different basis. I think the hon. the Minister has an excellent case to approach the State and to say: “Look, I cannot continue rendering the uneconomic services and I cannot expect the urban dweller to pay for them. The simple truth is that I am obliged to render those uneconomic services in the interests of South Africa.”

Since this is the position, I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister cannot say to the Minister of Finance: Look, it is perfectly correct that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs must function separately, but the State cannot wholly evade its financial obligations; it is just not good enough to obtain money on loan; provision will have to be made for loans at special rates or a method must be found in terms of which the State must pay for certain services rendered by the Post Office. We cannot allow the existing situation to continue.

Of course, this situation also has its effect on the staff. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister is happy to sit tight while he knows that the increases of the thousands of members on the staff of his department rendering good services, do not even compensate for the increase in the cost of living. I just cannot believe that. After all, he has an open heart for the people in his department. And what is he going to do about it? The position of the Post Office is no different from that of the Railways. The cost of living of the Railways has been adjusted up to September, 1972, by the recent increase of 15% in salaries. The same position applies to the Post Office. What is the hon. the Minister going to do about it? How long will the people have to wait for another adjustment to be made with regard to their cost of living? How long must they still wait for their standard of living to be raised? The last time this happened was in May, 1970. The hon. the Minister cannot continue on this road. Somewhere he is going to land in trouble. He is engaged in rendering services to South Africa and he expects the telephone subscriber and the city-dweller to subsidize uneconomic services. That he cannot expect; somewhere the breaking point will be reached. We shall either have to cut down on the quality of our services or we shall have to come to some financial arrangement with the State, so that the State may accept its responsibility. The fact is that the hon. the Minister renders social services, something for which his department is not really geared. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland made some remarks in a few sentences which I want to respond to before I say something about the debate. The hon. member referred to the Hoofstad matter and the fact that Hoofstad published the report in connection with the Budget at a certain time. A charge is now being made against the hon. the Minister, even though his Budget speech contains a clear indication in that respect. After the last paragraph it is stated very clearly (translation). “For release to the Press and the SABC—for information only at 9 a.m.” I cannot see why the matter is being raised here. The hon. member may raise the matter with the Press, which is responsible for that, but he cannot accost the hon. the Minister about that. The hon. member’s whole argument is misdirected, because the hon. the Minister already dealt with this in his Second Reading speech.

The hon. member for Maitland said, inter alia, something very reprehensible which I strongly want to react to. The hon. member said that the urbanite subsidizes the rural post and telegraph services. That is very far from the truth. I would very much like to use stronger language, but you will not allow me to do so, Sir. Out of respect for this House I shall restrain myself from doing so. Here in my hand I have a statement of a platteland town in my own constituency. With figures I shall now prove to the hon. member that the urbanite does not subsidize the platteland at all, neither in this sphere nor in any other sphere. This is, however, an outcome of the terminology of the Opposition, i.e. that when they speak about the platteland, they refer to the “deep” platteland. In similar terms the hon. member for Durban Point referred to the hon. member for Christiana’s area as the “bundu”. That is the language the United Party uses in respect of the platteland, because the platteland [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to go further. I can prove my statement. I do not want to charge the hon. Opposition with anything I cannot prove. Their Transvaal leader refers to the Afrikaans-speaking people as people who walked around in rags when his people were already civilized. Not one of those hon. members opened their mouths to repudiate their Transvaal leader. In other words, in English one could say: “It suits them very well.” That is the conclusion one must draw.

I now come to the “deep” platteland’s contribution to the revenue of Post and Telegraphs. Here is a statement of the revenue of the post office in my own town, i.e. Harrismith. These figures can also be quoted to refute the argument of the Opposition that the tariff increases have brought about a decrease in the Post Office’s revenue. In 1970 the revenue from the handling of post was R25 006. In 1971, after the introduction of the increased tariffs, the revenue from post was R30 676. Knowing the Opposition as I do, they will say that R30 000 is less than R25 000. In 1972 the revenue from post was R415 000. Let us now look at the revenue of the telegraph service. In 1970 the revenue in this connection was R4 489. The revenue from the telephone service was R115 583 in the same year. The total was R152 457. Those are only the figures in respect of one post office in the “deep” platteland, which those people hold in such contempt. After the tariff increases in 1971, the hon. member for Orange Grove once again claimed that the tariff increases would result in a decrease in the Post Office’s revenue and that the hon. the Minister would not, with his tariff increases, obtain the revenue for which he budgeted. As I have said, the revenue from the postal service was R30 676 in 1971. The revenue from the telegraph service was R5 010. The revenue from the telephone service was R130 625, an increase of almost R50 000 on the previous year. I do not have the time to mention all the figures, and I shall therefore only mention the total revenues in respect of the postal, telegraph and telephone services for those three years. In 1970, the total revenue was R409 180. In 1971 it was R371 713. That is the year in which the tariffs were increased. In 1972 the total revenue from the post office in Harrismith was R468 654. Mr. Speaker, that is why I say that the “deep” platteland contributes its rightful share, even though it is despised by the hon. Opposition.

You are talking nonsense.

That hon. member cannot say I am talking nonsense. The figures I have mentioned here, he cannot refute. I have proved that this is the case, and that hon. member cannot prove the contrary.

The hon. the Minister clearly replied to the plea they lodged here for pensioners. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central allowed to say to the hon. the Minister of the Interior …

No, I did not say that about the hon. the Minister.

Is the hon. member allowed to say to the hon. the Minister of the Interior: “You are a bloody fool?”

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation; I just want to say that I did not say that about the hon. the Minister.

Order! Did the hon. member use those words?

I used the words, but I was not speaking about the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must immediately withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but I did not say it about the hon. the Minister.

No, the hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Harrismith may continue.

Sir, I was stating that the Opposition advocated a decrease of tariffs for our pensioners and those who are less well-endowed. In his replies the hon. the Minister very clearly said that he is sympathetically disposed to that, but where must one draw the line? Wherever one draws the line, there is going to be injustice. Administratively I think it is an almost impossible task. It is also certain that those hon. members will only lodge pleas for pensioners and those who are less well-endowed in the urban areas, and not in the “deep platteland”. For those people they will not lodge any pleas, because they are surely subsidizing the “deep platteland” with respect to this revenue. But that is now enough of this Opposition.

Last year the hon. the Minister introduced the system of postage-due cards, according to which a small card is sent to the addressee. The addressee must then return that card with the amount owing. I myself had very strong doubts about that; I believed it was a risky attempt that was being made. But here I now must speak with great praise of the South African public, because do you know, Sir, that more than 70% of those letters thus despatched were returned with the amount owing enclosed. I think it really does great credit to the user of postal services in South Africa.

The criticism of the Opposition, over the past few years, has been typical Opposition criticism, because in respect of every point of criticism they neglected to place before the House an alternative, calculated scheme or plan. It is easy to criticize someone, but we see that it is infinitely more difficult for the Opposition to present a good, feasible plan to correct the so-called shortcomings they have discovered. I think that on the occasion of this Third Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill we can look forward to the years that lie ahead with a great deal of optimism, because in every sphere we have something that can benefit the officials and the public. Apart from the increase of tariffs, which was unavoidable, we have the increased salaries and other benefits that are now being granted. R1 million is being made available for housing. For buildings in which the various services, etc., must be accommodated, we have budgeted R18 090 000. It is therefore really a fine prospect for the future, as far as this department is concerned.

I want to conclude by saying that we can really be grateful and proud of the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his officials and every officer and employee in this service. These figures which I quoted in respect of only one post office in my constituency, bears sufficient witness to the fact that we have staff who can fully and with great credit acquit themselves of a very difficult task.

In conclusion I also want to say something in connection with the labour policy. The United Party, in the person of the hon. member for Port Natal and others, broached the question of the employment of non-Whites. A great deal of progress has also been made there, not only as far as the training of Bantu, Indians and Coloureds is concerned, but also with respect to the numbers entering the service of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. What is also of further importance is that those non-Whites get the chance to be trained to also serve their own people in their own areas.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying this: Without any doubt I can tell you here today that the Opposition attack in this debate was the poorest I have ever listened to in this House during the years I have been sitting here.

Sir, I want to begin my reply to the debate by referring to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said in connection with Hoofstad’s conduct. I want to begin by stating that I think that what happened with Hoofstad’s publication of the Budget in advance was not the correct thing to do, and that it is certainly something that must not be repeated in this country. It does not accord with our pattern of releasing information to the Press, and this is a matter which we must certainly treat in a very serious light. Immediately after it came to my attention that this report had appeared in Hoofstad at 2 p.m., I had the necessary inquiries made here, because this is contrary to our whole parliamentary procedure. In fairness I just want to disclose the following information which I received at that time from my office, which handled this matter on my behalf. The Budget speech, as the hon. member for Orange Grove rightly said here, was endorsed—

The object is, of course, obvious. The Budget speech contains a mass of data and the Press must have an opportunity to assimilate this in advance. It is in everyone’s interest that the information contained in the Budget speech be presented properly to the public at the right time; but my note continues (translation)—

As far as Hoofstad’s staff is concerned, I feel that it would be a good thing, in the interests of the parties concerned, if I also quote the following note here (translation)—

This report was subsequently published in Hoofstad, and I repeat that this is an unsound and wrong state of affairs. Next week the Minister of Finance is going to deliver his Budget, which has much wider and deeper ramifications than a Post Office Budget, and one can imagine what embarrassing and even worse situations this could create for us if such a thing were to happen with the main Budget. This is consequently a serious matter, and on Monday when the board of directors of Perskor, on which I have a seat, convenes, I certainly intend to take this matter further.

Hear, hear!

Sir, I now come back to the other matters that were raised here. The hon. member for Orange Grove has again referred to the “crossbar” system which we use in switching. I stated in my reply that it is really uneconomical at this stage, for us to convert from our present system to a “crossbar” system, knowing that in a number of years we must change over to a semi-electronic system.

I acknowledge that. I said that the “crossbar” system should already have been introduced 20 years ago.

Well, in the first place I have not held this post for the past 20 years, and 20 years ago they did not have a shadow minister like the hon. member for Orange Grove either and there were probably a hundred reasons why this could not be done 20 years ago. I therefore do not think that anyone could be blamed for the fact that this was not done 20 years ago. But I want to say this as far as the present system is concerned. It is used by a large portion of the world, modernized as it is, so, if 20 years ago we were unable to do the wise thing, I do think, though, that there are quite a lot of people in the world who can also be accused of such shortsightedness, because this present system is used in many parts of the world, and I do not really think they can also be accused of backwardness.

The hon. member referred to the question of the buildings and tried to hold me to my undertaking. That is so. I referred to the buildings. The hon. member for Prieska was particularly concerned about the post office buildings in his constituency, and I think this is typical of the situation in many other constituencies. We have told our M.P.s in the past few years that we cannot comply with their requests at this stage; we know the buildings are not satisfactory, but we must concentrate on telecommunications. Well, yesterday I adopted the standpoint that as far as those buildings are concerned, we have now come to the point where, although telecommunication is still extremely important, we cannot keep the replacement of antiquated buildings waiting any longer, and we shall have to start giving them the necessary attention. But this does not mean that we are going to replace post offices as such. Post offices as such are, in many cases, accommodated on non-post office premises. How many post offices, for example, are not accommodated on railway property, and how many are not accommodated in private shops. This is, of course, a situation which we shall gradually substitute in accordance with needs and circumstances. The question of the electronics commission, to which the hon. member referred, is of course a matter which, apart from the reply I gave yesterday, i.e. that we have a Cabinet committee and a technical T.V. committee which deal with that, is receiving attention. The Department of Industries has, of course, had an electronics committee handling matters of this nature for many years. I really think that with the existence of the electronics committee in the Department of Commerce and Industries, the Cabinet committee on television and its technical committee, these fields have been covered very thoroughly.

The hon. member for Germiston District referred, inter alia, to what I said in my speech, i.e. that with a view to our postal services’ shortage, we shall really have to think of a change in our services. You know, Sir, the fact that one has a shortage in the postal services is something of an international phenomenon. Here, for example, I happen to have a cutting from the Financial Times of London which states: “£60 million loss forecast on Postal Services.” England expects a shortage of R120 million on postal services alone, but apart from that they have a shortage on their postal services of £200 million. Now they have in the British Parliament what they call the “Borrowing Bill”, a Bill to enable the Government to write off up to £200 million of the Post Office’s accumulated deficit on its postal business. This is something one has throughout the world, i.e. that postal services simply do not want to become a profitable matter. This does not force one, in consequence, to close down post offices, as the hon. member fears, but it does compel one to at least take one’s existing service into consideration and see where one can bring about a saving. The hon. member for Germiston District has referred to self-service depots. This is a matter we do have under proper scrutiny. On his recent visit to Europe the Postmaster-General encountered a very interesting example of this in Berne in Switzerland. It is a kind of postal centre that is run on a completely self-service basis, to which the public can come and where they can, for example, obtain their postage stamps. If one does not have sufficient small change, there is another machine from which one can obtain small change so that one can at least buy postage stamps. Then there is a scale on which one can weigh one’s own packages, and just to ensure that one does not deposit too large a package with the post office, there is even an apparatus in which one can first put one’s package to see if it is the right shape and not too large. Then it is weighed. A table is also provided which states what the postage is. One can then put the stamps on the package oneself and throw it into the box. The packages are collected once or twice per day by an official who does the rounds there. Over and above this, what the Postmaster-General saw being done at Berne, we can also establish in our country, particularly in our newer developing urban areas. We are thinking very seriously about that. It goes without saying that we shall be able to have call offices there as well as post boxes. In this way one can establish self-service centres in certain areas and, in particular, as I have said, in our newer developing parts where we almost cannot keep up as far as manpower and supply of new services are concerned. We shall try to do this, and we envisage beginning with this as an experiment, because it goes without saying that anything of that nature must initially be an experiment. I do not doubt however, that our public will, in the first place, be understanding enough and in the second place honest enough so that this system can be tested very well.

The hon. member for Harrismith referred to the integrity of our people in respect of the surcharge system. I really think it serves as testimony of the integrity of our South African public that 70% of them, after having received such notification, do not simply keep the notification and ignore the Post Office, but affix the necessary stamps and return the cards. This is certainly proof of the honesty of our people. That attitude enables us to cover new ground in the future, as I have just indicated, so that we can be assisted in controlling the situation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? How is such a system safeguarded in Switzerland and other parts of the world?

I was not there myself, but the Postmaster-General explained it to me. Such a structure is round in shape. The official enters the structure and the postal items, etc., are handled inside. The public throws in the packages and other postal items through a slit on the outside of the structure. Those items are collected on the inside. The items are kept quite safe by means of a door that is locked. The official visits the place once or twice a day, and he also checks whether there is sufficient change for exchange purposes. The public is therefore outside, and the items are received inside and handled in a safe manner. I think that what has been seen overseas can serve as an example for us and can also be tested locally.

The hon. member for Germiston District pointed to the development of Bantu township areas and asked whether we are taking that into account. Yes, we are taking that into account. Yesterday, in reply to another hon. member’s representations, I said that as far as Soweto is concerned, we are planning five exchanges, which are also in the process of construction. So, too, the training of Bantu electricians, which is taking place at Umtata, is surely proof that we are aware of the future growth in the Bantu’s demand for postal and telegraph services. These wage increases, with which we are busy at the moment and which will form a pattern for Bantu employment, will obviously result in (a) their having greater purchasing power and (b) their standard of living gradually being increased. If one has a high standard of living, one develops a need for a telephone, whether the rental is R36 per year or not. Having a telephone is characteristic of an increasing standard of living. We are taking that into account.

The hon. member for Maitland expressed his appreciation for the courtesy of officials. I am very glad of that. We know this to be the case. We should like officials to be courteous. It is a good thing that as a Parliament, we on both sides of the House should express our appreciation of that, because those officials also receive unnecessary criticism at times. I really cannot but say that I have been very impressed, throughout my period of association with the Post Office, by the loyalty the officials have for the Post Office. Therefore it can only be heartening for them to know that we notice and appreciate this.

The question was also raised of the planning of facilities at housing schemes that are coming into being. It is, of course, important that one should know when new residential areas are coming into being. In the past there has not been a great measure of co-operation in that connection. Blocks of flats were simply erected overnight without our being notified of the fact in advance. Applications for telephones are then only received afterwards. We have now reached the point where, in co-operation with the local authorities and the South African Municipal Association, we have designed a very good method of operation in terms of which we are properly informed about township development, so that we can take the necessary steps in time. This does not only embrace planning. When, for example, trenches are dug for the provision of water, we must see whether we can use that opportunity for laying the cables simultaneously. We are dealing with that matter at the moment. Attention is also being given to making provision for telephone cables when blocks of flats are erected, so that one does not have to chop, break up and struggle afterwards.

We are having a good look at this situation.

The hon. member for Maitland also asked whether we could not think about another basis for financing the uneconomic services which the Post Office must carry out. It is, of course, very easy to ask for another basis. The same requests are made to the Railways in this House for the furnishing of this or that service. The question that is then asked is whether the State could not simply subsidize that. It is very easy for us sitting here, as ordinary taxpayers, to expect everything from the State. When the State, i.e. the Treasury, must subsidize a service, it simply means that we must give it from another pocket. Subsidies come from all our pockets combined. What does this mean in practice? It means an increase in taxes. The moment this happens, the first speaker in the Budget debate is the hon. member for Parktown. He is sitting right here in front of me. After the Minister of Finance has submitted his Budget, that hon. member immediately jumps up to tell the Minister how wrong it is to increase the tax again this year, but this is so as a result of the requests that came from his colleague, the hon. member for Maitland. I do not think this is the way we must handle this situation. I do think that the Post Office should at least be able to manage these economic and uneconomic services on its own. I think the Post Office has become big enough by now, and it realizes its responsibility in respect of the public. I am thinking, for example, of the lower newspaper tariffs. Despite the fact that in this Budget we are increasing the tariff for newspapers from ½c to 1c, it is still uneconomic for the Post Office, as I have said and as you know—the newspapers themselves know this. It costs us much more than 1c to handle those postal items. But we realize that the Post Office has a social duty to the public in general. By the same token there are certain aspects—for example postal agencies. Many of our postal agencies are really so uneconomic that the transport costs to the postal agencies are more than the revenue we get out of it. One also has to draw a line here. Now and then I am compelled to close down a postal agency. The result is that I have to listen to objections from members of the House of Assembly about that. I am speaking now of postal agencies in respect of which the annual costs amount to about R900, while only R300 is received in revenue. In those cases the gap is really too big and we cannot continue to furnish the services. However, we shall have to continue to furnish certain uneconomic services, although we shall always have to draw a line somewhere.

Is the hon. the Minister not prepared at all to consider the decrease of rental tariffs for welfare pensioners?

This is a matter that is very close to one’s heart. From time to time other requests are also received about helping pensioners. One would very much like to do so. The trouble is, however, that if one begins with pensioners, one cannot stop there. It would amount to a really humane welfare action, and one would also have to assist others. Thus one would also have to assist the blind, the deaf and the physically disabled. One would also have to assist the poor who are dealt with by the poor relief of one’s church. One would receive pleas from these bodies to help those people. And when that has been done one would indeed not be able to stop with the Whites. One would of necessity have to make it applicable to the 21 million people in one’s country. It would financially be quite impossible for us to make such a concession applicable to 21 million people. The hon. member does not want the Post Office to be run at a loss, but at the same time he makes it absolutely impossible for the Post Office to function as a business institution. However much sympathy I have for the hon. member’s proposal, it is financially impossible for us, because the concession would have to ripple out to the furthermost section of those people in our society who will have need of assistance of this nature.

Do you not have the same problem with radio licences?

Yes, but this is a social rule which one would have to apply to everyone. One cannot restrict it, and the moment one applies it generally, it becomes financially impossible.

According to my notes I have dealt with all the matters that were raised. I again want to thank the House for this really profitable discussion we have had, and for the interest that has come from both sides of the House, although I perhaps could not satisfy everyone. It was a very pleasant and profitable debate, and I say thank you very much to all the hon. members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the Third Reading of this Bill within one week flat from the time it was tabled in this House and made available to members. It is a procedure which I hope we are not going to adopt in matters of this sort which affect the powers of provinces and indirectly also various principles as far as provincial legislation is concerned. I believe that the rushing of legislation of this sort, especially when it is not of an urgent nature, is undesirable because it can lead to decisions being taken by this House which have to be reviewed or amended at some future time as they may not prove to be in the interests of the general public. We have been concerned in the debate so far on this measure primarily and almost entirely with the provisions of clause 3. I will confine myself entirely to that particular clause of the Bill.

I must state in passing, in commenting on clause 3, that there are certain matters which by now should be self-evident. There has been no objection from this side of the House to those particular clauses dealing with provisions for the approval or rectification of bursaries, the question of environmental control as well as other aspects which arise in this measure. In fact, we welcome these provisions. But when we come to clause 3 in so far as the development payments arising from rezoning are concerned one must realize that this Bill gives power to the administrations which will have an effect on many individuals and a most material effect upon property developers who are the ones most likely to avail themselves of an upper rezoning and the better use of land in terms of the powers that we now pass on to the administrations. And, Sir, it is these developers to whom the local authorities really look for a very considerable portion of their revenue. It is the developers that build the structures, the highly valuable structures which in turn contribute considerably to the revenue of the local authorities who also will receive revenue under the provisions of this particular clause when applied by the provincial administrations. It is unfortunate that in merely dealing with a request from the provincial administration to put right legally what they have been doing, the legality of which is in question, that the hon. the Minister and those concerned did not take the opportunity of consulting property developers as to their views in regard to the powers that should be passed on to the provincial administrations. We feel that they should have been consulted in this matter and that they could well have been given an opportunity to express their views to the hon. the Minister. But the hon. the Minister’s attitude has been: The provinces have asked for these powers; let us give them the powers and leave it to the provinces to act in terms of the extension of the powers which are now enshrined in this legislation. I believe it is necessary that we should consider what the effect of this legislation will be on the public in general.

I want to deal with this in the light of what can now be done by the provinces in full validity because if this measure which is now before us is given a Third Reading, it will validate those matters which have been done by the various provinces. I think I am correct in saying that in validating that which has been done there is cause for considerable disquiet in many circles as to the way in which this power has been exercised up to the present moment in the belief that this power already vested in the provincial councils. I want to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that provincial councils themselves are the cause of what has happened. I believe, however, that in providing for these development charges and in assessing the contribution to the owners of properties affected, provincial councils have not given sufficient safeguards to protect the individual owner against the local authority with whom he comes into contact. That is a matter which concerns us and the public. I accept readily the statement made by the hon. the Minister yesterday that in so far as he is concerned it is inherent in the powers which provincial councils now have that they can provide for the method of determination of the increase or decrease in values and that they can now by legislation by way of ordinances, direct local authorities how this shall be done and in what manner it shall be done. According to him the provincial councils are now empowered to ensure, if they so wish and if they do it during a discussion of their amending legislation, that there is adequate procedure for review and for testing the justification of the actions and the correctness or otherwise of the values assessed by a local authority. Those actions could be tested in a proper way by either some tribunal of review or the courts. Obviously, we do not at this stage want to indicate to the provincial authorities how that should be done. But I want to say that it is important for the councils to realize, and for the public to realize, that, in so far as this House is concerned, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the provincial administrations from passing legislation to do away with a lot of the problems which have arisen in the past and which have caused a great deal of disquiet.

In dealing with that, one must also refer to the fact that the passing of this Bill will create a situation in which some 13 litigants, in so far as the Cape is concerned, who have gone to court and whose cases are pending, will now find that they are legislated out of court, if I may put it that way, by the retrospective effect of this legislation. I trust that in their case there will be no undue hardship imposed on them as a result of this and that they will be dealt with by the provincial authorities in a manner that will not penalize them for having utilized their access to the court in a manner which has a good deal of support from the legal authorities, in that they are of the opinion that the actions of the Administration were not authorized under the existing legislation. What I also want to refer to is the fact that there are on record a number of cases of people who have commenced litigation. What has happened in these cases is that the Executive Committee has ordered the withdrawal of the levy of a development contribution and paid the costs of the litigant. In that way a particular case is being disposed of. The litigant has not suffered; he still owns his property, but the levy has been withdrawn and the Administration has been able to allow the Ordinance to go on being applied without its validity having been tested. The other aspect is that the provincial administration by doing this—and I talk of the Cape—has enabled local authorities to be spared the embarrassment of having to justify the decrease or increase in their assessment of values before court.

In the light of what the hon. the Minister has said, I believe the provincial councils now have the power to legislate as to the method of the determination of value. They also have the power to legislate for quasi-judicial or other means of dealing with queries and appeals against those matters. I believe that the provincial authorities would be well advised to have regard to the safeguards which this House has legislated for in the various Bills that have been before this House which deals with the sanctity of land ownership. This House has legislated for adequate means of appeal and review by independent persons and access to the court when there are disputes as to the assessing of the amount of compensation to be paid in cases of expropriation. I believe, Sir, that it would be to the advantage of the country if the Administrations would adopt that type of legislation. Perhaps one could even go further, when we have the report from the commission which has been appointed by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and have a uniform system to deal with all questions arising when the right of an individual to ownership of his property is affected in any way detrimentally. Should that happen, there can then be a uniform approach to the question of compensation of such a person.

I believe it must be remembered that certain questions remain which will have to be debated again and reviewed in the provincial councils. There are questions which attack the very validity of this type of levy which is made and which is now being endorsed by this House. I want to refer briefly to one or two matters in this connection, and I believe that the provinces should realize that whatever has been said against the proposition, this form of levy is in fact a capital gains tax. It has been held to be that by the Supreme Court in a matter which came before it. It is in the nature of a capital gains tax, a principle which has been discarded by this House, in spite of the recommendations by the Franzsen Commission that it should be applied in some respects. The second point is that many land developers believe that this type of charge has an inflationary effect on land prices, and is to the detriment of the community as a whole in that land prices are pushed up by this type of levy. Thirdly, Sir, there are the delays in development. I have had instances brought to my notice where a local authority has refused to contemplate or examine plans for the redevelopment of a site until the levy has been paid. Considerable delays occur when there is a dispute as to the amount of the levy. These things appear to me to be so shortsighted, because the development is likely to produce far more in revenue to the municipality by way of rates than the development charge which a levy on the owner who wishes to develop is likely to yield. Sir, these things are happening. There are delays. There is also the question of rezoning, which is in effect an expropriation without adequate compensation to the person affected.

Finally, I want to say that I believe it is right that there should be a differentiation between the owner who is affected passively and the owner who acquires a benefit through active steps taken by him. By this I mean the owner who finds himself in the middle of a rezoning scheme for which he has not asked, as against the owner who seeks from the authorities a rezoning to increase the value and use of his particular property.

Having said that, I want to add that we on this side of the House will not oppose the Third Reading of this measure. We indicated our opposition originally, as we felt that there had not been sufficient consultation and investigation into this matter. That cannot be remedied at this stage, but I have raised these matters in the hope that the provincial administrations will take note of the fact that we believe that there should be more consultation and that this whole principle should be looked at again so that any injustices that exist may be removed from it. As I have said, we shall not therefore oppose the Third Reading. We on this side are certain that our representatives in the provincial councils will certainly pursue the matters which we have raised in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the final stage of this Bill and as the hon. member for Green Point has indicated, we do not intend opposing this last stage of the Bill. The whole matter has been aired and I believe that what has been passed here today can only be to the benefit of the provincial councils. I wish for a moment to dwell on the provisions of clause 1, where the provinces are now being empowered to take a step in addition to the power they have had in the past, namely to provide bursaries for deserving children either to complete their education up to matriculation standard or to continue with higher education. But, Sir, in the past there has been this limitation on the granting of these bursaries in that a restriction has always been imposed on the student concerned. There has been a condition that he shall carry out certain obligations after he has completed his education if he in fact receives such a bursary. Sir, we have today accepted a new principle which I believe is an admirable one, and that is the idea of a bursary with no strings attached to it, because that is in effect what we are doing. There will be no obligation placed upon the recipient of the bursary to work out a specific period in order to compensate the province for the expenditure incurred by it. Sir, so far so good, and I must say that we welcome this and I am sure that the provinces will welcome this as well. But I do believe that there is a restriction inherent in this particular clause in that it is restricted to pupils who obtain “such percentage as the said executive committee may from time to time determine of the total number of marks obtainable in that examination”. As was indicated by the hon. the Minister in the debate, it is anticipated that such bursaries will only be granted to children who attain an aggregate of something like 80% in their examinations. Sir, this is a tremendously high aggregate to attain, and it smacks rather of being a prize to a good scholar. That is all very well, but I believe that we should extend it a little bit further and I believe that the hon. the Minister feels the same way. He was an educationist and I am sure that his heart is still in education and I am sure he agrees with me when I say that I feel that in the future he should look to an extension of this power that he is giving to the provinces.

But he says he is conditioning the children.

Sir, we are not fighting the Minister on this Bill. There should be an extension of this power to provide for bursaries for the children of needy parents. They should be allowed to get bursaries as well, even if they only attain an aggregate of 75% or 78% in their examinations. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we cannot afford to waste the brainpower of our children, and I want to stress that when I talk about “our children” I do not only mean White children; I mean all the children of this Republic of ours. Sir, I believe the Minister agrees with me; I have made my point, and I am going to leave it now to the hon. the Minister.

In reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I just want to say that, as in the other case, full powers are being handed over to the Provincial Administrations here.

†If the hon. member will read the proposed paragraph (cA) in clause 1(1), he will find that the wording there is exactly what he has just proposed; it reads—

In other words, Sir, it is fully within the power of the executive committee of his province to alter that percentage from time to time, depending on the circumstances. But I think the whole idea behind this clause is quite clearly that this is a prize actually given to students with exceptional capabilities whom we want to assist to receive higher educational facilities. For that reason I think that we should leave this entirely in the good hands of the provincial councils which we trust in this case.

*As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I just want to say that the only complaint he still has against me, is that at this advanced stage we have once again failed to consult the landowners and developers. I just want to say to the hon. member that the principle of imposing a levy is not a new principle. I repeat: this is a principle which already exists in the Act and it would be ridiculous for me, since the principle already exists and since the Minister only has to make an adjustment in order to confirm it beyond all doubt, to consult once again the landowners and developers on the principle. I do not think he can expect that of me.

Merely to confirm it.

Yes, but I think it is wrong to argue again with these people over the principle. The consultation which did take place, as you will be able to ascertain from my reply to the Second Reading and also from what I said during the Committee Stage, was that I was once again in contact with all the provinces and that I again had consultations with all the provincial administrations and again ascertained what the position was, and that there was a large measure of unanimity, so much so that I was able to introduce this legislation and could not, therefore, accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, because the provinces had agreed with that.

What exactly have we done here? We have only put beyond all doubt the principle that a levy may be imposed in respect of land the value of which has increased as a result of rezoning, and when the rezoning reduces the value of the ground, that compensation may be paid to the owner who has suffered damage or that land may be given to him in compensation. That principle only has now been put beyond all doubt by this House. All the details of the matter will have to be handled by the provinces. That is the approach to the whole matter; for that reason I am not arguing about the details, and have refused from the start to argue about the detail of this Bill. As I see it, the fact is that the procedure which has to be followed, the method of the determination of the value, whether it is done by a valuator or a group of people or a council or whatever the case may be, the method of the determination of the value, the method of valuation before or after the rezoning, the question of arbitration, if necessary, the agreement on a price—I feel that all these matters are matters which now rest exclusively with the provincial administrations and which I leave in their hands with the greatest confidence. The hon. member for Green Point would do well to broach the matter with the members of the Provincial Council. They can now take up the matter with the provincial administrations in the Cape and also in the other provinces, and if there is any dissatisfaction concerning the manner in which this is done, if it is felt that people are being done an injustice in the process, then that is the place where this matter has to be raised. That is where the apparatus and the machinery are now being prepared to deal with this matter effectively. Not even the percentage of the levy is being determined by this Bill. We do not determine the percentage of the levy either, because the provinces differ from another and the percentage levy has its own limiting effect. If the levy is too high, the result will be that certain people are not going to ask for rezoning, which could be to the disadvantage of certain areas. Therefore the position will rectify itself in the course of the years. Of that I am convinced. I therefore feel that I do not even want to prescribe the levy because it differs from province to province, from region to region, and I do not want to argue about the manner in which this has to be done either. Even the amounts which must be levied and which the hon. member objected to … He says the amounts are levied and this impedes development, but after all, those amounts are not spent on the acquisition of luxuries. The amounts collected in that manner, are used for the development of that specific area, and to the benefit of the specific areas. After all, it does not go into the pocket of the tax-collector. For that reason I am grateful that the hon. member for Green Point has said they are not going to oppose the Third Reading. It seems to me that this was a nice long debate in which they were very fiery in the beginning; in the Second Reading they were more understanding and in the Third Reading they solved their problems and now they are in fact convinced that this is good legislation. I therefore recommend the Third Reading to the House, and I believe the Bill will go through unopposed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

It being 12 noon, the House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Terrorism has suddenly become a canker that threatens the orderly continued existence of mankind. Hardly had the civilized world recovered from the horrors of the Munich bloodbath when there came a new shockwave occasioned by the report that three diplomats, two American and one Belgian, had been murdered in an inhumanly cruel manner by gang members of the Black September organization in Khartoum. This was cold-blooded murder. None of the innocent victims had any connections with or motives of any kind whatsoever which could have spurred these insane murderers to their actions. If the world community of nations wishes to lay any kind of claim to any norms of civilization, stability or values of life, if mankind does not wish to regress to the age of the jungle and the cave-dwelling, it will undoubtedly and without any further delay be necessary to put an end to this diabolic horror. Without warning, indiscriminately, without having the least regard for the value of human life, terrorists have with increasing frequency over the past few years, and in almost every country of the world, struck, cruelly murdered innocent people, and left behind them a blood-spattered trial of affliction, suffering and misery.

Apart from Munich and Khartoum, I need only refer to the cruel murder of 26 innocent tourists at the airport of Lod, to the death of an innocent diplomat caused by a postal bomb, to the recent detonation of two bombs in the centre of London, which crippled and wounded more than 200 innocent people, and remind you that during the past year 25 aircraft belonging to various countries were successfully hijacked, while a further 26 attempts failed. During the past 18 months 140 aircraft passengers and crew were killed and 97 wounded as a result of terrorist acts. During the past five years 32 diplomats from 14 different countries have been kidnapped, and six of them cruelly murdered. Nearer home, in Rhodesia, two farmhouses were recently attacked during the night and a young mother was killed by machine gun fire, while several other people were wounded.

In Southern Africa terrorism and revolutionary warfare, on the initiative of Russia and China, is to an increasing extent assuming the pattern of the undeclared Vietnamese war which was recently ended, on paper. Throughout the world leaders are declaring themselves, in the strongest terms, to be opposed to terrorism. In a recent speech President Nixon termed it “a blot on civilized humanity”. When William Rogers, Secretary of State of the United States, addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations last year on 27th September, he said the following:

Mr. Rogers then went on to make the following appeal to the General Assembly—

When this appeal was made last year and when the Secretary-General requested the U.N. to condemn terrorism, the world was still mute from shock at the cruel murder of the Israeli athletes at Munich. Everyone hoped and prayed that this organization would now, once and for all, justify its existence and take firm action. The whole world in fact was ripe, not only for universal condemnation of all forms of revolutionary warfare and terrorism, but also for powerful resolutions which would compel all countries to mete out heavy punishment to perpetrators of terrorist acts, or to extradite offenders. But alas, the pitiful-hopeless, helpless, irredeemable U.N. was unable to do so.

For days it was argued whether the item should even be placed on the agenda. When the wording was eventually decided on, it was already so watered down that it was by implication already a condonation of terrorism. The item on the agenda read as follows—

Herein lies the sting—

The matter was then referred to the Law Committee the so-called “Sixth Committee”, the chairman of which appealed for calm deliberation. Eventually there were three resolutions. The first was by the United States of America which requested that all forms of terrorism should be unconditionally condemned. She also requested that an international convention be called early in 1973 to consider steps to counteract terrorism. When it appeared that this motion of the U.S.A. would not meet with general approval, certain Western countries, supported by Japan, introduced a compromise resolution which was then the second resolution. This requested that terrorism be condemned, and an apeal was made to all states to co-operate wholeheartedly in considering effective measures to counteract terrorism. In addition, this resolution requested that the International Law Commission be requested to draw up a convention containing measures to counteract international terrorism. Lastly the resolution requested—and with this they hoped to win the support of the other group as well— that the Chairman of the General Assembly be asked to appoint an ad hoc committee to study the underlying causes of terrorism. As I have indicated, this was a compromise resolution by means of which the proposers hoped to win general support. It was in vain. The Afro-Asians introduced a third resolution. They proposed that there be no condemnation to terrorism as such, but merely that concern be expressed at the increasing number of acts of violence. The motion requested further that the underlying causes of these acts of violence be investigated, studied and eliminated. What they did in fact condemn most strongly, according to their motion, was the following—

In other words, they condemned and branded as terrorists governments that were allegedly guilty of repression.

In Resolution 880 …

That was the one proposed by the Afro-Asians.

This is very interesting—

Thus far the extract from the speech made by Ambassador Bennett. As could be expected the Afro-Asians with the support of the communists had a majority of 76 to 34 in the Sixth Committee and resolution 880 was also approved by the General Assembly by 76 votes to 35.

*Therefore, instead of passing a damning judgment on terrorism, as every right-minded person would have expected, the U.N. could do no more than express concern at acts of violence. In contrast to this they were quick enough to brand so-called colonial and racistic governments as terrorists.

In company with all civilized nations and peoples throughout the entire world, I want to express my profoundest disappointment today at this total inability, this disgusting lack of courage on the part of the U.N. to pass a damning judgment on such an extremely vital matter which constitutes a real threat to the orderly continued existence of humanity and all nations throughout the world.

It is indeed strange that this organization, which so easily passes judgment on the hideousness of apartheid, is not prepared or is not able to condemn the atrocities of terrorism which today constitute the greatest threat to world peace and which are abhorred by all people, precisely because of the cowardly and immoral methods of bringing suffering and death to innocent victims who have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of their vendettas.

With their pathetic inability to condemn or attempt to counteract terrorism, the U.N. has once again proved itself unmistakably to be a body which measures with double standards; to be a body which is not capable of any objective judgment; and to be a body which is quite unable and unwilling to try to heal this spreading canker in the international community. It has proved itself to be a body which is hopelessly incompetent to solve successfully any world problem whatsoever. As a result, I believe, it has itself nailed a very long nail into its own coffin.

The fact that this body, which has to promote so-called world peace, is prepared to condone terrorism—for according to them the cause should be sought in the misery, frustration and despair of oppressed peoples—may serve as the incentive to new acts of violence and terrorism. The very fact that gangs of terrorists and revolutionary fighters may rely on the positive cooperation and support of powerful political groups and recognized states, enables them to pose before the world as the alternative of certain lawful military and political powers. This is unfortunately the position in Southern Africa as well, where countries such as Zambia and Tanzania are unashamedly rendering assistance to terrorists and revolutionary fighters who try to invade neighbouring states from these countries.

For the training, financial and military preparation and provision of modern sophisticated weapons, these so-called freedom fighters may rely on the positive assistance and support of the Chinese communists, who are acknowledged masters in the field of modern revolutionary warfare, guerilla warfare and terrorism.

Other speakers on this side will discuss this matter in greater detail. I want to make it very clear at this point that this motion is in the first place intended to draw attention to the spreading canker of international terrorism and to the helplessness of the U.N. to attempt to counteract it. With this motion I do not in any way want the impression to be formed, neither here nor abroad, that the Republic of South Africa is a threatened country which is standing with its back to the wall trying to ward off hordes of terrorists, for that is not, in truth, our position. Of course, we know that what the terrorists and the communists in Africa are ultimately looking at with big greedy eyes is the mineral-rich and well-industrialized Republic of South Africa, which may be described as the strongest anti-communistic bastion of the South.

Of course, we know that the so-called freedom fighters who labour under the delusion that they are fighting for the independence and libtration of oppressed peoples, are in truth nothing but the instruments of world communism, whose object and endeavour it is to subdue the White-controlled, anti-communistic countries of Southern Africa so that they may subsequently control and govern the entire Africa and the oceans around Africa, which are such extremely strategic channels for the free world.

I said earlier that I did not want to single out South Africa as a threatened country, but we know that in the long term, the Continent of Africa is in fact being threatened by the communists. In a Chinese Army document the following, inter alia, was explicity declared—

†Further proof of this aim is given this week by the French Evening paper Le Monde that has just completed a thorough investigation of the “New Chinese Practical Politics in Black Africa.” Le Monde states that there is a definite tendency in Chinese politics for Black Africa to encourage freedom movements to fight their own battles, but with Chinese aid and advice. Furthermore, they are striving desperately to diminish Russian influence in Africa, especially amongst the Frelimo terrorists in Mozambique. The French paper further points out that during the past year China has made rapid progress in Africa. Several states that used to be pro-West have now turned towards China for assistance. It names six African states, namely Dahomey, Madagascar, Mauritius, Chad, Togo and Zair who have entered into diplomatic relations with China during the past year.

It is common knowledge that the communist strategy to infiltrate into Africa and to encourage and subsidize revolutionary warfare and terrorism against stable governments in Southern Africa, forms part of a general and overall strategy against the free world. We, the Government of the Republic of South Africa and our neighbours will do our duty and perform our task knowing full well that we do not only fight for the freedom and prosperity of all the people of Southern Africa, but also for the salvation of Western civilization and the free world. We will fight terrorism wherever we can and with all the means at our disposal. Our northern neighbours have already experienced that progress and development of under-developed areas are very effective means to counter the influence of terrorists. As soon as the friendship, the co-operation and the goodwill of the native peoples have been gained, it is not longer difficult to unmask the communist agitator and the terrorist. Wherever roads have been tarred, no terrorists mines can be planted, and where the trees and bushes have been uprooted and cleared and replaced by lands and vegetable gardens, no terrorist can hide. Self-determination, development, progress, friendship, co-operation, mutual trust, good manners and simple decency and friendliness are mighty weapons available to everyone of us in the struggle against terrorism in Southern Africa. We will not hesitate or falter, but how long may I ask, Sir, will it take the outside world to realize that they are applying double standards in this matter by condemning some terrorists and their deeds while condoning others by calling them freedom fighters? How long will it take the outside world to realize that it is an undeniable fact that in some of our neighbouring states there is an arms built-up and a concentration of troops well equipped with sophisticated weapons and well trained in revolutionary warfare? It is common knowledge, Sir, that these arms and these troops are being prepared and kept ready with the knowledge and co-operation of the respective governments, kept ready for open aggression against the Whiteruled countries of Southern Africa. We, from our side, have repeatedly stated that it is our aim to live in peace with every nation in Africa. We plan no aggression against any country or against any nation, but we will neither fail nor falter when called upon to defend our country against aggression. For how long, may I ask, can it be expected of a self-respecting country, to remain passive whilst open aggression is being planned against it? Has the time not perhaps come that the same methods and techniques as used by the terrorist gangs, should be applied against them? Finally, has the time not come that the free world, knowing now that the United Nations is not going to do anything about terrorism, and knowing, too, that the threat of terrorism crosses all geographical and ideological lines, and realizing that effective measures to control terrorism are urgently needed in the civilized world, should convene a plenipotentiary conference where a convention on the prevention of international terrorism can be adopted?

Mr. Speaker, it would not serve any purpose to start a debate with the hon. member for Algoa on the wording of his motion. I have no desire to cross swords with him on the question of whether the “phenomenon of revolutionary warfare” as he put it, is in fact the greatest, or is instead the second or third greatest threat which exists to world peace. The crux of the matter is that all of us condemn all forms of terrorism, and that the dangers of revolutionary warfare, wherever it may occur, are never restricted to the sphere in which it is being practised. It is usually instrumental in dividing the world into camps. It always constitutes a danger to world peace, particularly if some or other great power or ideology becomes involved in it and is behind the revolutionary activities.

As for the hon. member’s criticism of the U.N., it was quite permissible. No one has in the past criticized and attacked the U.N. more severely than the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain and France have in fact done. At one time or another, all these great powers have vehemently opposed the U.N. on some question or other. President Nixon himself recently asked, in the most imperative terms, for closed ranks against terrorism. He deplored the fact that a united front against it did not yet exist. It is quite true that President Nixon more specifically had in view the kind of terrorism which we experienced last year at the Olympic Games in Munich, and recently in Khartoum, which filled all of us with horror and condemnation, and that the President was justifiably concerned about the serious international dangers which are created in that some countries offer refuge and asylum to aircraft hijackers. This is all the more reason why we ought to focus the attention of such leaders and of the international community more closely on the kind of terrorism we have to contend with in Southern Africa, and the dangers which this constitutes for peace in the world in general. Wherever great powers are behind revolutionary activities, wherever they foment and support this, sooner or later it always leads to a threat to world peace.

I should now like to deal firstly with the hon. member’s criticism of the United Nations. It struck me that he referred mildly in his motion to the “apparent inability and unwillingness of” the U.N. to take strong action in this matter. Consequently I hoped that the hon. member would avoid an exaggerated emotionalism towards the U.N. in his speech. Vituperative language towards the United Nations will achieve nothing. It is true that if there is a country in the world that does not have the slightest reason for being fond of the United Nations, and which does have the right to be sharply critical of the United Nations, then it is we in South Africa. But because so many members of the United Nations become over-emotional at our shortcomings, I think it is advisable that we refrain from making the same mistake by reacting in an over-emotional manner to the shortcomings of the United Nations. In any case, we are a member of the United Nations. We are a co-founder of the organization, a co-signatory of its Charter. We are paying an extremely heavy price to remain a member of that organization. It is costing us a whole lot of money in membership fees and in the maintenance of our representation there. It is the policy of the Government, as well as that of the Opposition, that it is in the best interests of South Africa that we retain our membership of the United Nations and that we remain an active member of that organization. Strictly speaking, therefore, we ourselves are also an integral part of the weaknesses and failings of the United Nations. Many of the weaknesses and shortcomings of the United Nations are in any case built-in and intended to be there. Consequently it is always sensible, as a general rule, not to expect more from an organization such as the United Nations than it is or can be.

In the first place, the United Nations has no enforceable authority. And let me say at once that may heaven prevent it ever having this. It is no parliament whose word is law and has to be enforced. It has no standing army or police force at its disposal which it can use for punitive expeditions and with which it can call to order countries which in its eyes are offenders. I say again that my heaven preserve us from this ever happening. Churchill once suggested that each country should set aside a number of fighting units for the service of the United Nations. But that was in the days when the Anglo-American alliance dominated this body. Fortunately, nothing came of this. But I do not think there is a single member sitting here who would like to see the United Nations becoming an over-all super-parliament which would comfortably be able to interfere in the affairs of those on whom it wished to enforce its will. In practice this would simply lead to the small nations of the world having to suffer for it every time. The point I want to make is that a United Nations with too much ability could be far more dangerous than a United Nations with its present inability always to be effective.

The U.N. suffers from quite a few other weaknesses which I can enumerate. But most of the weaknesses lie in the nature and the character of the organization. One of its “weaknesses” and I am using the word weaknesses between inverted commas here, is that nationalism is far stronger than internationalism. I think that this will always be the case throughout the history of the world. In other words, every country which goes to the United Nations goes there with its own interests first and foremost. First and foremost to every country is not the interests of the world, but its own. That is what comes first. The same applies to us as well. South Africa First is the key-stone not only to our internal policy, but also to our foreign policy and we may as well accept that this side of Paradise or Utopia, countries will always continue to put their own interests first and foremost; and we must remember that it is in this frame of mind that the scores of members of the United Nations convene every year in New York. For that reason one must accept that however unfortunate it may be, division, bloc forming, compromise and “horse-trading”, to use the meaningful English expression, is and will remain an inseparable part of the work and the life of a conglomeration of nations such as the United Nations; and it is of no avail our continually fretting about this and exploding every so often in outraged indignation at this. What is of paramount importance to us and to the world, is the fact that there are more advantages than disadvantages for the world in the United Nations; and precisely for that reason countries such as China who were not members of the United Nations struggled hard to become one, and we may this year perhaps expect the two Germanies as well to become members of this body. Mr. Speaker, one need only imagine what the position would have been if there had been no common forum in the world such as the United Nations, and if the world had been left to deteriorate into a series of separate, conflicting, competing power blocs in this age of the atom bomb. The predominant advantage of the United Nations is that it brings the countries of the world together in a talk shop, and that permanent machinery does at least exist by means of which they can try to settle their disputes through discussion, negotiation and dialogue. I was struck by what Field Marshall Montgomery said of the United Nations in this connection; he said this—

I think this is fundamentally correct and that we should regard the United Nations in that light. Mr. Speaker, for that reason I do not want to say to the hon. member for Algoa that the United Nations is merely an irredeemable failure, his own words, in the eyes of those who harbour completely unrealistic expectations of the body. We will simply have to live with the idea that the United Nations brings together people and countries with divergent views, with a different history and background and who put their own interests first and foremost, in its debating chambers, and that the best which such a body can frequently achieve under the circumstances, is (to use another quotation) “to postpone the crises which arise from insoluble problems”.

Sir, as to terrorism, I think we all realize what our fundamental problem with the United Nations is. There is no dispute over our condemnation of terrorism. That point we need not debate; but the problem confronting us is that what is to one country a “terrorist” is to another country a “liberator”; what is to one a traitor or rebel is to another a patriot and a nationalist. To the United States of America, and to us as well, the exiled Cubans, who invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, were liberators and patriots, and we regarded them in that light, but to Castro and his people, who comprised the Government of Cuba, they were traitors and terrorists. In the West we speak of Taiwan as “Nationalist China” —patriots who must one day “liberate” their country, but to the government of Continental China they are a lot of insurgents and rebels who have to eradicated. The root of our difficulty is that the mounting terrorist activities against us in Southern Africa is seen by the rest of the world as the work of “liberators”, “freedom fighters”, and not as that of terrorists as we know them to be. And shocking as it may seem to us, we, and Rhodesia and Portugal as well, are being regarded as colonialist powers against whom “liberating action”— again I am placing it between inverted commas—is justified. For that reason, most of the world was shocked at what happened at Munich and Khartoum, but are now looking for a definition of terrorism which will cover steps against such attacks, but not against the kind of invaders with whom we in Southern Africa have to contend. This situation constitutes a serious danger to us; and for that reason we must face up to it and realize what we are in fact up against. For already we have tangibly lost the psychological war against us in this sphere abroad. It has already become respectable, and we have to ask ourselves to what extent we are to blame for the situation having come to this pass, for heads of state, governments and church organizations not only to convey their sympathy to the invaders, but to support them financially and by other material means. The Government and all of us, on whatever side we are sitting, would be making a very grave mistake if we were to underestimate the growing danger of this situation, particularly in view of the fact that Red China is involved in the planning against us in Africa; that our position in respect of South-West Africa may at any time be applied as a casus belli for these people, if they so wish, and an excuse for violent action against us; and in addition that we have no allies of any stature who stand by us. Even the friendship of our immediate neighbouring states for us has cooled. Our neighbouring countries are today sympathizing openly with the guerrillas, and see them as liberators and not as terrorists. Recently Botswana even sent an official government representative to the burial of Dr. Amilcar Cabral.

The question which presents itself, is what are we to do in this situation? If we wish in future to win any argument at the U.N., or merely wish to ward off dangerous action against us, we shall have to take certain steps, and we shall have to do so rather quickly. Time will not allow me to mention more than a few. Several years ago I listened to a Japanese Prime Minister, in the days when Japan still had to bear the brunt of the hatred which other countries felt for Japan after the war. That Prime Minister then described his Government’s policy as “tranquillity at home and enhanced status abroad”. That was a statement which struck me—“tranquillity at home and enhanced status abroad”. Sir, we need an active policy of “reform at home and enhanced status abroad”, and we shall have to make public sacrifices and adjustments to achieve this. In the first place, we need allies, and in order to get allies, we will have to cease adopting the attitude which the hon. the Prime Minister sometimes adopts, that people should “accept us as we are”, as if there were no room for improvement in our country. Sir, there is not a single great power which in its search for an ally would adopt the attitude that others would simply have to accept it as it is. Allies are essential, but one does not find allies simply by saying: “Accept me as I am; you must do all the giving”. It is frequently a question of give and take, and we shall have to make adjustments where necessary and get away from the concept of “accept us as we are”. And in this connection we will, firstly, have to speed up the emancipation of our non-White communities in South Africa.

Surely that is your policy.

We shall have to effect a change-over from the existing order of White domination to an order in which the Whites and the non-White groups who reside permanently within our borders, enjoy recognition and work together on a basis of co-operation without discrimination.

Your federal policy.

In other words, we shall have to clear ourselves as rapidly as possible of the charge of racial domination. We will have to go further. The hon. member for Wonderboom advocated two or three years ago—it was my impression that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs supported him—that we should endorse the Declaration of Human Rights; but from that time onwards neither has said anything further whatsoever about this. We shall have to endorse the Declaration of Human Rights. No one claims to be realizing it in full, but everyone except us accepts it as a guideline and ideal.

A few nights ago I was talking to a leading overseas politician, and he told me straight out, “The world is not against South Africa; South Africa is against the world”.

No, the world is against the White man.

Listen to his argument. He said South Africa is a member of the U.N. and wants to remain one, but South Africa is the only country which does not endorse the Declaration of Human Rights, and consequently, he reasoned, it is South Africa which is against the international community, and not the international community which is against South Africa.

Do you endorse it?

It is a very interesting view, and we must take cognizance of how people see us. I hope we hear something further today from the hon. member for Wonderboom, or perhaps from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on this question of endorsing the Declaration of Human Rights.

In conclusion I want to mention only one further step we shall have to take. We shall have to cease sending a Whites only team to the United Nations and other international bodies if we want to achieve anything. We shall have to train non-Whites, and we shall have to afford them the opportunity of joining us in defending South Africa on the overseas platform. Our struggle for and over South-West Africa would have been won years ago if we had had the leaders of the largest non-White population groups of South-West Africa to fight shoulder to shoulder with us on the diplomatic front. Senior headman Justus Garoeb, chairman of the Damara Council, recently stated—

One need not necessarily agree with his sentiment, but what he says is important.

Whether or not one agrees with his sentiments, he is fundamentally correct. We must work to cause the opposition against us to diminish. We must work to get the world so far as to look at South Africa less emotionally than is the case at present. Opposition to us, however, will only diminish in respect of South-West Africa and the Republic to the degree to which all South Africans can stand together to defend our country, not only in the military sphere as is now happening on our borders, but also and in particular in the diplomatic sphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Algoa for his motion and the opportunity he has afforded this House of again discussing, on a high level, one of the most serious problems in the world today. I also want to congratulate him on the way in which he did this. But to my regret I cannot say the same of the contribution made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, whom I regret to see is not in his bench at the moment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout regaled us in a manner which, in my opinion—and I do not think I am wrong in my judgment—amounted to a condonation and an apology for the inability of the United Nations Organization in this connection. But what is more, it bordered, in my opinion, on his acting here this morning as apologist for people who have terroristic ideas in this country.

Nonsense!

I want to repeat this for the convenience of the hon. member since he has just come in. I said the hon. member’s contribution, which departed entirely from the spirit and the purport of this motion, and which descended to a party political level, in my opinion amounted to his trying to play the apologist for the inability of the U.N., and he also came very close to trying to play the apologist for people who have terroristic ideas in Southern Africa.

I pay no heed to that opinion of yours; it is nonsense.

Whether or not the hon. member pays any heed to it, I am making that statement and I want to prove it by asking the hon. member this question: What would president Nixon of the United States, who has outspoken ideas on this subject as well as on the inability of the U.N. think if he were to hear that a frontbencher of the Opposition Party in South Africa had made the statements which he did in fact make this morning? But, Sir, I can also imagine that there are other organizations in the world who will be smiling today, and these are the persons who devise the strategy of terrorism in the world. In Peking there will be great pleasure at the contribution the hon. member made this morning. Sir, surely the issue in this motion was not local party-political differences. Two years ago I myself introduced a motion of this nature for the first time in this House, and we had the support of the hon. members on the opposite side. The comment from all quarters was that this House of Assembly of South Africa had shown itself to be a body which could on occasion speak with authority. And although the voice which went out from hence probably made no ultimate impression on the U.N. I believe that it was at least a clarion call to our own population and also, according to the reaction which we received, to other Western nations who think as we do in this connection. I should like to quote to you what the hon. the Minister of Defence said on that occasion, after a unanimous standpoint was adopted by both sides of this House, in regard to this matter (Hansard, Vol. 32, col. 549)—

And surely this is in fact, Sir, what is at issue in this motion. Surely what is at issue is not local political differences in South Africa. The hon. member for Algoa drew attention to a recurring problem in the world today, which in his opinion and in the opinion of all of us with sound common sense, is the principle reason for the tension and the threat to world peace. It affects terroristic phenomena such as the hijacking of aircraft, the kidnapping of diplomats, terrorism in the air and at sea; it affects violent student unrest; it affects the kind of thing that happened at Munich, and elsewhere. After all, it is not a problem for South Africa alone. And quite justifiably the hon. member said that we in South Africa were able to control the threat confronting us with the means at our disposal at the present time. The motion is not a cry of distress to the U.N. to come to our assistance; it is an attempt on our part as well to speak to our own people and also to the friendly nations in the world at large and say: “Let us stand together; let us forget our minor differences, for here is something which is becoming a scourge and which means the downfall of humanity, of peace-loving humanity in the world.”

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made this statement “We shall also have to cease adopting the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister that the world should accept us as we are.” What an apologetic attitude. Mr. Speaker, Red China can say to the U.N.: “Accept me as I am; I am coming in any case.” And then they accept it and there is dancing on the podium of the U.N. That is all in order. President Nixon enters into negotiations with Red China for a better understanding, and he accepts Red China as it is, with communism and all. That is in order, but South Africa may not say this to the world: “It so happens that this is the way we are constituted here; please accept us as we are as well, since we do not begrudge any other nation the right to be as it is.” We were dumbfounded by the absurdities in the hon. member’s arguments, on an occasion, as in the past, when we wished on this high level to focus attention together on a world problem. I am in great earnest when I say this today: If the free world is not going to take disciplined and co-ordinated action, I see the day arriving when this canker of revolutionary warfare and terrorism will be accepted as the norm in the Western world, a norm of conduct to get one’s own way through blackmail and violence.

I foresee a further danger as well: When the day arrives when this is regarded as the norm when it comes to getting one’s own way, then the day will also soon arrive when something else will happen, which is that counter-terrorism will emerge. And what will happen to our civilized world then? For that reason we must agree with what President Nixon said after that bloodthirsty incident in Khartoum, when innocent diplomats were murdered. The terrorists there first tried to blackmail the Western world by holding those diplomats prisoner. On that occasion President Nixon said that it was a blot on the civilized world.

I now want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a question. He has had his say and I think he did his best in this regard, but I am now asking responsible members on the opposite side: Let us agree with responsible leaders such as President Nixon on this problem. Let us not try to make petty political gain out of it. Approximately 14 days ago the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs adopted the same standpoint and said: “As long as the world acts on the premise that it is possible to distinguish between the one form of terrorism and the other form of terrorism, and as long as the premise is acted on that a certain form of terrorism is to be condoned in certain countries, it will not be possible to overcome this problem, for terrorism is a canker.”

In the one country it is used for this objective, and in another country for another objective. But do you know, Sir, that terrorist groups that have nothing at all in common, are consulting one another. They are learning from one another. The actions of the banned Irish Republican Army in Ireland began to gain momentum after they had received counsel and advice from the Black September organization and from other terrorist groups elsewhere in the world. Ideologically speaking they have absolutely nothing in common, but methodologically speaking they do. The one learns from the other; the one incites the other. For that reason I say that the danger is that this thing can become a canker, a canker which one will not be able to eradicate if responsible governments and leaders do not want to co-operate. This is my appeal to the hon. member for the Opposition. If that phenomenon gains momentum in South Africa, we will only be able to oppose it if we speak with one voice on the principle of the matter, and refrain from turning it into a petty political issue.

But one must not be a political ostrich.

I think the hon. member should rather stay out of this and leave it to more responsible members on that side of the House to discuss this problem further. We are trying, with this motion, to obtain a full picture and to see the problem in the world in its true perspective. It is as clear as daylight, according to studies which have been made and from the incidence of the phenomenon, that terrorism, and then specifically in Southern Africa, is not aimed at this side of the House or at certain people in this country only. Terrorism in its overall context is an invention of the communist world. In the era in which we are living, and in which they discovered that atomic weapons would mean the destruction of the world and that conventional wars have to be limited, this is their way of gaining influence. For that reason the Institute for the Study of Conflicts in London recently found that at this juncture in which there is a lull in the cold war, it is and remains the strategy of Moscow and its leaders that they should systematically and from within try to undermine Western communities. For that reason they choose educational institutions, the teaching staff of such institutions, even armed forces and use news media and other organizations.

This is after all the modus operandi of these people. If this is what is happening in other countries, it will happen here as well. We know that the mastermind behind it all is not the people who themselves commit acts of terrorism on our borders. Surely we know that. In this morning’s newspaper a report on certain evidence presented in a court case appeared. It was stated there how people were taken from here to Moscow, Odessa and Peking and trained to commit acts of terrorism. They even went to these places repeatedly, for the purpose of adapting their technique. Surely these are not people who are opposed to this side of the House only, or anything specific like that. These are people who act as the pawns of Moscow and Peking, people whose minds work along the lines of gaining a channel of influence through the southernmost point of Africa from whence they can move overland, which will link up with their efforts in the Indian Ocean to control the maritime routes around the Cape. They want to take possession of Southern Africa. It makes no difference to them who is in control here. They want neither us nor the opposite side of the House in control. What they want is the possession through force of this part of South Africa, which will give the communist world control of the most important maritime routes in the world, along which all the oil is being conveyed to Europe and America.

Sir, this matter is clear to us. For that reason, when the hon. member advocates, as he did here this morning, that we should approach this matter at this level, it behoves this House—and it displays its responsibility by so doing—to say to this country and to other friendly countries, as it did in the past: “The will of South Africa is relentlessly opposed to this scourge of terrorism.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa has raised the issue of the United Nations, and, specifically, the reluctance, or the inability of that organization to take effective steps against what he rightly describes as “revolutionary warfare and terrorism”. His motion is designed to focus the attention upon how these shortcomings affects us directly here in Africa. But I would say to the hon. member that this is not an isolated matter. The hon. member for Stellenbosch just said so himself. It is something that must be considered as part of the broader spectrum of the revolutionary scene in the international context ever since World War II.

South Africa, as we all know, has been one of the main targets if not the main target of attack in the United Nations ever since the 1950s. I think it is true to say here in this House that more unadulterated, pious nonsense about relations between peoples has been recorded in the halls of the United Nations than at any one time or in any one place in recorded history. However, there are people who will say that the United Nations continues to provide a valuable forum for discussion and for argument and that forcing representatives and their opponents to state their case in a forum of international standing is to be preferred to a shooting match. Of course there is a great deal of truth and validity in that, but there must be many people today who begin to wonder whether the United Nations, apart from its non-governmental organizations, which cover quite different aspects, is little more than a nest of trouble-makers.

At the time when the United Nations formally came into being in October, 1945, there were 51 founder members. Their main aims are summed up in the preamble to the Charter, which we signed, where it is pledged “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime brought untold sorrow to mankind; to ensure that armed forces should not be used save in the common interest”; and that it would be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. It went on to say that collective action to maintain international security and world peace was the object of the Charter, but that the organization of course had no power to impose its rulings either by legislation or by a standing police force, or by any other means. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, thank heaven, that that is the case. Moreover, as we know very well here in South Africa, under article 2(7) of the Charter the United Nations was especially debarred from intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Its role was to be essentially one of conciliation and negotiation. It cannot be claimed that it adheres to that role.

Between 1945 and 1965 more than 60 members joined the United Nations. Most of them were former colonial territories which had been granted independence by Britain and other Western powers. At present there are some 132 member States, ranging from Russia with a population of nearly 240 million, to the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean with a population of 105 000 people. The United States of America is the biggest financial contributor and, until this last session of the Assembly paid 31½% of its total Budget compared with the total of $57 000 paid by the Maldive Islands. One would not expect them to pay more, but the ironical thing about this whole set-up is that the voting power of a State that size is equivalent to the voting power of the big countries of the world.

The year 1972 ended with the unpleasant record of being the year which saw new peaks in the commission of unbridled violence for political ends all over the world. A place to translate many county’s pious ideals and pleas for a return to sanity, should of course be the United Nations, but one wonders how capable that body is of translating such things into positive action. By the time this last session was over, it had held 500 meetings, had completed 1 500 hours of debate and passed 153 resolutions.

The majority of these were hardy annuals on which there is always a platitudinous but impotent consensus. They dealt with decolonization, apartheid, disarmament, freedom and human right, nuclear test bans, and so on. When it came to the proposal, after the slaughter at Münich, that a convention be appointed to combat the hijacking of aircraft, terrorism and other clear forms of crime and violence, either the issues were dodged until it was too late, or some contemptible subterfuge was found to justify a lack of action where most people considered it was badly needed. It is very significant that amongst the resolutions they passed in the last session there were three that dealt with bans on nuclear testing. I make haste to say that I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, but I think that in some respects this aspect of affairs provides part of the key to the organization’s impotence and frustration in dealing with explosive situations anywhere in the world. It amounts in fact to a basic fear of the escalation of minor conflicts into major wars and the use of nuclear weapons. Of the General Assembly’s 132 votes the majority consists of small and fairly poor countries, which now number 97, 97 out of 132. Unfortunately, they continue to harp on the old, rather tired issues which they do mainly, I think, because the United Nations is one of the few places in the world where they can make themselves heard. To that extent there may be some value in it but there is another reason which is, of course, that these are the only issues which unite them. They are united on very few issues, but they are united on those I have already mentioned. One can understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Algoa over the question of active terrorism, but if one sees these matters in perspective, I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that that hon. member’s suggestion that this situation now presents a threat to world peace, seems to be something we should look at a little more coolly where the world body is concerned …

That was according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States of America.

… not because we do not feel strongly about terrorism, but because there is almost a sense of irrelevance about the whole business every time the General Assembly passes a resolution on who is or is not a threat to world peace. So many small countries, largely because of their internal policies, have been charged with constituting this threat to world peace during the past 20 years while in the meantime, as the hon. member knows very well, the large imperial powers like Soviet Russia and Communist China have been soldiering on and fermenting revolution everywhere, so that accusations of breaching the peace have come to have very little meaning when they come from the United Nations these days. I think they make very little impact on anyone. Fortunately a handful of the more powerful nations, who have the power of veto in the Security Council, as the hon. member knows, have become increasingly disenchanted with the whole thing. Some years ago the United Nations Representative before the Nixon Government took office, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, made a comment in the United States to the Foreign Policy Association—he was talking about the war in Vietnam—in which he said that the General Assembly had not taken the matter up because it was felt that open discussion would only serve to exacerbate the situation. Well, if that is valid for any conflict in which the United States is involved, I can see no reason why it should not be equally valid for any conflict in which we might be involved. Surely, the point for us to remember is that roughly 100 countries in the world are caught up in the difficult transition from a traditional to a modern society. Many of them are in a state of chaos or near-chaos at present. I think we must accept too that throughout the world today international affairs are conduced largely on a so-called basis of morality and no longer on the old basis of strategy and enlightened self-interest. With the horrible polarization of the international scene and of international thinking, as we have it today, into the White races versus races of colour, scarcely any decision is now taken in the international field without first considering possible repercussions in Paris, London, Washington, Tokyo, Moscow, or wherever it may be. The famous political scientist, Hans Morgenthau, stated in his book Politics Amongst Nations that the main signpost to help political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. He said: “A realistic theory of international politics then, will guard against two popular fallacies: The concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.” The sad thing is that the modern world thrives on both those fallacies and bases all its actions in the international field upon the ideological preferences against which Hans Morgenthaua, as a historian, specifically warns. Of course, the hon. member is quite right —America’s approach has changed considerably in the last few years. Today the United States is increasingly at odds with the General Assembly’s majority and this year voted for only a very few of the Assembly’s resolutions. They included one to reduce its own budget contributions from 31% to 25% of the total. Of 20 key resolutions passed by the Assembly this year that might have had serious repercussions in the international field, the United States withheld its support from no fewer than 15. One of these was a refusal to legitimize arms struggles in Southern Africa because, as the United States Ambassador, Mr. George Bush, put it at the time: “Support for guerilla armies is contrary the United Nations Charter.” He was entirely right, but in the end the Assembly resolutions make very little difference, if I may be so bold as to say so, because the 97-nation majority, which together pays 14% of the United National Budget, lacks the strength to follow through in any event. All really significant efforts to defuse potentially explosive and dangerous international situations, are still undertaken, as they have been in the past, through the normal channels of diplomacy by the world powers, and thank heaven for that. Whether we like it or not—and this I deplore—as a result of the United Nations action in agreeing last year to the seating of a Frelimo representative as a member of a so-called African liberation group, which was followed soon afterwards by the seating of a representative of the PAIGC insurgents in Portuguese Guinea, terrorists—or liberation fighters as they call themselves—have been given a respectability and a status unknown in the modern world. Therefore, far from being a peace-keeping organization, the United Nations, it seems to me, has put the stamp of approval upon force as a political instrument. I think this is a very unhappy moment in the world’s history and it is an action that is to be deplored. Apart from that, I would say that the United Nations is fast becoming irrelevant on matters of peace and security. This is a reality that is rapidly becoming accepted. We all know that, although there remains a limited value in maintaining it so that all these unbridled discussions may go on even if the organization has no teeth, most Western countries are not prepared to demonstrate any over-heated reactions these days to General Assembly decisions. It amounts to a kind of good-humoured neglect, if I may put it that way. The United States’s proposal for a convention to curb the spreading of hijacking and other forms of terrorism never came to a vote at all during the last session of the United Nations. We all know the irony of the position—that torture, suppression and the murder of political dissidents and tribal rivalries in other countries, countries as varied as Uganda, Burundi, the Soviet Union, Brazil and even Greece, are considered out of bounds at the United Nations because these are supposed to be internal matters. Yet the Assembly continues to condemn White racism, as they call it, in South Africa and Rhodesia, but has tacitly chosen to ignore the persecution of Asians and others by General Amin in Uganda. All of this seems to me again to add up to a sense of irrelevance which pervades the proceedings of this body in general.

Mentioning Uganda in passing, I would like to make one point, and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not here. I would like to say that I think our Government, in the light of United Nations hostility towards us, let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers by failing to make a formal offer to provide a home for a few hundred or a thousand Asian refugees from Uganda during the period of their expulsion last year.

Oh, no, please!

From a public relations point of view, we had it made. They would certainly have been skilled and professional people and we know very well that they are essentially a very law-abiding lot of people, particularly those here in the Republic. Most of them are extremely well-to-do. We know also that Indian communities the world over have a way of looking after their own communities as very few other communities in the world do; therefore they would not have been a burden upon the State. It was a chance in a million in which to cut the ground from under the feet of our more vicious critics overseas. I am certain that some would have come, and even if they had not, a gesture of that kind would have done more to improve our standing in the international community than anything I can think of. What a pity it is that the Government lacks the necessary statesmanship and sophistication to make that sort of gesture!

In conclusion, I may end on a more constructive note by saying that the international structure of the United Nations being what it is, one whishes so dearly, in view of this terrorist horror that we have to deal with, that they would pay more attention to the constructive activities of the non-governmental organizations from which they have systematically either forced us out or obliged us to resign. I am referring here to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the Economic Commission on Africa, the United Nations Commission on African Aid and Development and the Economic Science Council on Africa; I am not quite certain of the names of all of them, but one by one we have been pretty well forced out of these bodies as a result of pressure brought to bear against us, when we, in South Africa, as the power-house, industrially and economically, of this entire continent, could have done more to assist them than anybody else, economically and on a genuine basis, with no strings attached to our assistance, just as there have been no strings attached to what we have done in trying to assist both Malawi and Lesotho or any other country in need of help—in a purely professional, technical manner. It seems to me the greatest possible pity that this has not happened. Perhaps the most important future development, if we could bring it about, should be the creation of an international climate, in which we are not merely permitted but encouraged to take a lead in helping poverty-stricken and backward countries in this subcontinent to turn their own resources to good account. I submit, Sir, that in turn this would be bound to have a moderating effect upon our own internal politics. This action of the non-governmental organizations, forcing South Africa out, seems to me to have been entirely self-defeating and has harmed the African countries far more than it has harmed us. As hon. members know, for all the hard political line and all the histrionics, Zambia today is still largely dependent upon South Africa for the importation of large quantities of foodstuffs —which are readily supplied—as everybody knows, and Zambia’s trade with South Africa in 1968 increased by 80%. It seems to me that if these organizations wanted to assist, they could in their turn offer us help in the field of housing and education and public health, instead of concentrating upon an incessant and violent denunciation of political policies.

The last word I want to say is in connection with Cabora-Bassa. At one stage the United Nations was passing resolutions readily condemning Mozambique, and Portugal in particular, for not developing that country, because they said the policy was deliberately to keep the people poor. The moment Cabora-Bassa is undertaken and an immense amount of money is put into it, which will benefit the entire local population, apart from anybody else, to an enormous extent in terms of money, wages and social services as the years go by, it becomes the centre of terrorist activities. The arguments of the United Nations are reversed overnight and the Portuguese are held responsible for exploiting the local population. So there is a sense in which nobody in Southern Africa can do anything right in the eyes of this body. I still maintain that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was correct in saying that one of the things that we have to do, apart from feeling strongly about our own immediate interests, is to keep this whole matter in perspective in terms of the relevance or the irrelevance of decisions taken by the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the short time at the disposal of a speaker in a debate of this nature, does not allow me to comment at length on the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg. There are certainly many things which she said with which we can all agree. She stayed on the subject beautifully until about eight minutes ago; then she strayed a little, but I leave the matter there for the moment.

Sir, I would like to stress certain other aspects which are also relevant within the limits of the motion under discussion. The motion stresses that revolutionary warfare and terrorism are at present the greatest threat to world peace and confirms the paralysing result of the indecisive attitude and conduct of the U.N. Now, reference was made to President Nixon’s speech. I would like to quote to you one paragraph from the speech which in my opinion is very much applicable to this motion. He said this—

Sir, I think that this concern is shared by us all, as well as the concern which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed here today. But what is the basic problem? This body is just unable to get moving in connection with this subject which we are discussing here today, because the majority of the members of this body comprise Russia and its satellite states, Red China and its friends, the African states and particularly those which belong to the Organization for African Unitie. Those people’s concept of peace differs from ours. What those people consider to be meant by peace, also differs from what certain great powers mean by peace. Therefore one can ask oneself the question whether this body really wants to act against terrorism. I think that it does not really want to do so because the majority of its members would not like to move in that direction. The hon. member for Algoa mentioned striking examples here of terrorism, applied in recent times, such as the murders at Khartoum, the murders in South American countries, at the Lod Airport and of other diplomats in Europe, the London explosions, aircraft hijackings and so on. And what is the result? The result is that large areas of the Western world are living in fear today. The last world war, brought, inter alia, the whole concept of freedom to the fore in all its aspects, and the word “freedom” has gone mad, and now people and nations are living in fear of one another precisely because they are unable to curb the results of freedom. The Republic of South Africa has not been spared this ogre of terrorism and revolution either, which wants to feed on this very concept of freedom. The objectives of communism and of communist penetration into Southern Africa have on occasion been stated as follows: Firstly to gain a foothold in Southern Africa; secondly to infiltrate into the traditional Western sphere of influence and to undermine it; and thirdly, to cause conflict, in accordance with traditional communist revolutionary patterns, on a section of the continent where multi-racial communities are involved in working out a system for peaceful and rewarding future relations. That is the Communist viewpoint, more specifically of those from Eastern Europe. The Chinese viewpoint has also been heard here today, namely that Africa is actually regarded as the centre of the conflict between East and West. At present Africa is the neutral question in the world and with the termination of the war in Vietnam everyone can expect the surplus energy of the Chinese to be concentrated to a greater extent on Africa, and this in co-operation with the Organization for African Unity which, at the time of its Conference at Addis Ababa in June, 1971, adopted the following resolution, far stronger than the Lusaka Manifesto resolution in April, 1969—

They went further in November of the same year, and issued the following press statement—

One can really appreciate how dangerous this situation is for South Africa and particularly for us if the above decision is read in conjunction with the following statement by Mao Tse Tung. He said this (translation)—

The latest terrorist trial in Pretoria confirms once again the objectives of the revolutionary and terrorist movements against South Africa, namely the overthrow of the existing order and a majority government based on the principle of “one man, one vote”. Actually it is ironical that most of the countries who support these people, do no apply this principle in their own countries. They are so obsessed with their mad striving for freedom that they do not care if a violent confrontation with South Africa leads to a world conflict. We cannot dissociate ourselves from this situation. What, therefore, is our answer to the situation?

I think that our answer could also amount to the following: We have great appreciation for the fact that our Government and this House have already for many years been taking cognizance of this situation, and that the Government has already ensured that our Defence Force has been put in a state of readiness, that our Police are successfully able to guard our frontiers and even be of assistance in Rhodesia, that we have developed our own armaments industry which can already supply the greater part of our requirements, that we have even developed our own aircraft industry and that we are able, by means of our civil protection services and other auxiliary services to mobilize our entire population.

In addition we have also been told by prominent Bantu leaders about the spirit which exists among them. For example, one of them, Lucas Mangope, has said that he and his people would fight any kind of invader of South Africa, even if they had to do so with knobkieries and stones in their hands. Under these circumstances, in the light of this threat of which we are taking cognizance, we are not prepared to yield to the ideas and the claims of the terrorists, particularly concerning our internal policy and our way of living in general. Nor are we prepared to be apologetic concerning any aspect of it. Our leaders and our officers in the Defence Force and the Police are and must at all times be inspired and motivated so that that attitude can also penetrate to their people, the men and women whom they must lead and inspire.

We cannot afford to be sorry for ourselves or to be apologetic or to squabble amongst ourselves over these things. For that reason I think it is a great pity that the retired Commandant-General of the Defence Force, General Hiemstra, recently found it necessary to say the following at Potchefstroom (translation)—

What inspiration does he, through saying this offer our Navy and our Defence Force as a whole by telling them, even before they have left the starting line, that they have lost the race? This hon. gentleman went on to say (translation)—

A people is not inspired in this way and particularly people of other languages and colours who are already, together with the White South African and in the same uniform, defending the frontiers of our country with great distinction. The terrorist movements make it very clear, and they give it as a reason for their actions against us, that all South Africans do not possess equal rights as citizens. For that reason it does not behove such an important ex-military leader to say, apologetically and reproachfully, that we are one of the most democratic people in the world, but that in spite of that millions of our fellow countrymen who travel on South African passports, have no claim to the most elementary civil rights, namely participation in the Government of their country and a right to determine their fate. One does not answer one’s enemies in this way. I can only say: Cobbler, stick to your last! The United Nations is unwilling to adopt a standpoint, and in any case we must accept that we will never receive any protection from that quarter. Therefore we must at all times be fully prepared. To all whom it may concern, we must say: “Attack us at your peril!”

However, that is not a full solution to this problem. A more important reply as far as I am concerned is that we must ensure that our internal ethnic relations are such that the terrorist will receive no encouragement from the internal population. We must devote as much attention to sound human relations as to military preparedness. Sound human and ethnic relations in the whole of Southern Africa is the most effective reply, together with our military preparedness, to the threat of terrorism in this part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa has definitely done the country a service by introducing this motion here today and by arguing the matter on the high level he did. This is a problem which affects not only this side or that side of the House, but everyone throughout the civilized world, everyone who has a certain concept of world peace and stability. The predominant elements in this motion are world peace, revolutionary warfare and terrorism, and the inability, in the third place, of the U.N. to deal effectively with these. Let me say at once that I think we must interpret our terms correctly. World peace is a relative concept, for in truth there has never in the history of the world been total world peace. Someone once expressed it in the following terms—

Throughout the course of history conflicts have formed part of the development of peoples towards civilization. For that reason I maintain that the term “world peace” is a relative one. There is today, for example, a complete absence of any large-scale shooting war, but the fear of such a large-scale war exists among all peoples, among the most powerful as well —particularly the fear of a nuclear war. There is tension and conflict, and limited shooting wars, are being waged We have recently had a peace settlement in Vietnam, and yet there is daily conflict. Remote-controlled and disguised armed confrontations are taking place throughout the world, in Africa as well. I think it was in 1969 that the Pentagon calculated that at that juncture there were 50 insurgency wars in progress in the world.

What kind of wars?

Insurgency wars, in one form or another. I have a list here, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House with it. But if one were to make a list today of where there is armed conflict in some form or another, it would be found that this was happening in no fewer than 50 places. For that reason I want to repeat what I have said previously, namely that I do not believe that a Third World War will be declared; it is in the process of developing. It will not be declared in the sense that one major power will issue an ultimatum to another. The seeds of a gradual movement in the direction of ever-increasing conflict are being sown. This statement is supported by what Mr. McNamara said when he discussed this matter in his term of office as Secretary for Defence. He said our planet was becoming an evermore dangerous place in which to live, not only because of a potential nuclear conflagration, but as a result of de facto conflicts which were increasing rather than diminishing. That is the factual position confronting the world. When we as Westerners and as members of the free world speak of world peace, we must bear in mind that the concept which the Russian and the Chinese communists have of world peace, is something totally different. The concept which they have of world peace, is a totally different concept to that of the Westerner. I want to quote what Brezhnev himself wrote. I want to quote from a publication which has just appeared, published by the conservative political group in Britain, a publication to which Lord Carrington wrote the foreword. The pamphlet is entitled In Defence of Peace and therein Brezhnev is quoted as follows—

This is the philosophy of these people. Their concept of world peace is different to that of the free world. The Russian armed forces recently issued a statement which appeared in one of the international military journals in translated form. It reads as follows—

That is what we must understand. When we speak of world peace, let us understand that we have a polarization of two concepts. The Westerner has a totally different view of world peace than the communist, because the communist only sees world peace in a socialistic domination of the world. If we do not understand this, we cannot discuss these matters. To this end, out of fear of a nuclear war and because they are afraid they will clash with America in a nuclear conflict and be defeated, they are using means aimed at undermining the will of peoples through gradual erosion. I am referring now to gradual erosion of the stability and the will to maintain national sovereignty. To this end they use their “change agents”. We in South Africa have also had experience of their “change agents”. They are the people who preach new dispensations around every corner, but if you ask them to what their new dispensation in this country should lead, it should be clear to every intelligent person that it is going to make South Africa a victim of the socialistic doctrines of Moscow and Peking. These “change agents” are the precursors, the preparers of the way, subverted of the national will, of the will to maintain national sovereignty. In this the South African Communist Party, with its head-quarters in London, is still, together with its allies, playing an active part in eroding the national will in South Africa and in other countries. I want to quote to hon. members what a certain Hungarian, whose name is difficult to pronounce, Szamulely, who served in the Russian Army and for 18 months after that was in one of Stalin’s penal camps, said. He writes as follows about the philosophy of life of these people—

Tyranny now calls itself freedom. No honest person, however wedded to past concepts should let himself be deceived by this new strategy.

Before we understand this, we will not, neither in South Africa nor in the free-world, experience an awakening against the powers creeping up against us like a canker, and which are sometimes condoned by us in our efforts to make peace with them. These revolutionary-inspired attempts to mislead, to confuse and to undermine stability, were anticipated by Kruschev. In 1956 he said the following—

That is what he said. We need only believe the communists! We need only read their publications and believe them! The Western world, the free world, need only acquaint itself with what the communist leaders want and believe them, for then it will be able to prepare itself against those powers. We read their stuff, but we do not believe it. Mao Tse Tung, the leader of the other major communist power in the world, defined his strategy by saying: “You must surround the industrial area by first conquering the countryside”. That is what he is doing in Africa. The Chinese spearhead in Africa in Tanzania, in Zambia and in Zair, the line they are extending from Dar es Salaam to the mouth of the Congo, is an attempt first to conquer the rural areas in terms of this theory, before making their onslaught on the industrialized South. We must not doubt this in any way. They say this in their publications. For that reason reference was with justification made here today to what President Nixon said. I just want to quote this again, for my own purposes—

It is the Western premise as interpreted by its leader, President Nixon, that we stand for national sovereignty in our international relations; we stand for the preservation of international self-respect; we stand for the preservation of nations to deliberate with one another as independent nations, while the communist world, which also wants peace, wants to subject us to a uniform system of slavery. For that reason the Secretary-General of the U.N. quite probably with the best intentions, took the terrorist question to the U.N. to put a stop to these attempts to erode the national will and to mar international relations. I maintain that he could have done this with the best of intentions. I do not want to ascribe any other motive to him, but the countries which have already been roped in the master plan of Moscow and Peking, have gained such a stranglehold on the U.N. that they have already, with their policy of “one man, one vote”, in the U.N. left the impress of slavery. This franchise system shows you to what lengths they are capable of going with this “one man, one vote” system. For that reason Russian communism has made no concessions to the Western world for the sake of peace. Point out to me one place where, with all these efforts on the part of President Nixon and other Western leaders of state, Russian communism has made one single concession for the sake of better relations. Russian communism is still to be found in the trade unions of the West; it still has a stranglehold on those countries which it conquered with military force. If a country should yearn for freedom, as Czechoslovakia did, it represses that country through the might of its communications media and its tanks. It makes no concessions.

In the second place, what is happening in Southern Africa, where the Free World, for reasons of its own, says that it should not intervene against the spearpoint directed from Central East Africa to the southern-most part of Africa. In fact, blame is apportioned to the states of Southern Africa. Portugal. Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa, that stand for stability and for evolutionary development in these countries. Whose weapons are being used to cause this struggle in Southern Africa to keep on escallating? Look at the weapons and by whom they were made. They are of Russian, Czechoslovakian and Chinese manufacture. In other words, behind the so-called freedom fighters of Southern Africa one finds the weapons of these countries, and this is part of this overall pattern to overthrow the West. For that reason it is not merely a maritime struggle to protect the ocean routes around the Cape. It is of no use thinking only in terms of maritime defence in the interests of the Free World. The onslaught on the ocean routes is crystallizing into two strongholds: One on the East Coast and one on the West Coast. Southern Africa is today the fortress of freedom; it is today the vanguard of the Free World against the forces of slavery. I want to go further. Tanzania, Zambia and Zair may find it convenient to negotiate major loans from China; they may find it convenient to be important in the company of those with whom they are consorting today, but they will not become freer; they will not become richer; they will, as the Chinest colossus begins to trample them underfoot, become ever poorer; they will become ever more enslaved for the instructors who today lead the terrorist gangs—-and they are doing this to an increasing extent—are the precursors of the eventual enslaving power which will swallow up Tanzania, Zambia and Zair, not because it has any liking for these countries, but because it wants to misuse them to enslave other people. That is why we must understand these concepts correctly. Now the question is: What should we do in this struggle? The conservative group in Britain which is doing great work to draw the attention of the Free World to this ever-increasing problem, has published a book, as well as a brochure entitled The Soviet Maritime Threat. In this they state—

For that reason, Sir, I want to say in the first place that this House and all who have any influence in South Africa, as well as our Press media which is read by visitors coming here, which is read by prominent people who can read only English, have a duty in what is written and said, to make the Free World aware of the fact that we in Southern Africa are not going under, but that we are in fact standing firm as a corner-stone for the Free World in the Southern Hemisphere. That is the first point. In our discussions with businessmen and international visitors, in what we write and in what we pre-offer, we must emphasize the positive aspects of Southern Africa and not continually be playing into the hands of those who wish to emphasize everything which is negative. I do not want to mete out blame to hon. members today; that is the last thing I want to do, for in this regard South Africa must stand united. But I want to ask this question: Are we not too inclined, as a democracy, for the sake of the old game of party politics in South Africa, to play it in such a way that we are continually emphasizing the negative aspects and in that way playing into the hands of our enemies? With that I am not saying that the Government should not be criticized. But the argument is being used today, and this was with justification mentioned by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, that we should put our internal policy in order. It is not only a military struggle; that is quite correct. But it has been possible for us in the field of defence to achieve such a measure of unanimity in South Africa that all of us today go so far as to say: Only a traitor is not prepared to help defend South Africas’ sovereignty. It is a good thing that we have made this much progress, and that we have also progressed to the extent where we are able to say: Internal security is part of our stability. In this regard this Government and the Opposition and Parliament speak with one voice. People who do not want to go along with this, are out of the team.

In the third place, is it not time we emphasized the positive instead of the negative in regard to our ethnic relations? I am saying this, because what progress have we not made during the past quarter century? What other country in Africa has afforded its various sectors of the population an opportunity to express themselves and to express their needs, as has been done in the Republic of South Africa during the past decade? Sir, there is not one population group which cannot today stand up and state its needs in public. There is not one population group in South Africa which cannot today come and discuss matters with the Prime Minister, and say to him:#x201C;These are our needs.” Why do we not emphasize these aspects? Why do we not point out more often the rise in the standard of living of all people in South Africa brought about by the joint forces of the Government and commerce and industries and employers in South Africa? Why must we always try to help present our country as a scapegoat, so that those who wish to destroy it, for the sake of communism, are overjoyed, and benefit from this? Sir, should a voice not go up from this Parliament? We expect our young men to stand guard on our borders, we expect our young men to do their duty in the air; we expect our young men to do their duty in the navy; we expect our young men to do their duty in the Police Service, but what image do we present them with as a Parliament of our own attitudes when it comes to the highest interests of our fatherland?

Sir, there is another point I want to make. The position is sometimes presented as if there were a possibility that there will be salvation for the free world in a quarrel between Russia and China. I do not know whether that could happen. Both have militaristic objectives; both are seeking an opportunity to dominate and to force socialism, as they know it, down the throats of other people. Sir, there is one thing I do know, and it is this: Whether it is Russian communism or Russia which loses in the struggle in Southern Africa, or whether it is Chinese communism, we must be prepared to resist it. We must also be spiritually prepared, on the basis of national sovereignty and self-respect. We must give content and meaning to the concept of national unity. Our national unity must lie deeper than party political gain.

Hear, hear !

Not Afrikaner hatred.

Of course; does the hon. member not agree?

Of course I agree. I am glad to hear it.

We can take it further in another debate, and I shall also return to occasions when I myself advocated these aspects and when hon. members on that side did not want to agree with me in this regard. Sir, the will of the free world not to be enslaved must awaken, and the nations of the free world, by-passing the U.N., must meet in conference and say: “We shall not allow our national sovereignty to be undermined; we shall not subject our national will to the erosion of communism; we shall take up our stand against it.” Then we will once again have that peace for which we yearn.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and the mover of the motion, as well as the hon. member for Stellenbosch, made a touching plea for unity and a united attitude towards the matters now under discussion. I want to say immediately that regarding the dangers of terrorism and regarding the unity of our people in defending South Africa against attacks, direct or indirect, overt or covert, we are agreed and there is no difference between the Government and this side of the House at all. This is a fact which has repeatedly been recorded here. Last year we had a motion of this nature here too, and then this side of the House gave its full and total support to the efforts of the Government to ensure the safety of South Africa.

†Sir, there is no issue here; we are totally agreed on the dangers of Communism and its threat to South Africa and to other countries, and we in the United Party and the Nationalist Party are totally united in seeking to combat the threats against South Africa, and it is a pleasure to be part of, and to know that South Africa has made, this progress towards total unity in her own defence. This is probably the first time—the last quarter of a century to which the hon. the Minister referred—in the whole history of South Africa that for a whole generation the country has been united in defence of South Africa and of South Africa’s sovereignty.

We have not got the Ossewa-Brandwag.

It is the first in South Africa, Sir, that we have not been divided on the question of South Africa’s defences. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not want to throw stones. I can go much further back into our history. I am dealing now with the history of South Africa and the fact that we are now united for the first time, but I do not want to rake open old wounds or to throw stones. I am dealing with the present and with the future, and I say that this is a matter of extreme satisfaction not only to us as an Opposition but I believe to South Africa as a whole. If there are differences, it is not on our approach to the danger; it is not in our recognition of the danger. If there are differences, those differences are on the methods of combating these threats, and that is where I am afraid that the hon. the Minister of Defence and I cannot fully see eye to eye. In the first place, as a matter of tactics, we are dealing here with a motion which refers to world peace and to the United Nations and the combating of terrorism. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here, because he is the Minister in whose court I believe this ball has bounced. This is a matter for the world, and we are not going to find world peace and we are not going to help the world to find peace by putting in our military forces. We must remember, Sir, that when the hon. the Minister of Defence talks on this subject he speaks as Minister of Defence. I can agree with most of what he said. But we see this as a matter of international relations, a matter of dialogue with the rest of the world and of trying to persuade the rest of the world to see things our way. Sir, in the field of diplomacy, in the field of dialogue, I believe that South Africa has tremendous weapons which we have not yet used in our own defence. That is why I must disagree with the hon. the Minister when he says that those who talk of a new deal in South Africa are walking along the road of Communism.

I did not say that.

He said:

He spoke of the “change” agents, the destroyers of our national will.

I referred to the “change” agents of Communism who speak about a new deal.

Sir, I think that if there is anything which can do South Africa harm, anything which can weaken our cause in the world, it is to indicate that we are not prepared to face change in our thinking and in our approach—change which must keep step with the new generation, with the new ages into which we move generation by generation, and obviously South Africa must be prepared not only to face change but to change with the demands of time. To try to smear those who want to see change in South Africa as communist agents is perhaps the greatest folly which we could commit, because not only do we then indicate to people outside that those in South Africa, good, loyal, dedicated South Africans who want to see change, are synonymous with communist agents, not only do we give the impression, but we indicate to our enemies that they have friends in the ranks of the Opposition.

I want to say immediately that I am one of those who wants to see change in South Africa. I want to see many things change in South Africa and I believe I will see them changed in my lifetime. I believe many of our attitudes of today must disappear from the South African scene. Traditions in which we have grown up will give way. There are many of us, all of us on this side of the House, who believe in change. Therefore I want to correct any misunderstanding that may arise from the hon. the Minister’s remarks. I want to say that those of us on this side of the House who plead for change will be the first and the strongest defenders of South Africa against any attack by terrorists or by subversion or by any other movement designed to destroy law and order or to undermine the security and the safety of the State. So let us not have for one moment any misunderstanding that we who plead for change in South Africa do so in any way in order to encourage those who are our enemies or to weaken the security of our country. We believe that some changes in South Africa will strengthen our country and strengthen our security rather than weaken it. There should be no misunderstanding about what the hon. Minister said. We too see ourselves as the spearhead of freedom, as the spearhead of world peace, because we believe that South Africa has a tremendous role to play in Africa. We believe that South Africa can be the leader of this continent and that it can bring to this continent a stability which is sorely needed and a leadership which is sorely needed. But we are not going to do it by threats or by closing our eyes or burying our heads in the sand. We are going to do it by facing the problems and the difficulties courageously and with confidence and finding solutions for them. For the hon. the Minister of Defence to hold up the last quarter of a century and say: Let us stop criticizing; let us stop being negative, and then expect that we will have solved any problems is wishful thinking. Then we will never solve our problems. I accept that the hon. the Minister said he did not mean that one could not criticize the Government but the impression he gave was that one should not criticize.

I meant a positive approach.

A positive approach must include criticism because we cannot agree that the last 25 years have solved the problems of South Africa. I think the very fact that we disagree, the very fact of our disagreement, the very fact that there is on that side of the House a Government with one policy and on this side an Opposition with another policy, and that we can debate these differences openly across the floor of this supreme Parliament of South Africa, the very fact that under Mr. Speaker’s control we here can represent our electorate and can criticize and attack each other as we do day after day, is South Africa’s strongest bulwark against destruction by the powers of evil which face us. Because once this democratic right disappears, once we cease to exercise it, the forces of the West who are still—often not quite as clearly as we would like to see—on our side against terrorism and subversion, who still want to see South Africa survive, would cease to protect us or to be on our side. Our strongest bulwark against isolation is the fact that we do have the seeds of possible change here in this Parliament and here within the machinery of our government. The last thing that I believe we must do in South Africa, if we want to keep the friendship of the Western world, if we want to keep their support for our continued existence as a free, sovereign nation, is to indicate that we are not prepared to criticize each other, that we are all solidly united behind the political policy of the existing Government. We are solidly united behind South Africa, we are solidly united behind the State, but we are not solidly united behind the political policy of that Party.

Even when it is right?

No, when we disagree with it. There are those who criticize the United Party for supporting it when we believe the Government is right, as we are doing at this very moment in the field to which the hon. the Minister referred of internal security. When we do what we believe is right for South Africa, they hammer us and try to hit us from every side. I want to say to them that we will stick to our guns, because we are serving South Africa. We are not prepared to be diverted from that course by irresponsible attacks, by twisted and distorted reporting and by malicious criticism with the intention of creating a wrong impression of what the United Party is doing. When we have a duty to the security of South Africa we perform that duty and we are at the moment bearing the scars of our loyalty to South Africa’s security. We will continue to accept wounds if we must, because we place law and order first and the principles of the Western concept the Western way of life—form part of this approach to life for which we stand.

Let me conclude my summarizing. We accept and we recognize the threats. We are totally united as South Africans in our preparedness to fight them in every way at our command. However, we believe that one of the strongest weapons we have is the maintenance and the exercise of our democratic right to disagree where we do, to change if we can and to win friends for South Africa in every way in which it is possible to win them by keeping pace with the 20th Century and the 1970s.

Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed, I think, in this House that terrorism presents a very serious threat to South Africa and that it must be exterminated at all costs. I think we also agree that U.N. will never identify terrorism as such in Southern Africa and take effective steps against it. This leaves the problem squarely in our laps and we, the Whites in South Africa, must find a formula to beat this scourge. The White establishment in South Africa which in the final analysis is the Government of the day, has the responsibility of finding this formula. In South Africa it would be easy for the White establishment to identify terrorism. The million dollar question which arises is whether all South Africans, all the various peoples living in South Africa, will identify those invaders of our borders as terrorists, or would they call them freedom fighters. When and under what circumstances would White South Africa be sure that persons illegally entering our borders, bent on murder, strife and revolution, are identified by all as terrorists? Such guarantee does not lie in a sophisticated industrial complex, nor in humming armament factories, nor in legions of well-trained soldiers, but in the treatment and the attitude of the White man towards his fellow non-White South African. The terrorist movement, whatever the excellence of its organization, or whatever the numbers may be that belong to these organizations, would have nothing more than nuisance value as far as South Africa is concerned if the Whites could be sure that all the non-Whites in South Africa would stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing terrorism. In one of our neighbouring states the head of the Government had a sobering experience when the majority of Blacks rejected constitutional proposals which he had been led to believe would be accepted. The crisp issue in this debate is this: If an impartial commission were to travel throughout the length and breadth of South Africa to determine whether terrorists invading South Africa would be aided and abetted or rapidly neutralized, what answers would the majority give? Against the sombre background of South African political circumstances, such as the deterioration of race relations brought about by Government policies, the classification of South Africans into superior and inferior citizens, where the pigmentation of the skin is the sole criterion, the creation and perpetuation of race inequalities, the breakdown of meaningful dialogue between White and non-White, one would await the findings of this commission with trepidation. Would it be established that our hon. Prime Minister, too, had been misinformed and that the majority of non-Whites in South Africa would not support the Whites in opposing terrorism? Could people who are denied the most elementary human rights be expected to be loyal to those who have exploited them over the years? The Whites of South Africa will only see their fellow non-Whites standing shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing terrorism if the non-Whites are convinced that the South Africa of today offers them more in all fields and on all levels of human endeavour than the South Africa taken over by a terrorist organization, could do.

*I want to ask the hon. member for Algoa whether he thinks the Whites may count on the support of the thousands and thousands of people in South Africa who are affected by the non-White policy of the Government. I want to remind him of the people who, without any consultation and without any proper preparation before-hand for alternative housing and facilities, were uprooted under the Group Areas Act. I want to remind him of those who were unjustly affected by influx control. I want to remind him of those who were arrested in their progress under the Physical Planning Act and the job reservation laws. I want to remind him of the thousands of people for ever doomed to be migrant labourers. Does the hon. member think that the residents of Dimbaza and Sada or the residents of the ghettos where robbery and murder and violence are everyday occurrences, will join forces with he Whites against terrorists? The debate on the Bantustan policy has recently quietened down a little on the Government side. It seems as though the debate has reached a blind alley. It seems to me the reasons for it are, firstly, that the expectation of the Nationalist Party that this policy, the Bantustan policy, is the perfect recipe for the old divide-and-rule-policy has disappeared before the rise of Black nationalism and, secondly, that it has become clear that the Bantustans will for many decades to come, not be economically viable and, thirdly, that the Bantu leaders will not ask for independence under the present circumstances. In the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—I am not using his words, but I am drawing an inference from them—these small states will remain subservient charity states. In the fourth place, in this policy no provision has been made for independent states for Coloureds and Indians; no provision is made for the urban Bantu, viz. that part of the population we will have to depend on in our fight against the terrorists. It is fortunate that we had a new dispensation concerning constitutional development in this debate with the United Party’s proposal of a federal plan. This plan provides for a large measure of self-expression on the local level and for self-government for the various population groups. In addition there will also be a federal council where the different population groups may have consultations and co-operate on behalf of South Africa.

†Here is a blueprint for national peace, progress and prosperity. A climate could be created where the aspirations of all our peoples could be fulfilled, whether in the field of politics, or labour or family life or culture, and so on. The greatest bulwark that the Whites could have against the threat of terrorism is a large and developed, permanently settled and satisfied, a flourishing and prosperous Black middle class. They would, together with the Whites, give short shrift to any terrorist who dares to cross our boundaries.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset of this debate, I think we should have complete clarity as to what we mean by the office of an “ombudsman”. The concept of an ombudsman goes back a long way in history; in fact it goes back to the Roman Republic, to 200 BC. when there was an office called a “censor”.

Like old Jannie!

They had a “censor” to be the protector of the rights of the people, not in the modern sense of being the protector of the morals of the people. In more modern times the word “ombudsman” comes from the Swedish language. It comes from the Swedish language because it is Sweden that in modern times has been the first country to establish the office of ombudsman. The word “ombudsman” in Swedish means “attorney” or “agent”. The function of an ombudsman is to provide a means of protection to individual citizens or groups of citizens against unjust harm which they may suffer as a result of the actions of Government departments or the treatment they receive from public servants, in the course of their normal duties, in the administration of the laws or in the exercise of discretionary powers which are conferred on public servants or Government departments by the laws. I think the concept of an ombudsman was very crisply put in a book written by Prof. Walter Gellhorn of Harvard University, the book being Ombudsmen and Others: Citizen’s protectors in Nine Countries, when he wrote—

That, in a nutshell, is what is meant by an “ombudsman”.

I think this House may be interested if I quote from the New Zealand Ombudsman’s Act of 1962. In New Zealand the Act is called an “Ombudsman’s Act”, but the ombudsman is referred to as a parliamentary commissioner. I quote from the New Zealand Act—

I want to emphasize the word “investigate” in the quotation I have just made. An ombudsman is normally appointed by Parliament, as opposed to Government, and as such he can only be removed from his office by a resolution of Parliament. It is highly desirable, if he is to function satisfactorily, that the appointment should be an agreed appointment by all sides in the House of Parliament.

It stands to reason that an ombudsman must be seen to be impartial and must be seen to be outside the arena of politics and for that reason it is usual for the incumbent of the office of ombudsman to be a member of the judiciary. An ombudsman has full powers to decide first of all upon the matters which he will investigate. He can reject frivolous matters and complaints and he can reject complaints which are more correctly investigated by other bodies or other departments such as the police. Having decided on what he will investigate, he then has full powers to conduct an investigation, including full access to the records of the department concerned. Having conducted his investigation, an ombudsman then makes the appropriate recommendation if he considers that the matter he has investigated justifies it, but he has no legal power to enforce his recommendation. It can be said, however, that on account of the publicity which an ombudsman’s recommendations and reports receive—these reports are made to Parliament, are laid upon the Table and become public documents—and on account of the respect in which his office is held, his recommendations carry great moral influence, and from experience in other countries, are usually very effective. That, briefly, is what I mean by the office of an ombudsman.

I have no doubt that hon. members of this House will ask the question: What is the need to consider the establishment of an ombudsman in South Africa? I would first of all like to say with all the emphasis at my command that this resolution implies no reflection whatsoever on the quality of our civil service. I believe that we have a fine and able civil service, a civil service made up of men who are hardworking, who are devoted to their duties, who are conscientious and who are of the highest integrity and I would like that to be placed on record in this debate. What has prompted this motion is the strong tendency which exists—and it does not only exist in South Africa—for decisions by public servants and Government departments to play an increasing role in the lives of private citizens and for delegated legislation to become more and more a feature of our public life. I think this is illustrated by the fact that between 1960 and 1970 the number of central Government employees increased by 53% whereas the whole population of South Africa increased by only 34%. I think it is also illustrated by the fact that between 1964 and 1971 Central Government expenditure rose from 14% of the gross domestic product to 17%. This is an illustration of the increasing influence which the State is exercising on the lives of citizens. Whether we like it or not, we are becoming more and more a collectivist society and less and less an individualist society. Whether we like it or not, we are becoming more and more of a socialist state and less and less of a capitalist state. I think this tendency for the State to control more and more aspects of the private lives of its citizens is accentuated in South Africa by the racial problems which we face in this country and by the policies which the Government has adopted to try to solve those racial problems, because basically the Government’s policies in regard to racial problems involve the making of laws which will control the lives of the different races.

I want to avoid quoting actual examples of the type of complaint which I think an ombudsman would be called upon to investigate, because it is certainly not the purpose of this motion to point a finger at any Government department or any public official. But, without mentioning the department concerned, I would like to mention one incident in which I was involved very recently, and that concerns a block of residential property which was acquired by a Government department two years ago in my constituency. This property was filled with lower-income tenants, and when the Government acquired this property they were advised of the possibility that their rentals would be increased. Two years after the acquisition of this property they were advised by the department concerned that their rentals were to be increased by something like 50%, and it was demanded of them that retrospective payment of the increase in rental for the two years since acquisition should be made to the department. This involved considerable sums for each tenant. Many of them were pensioners and could not afford to make a payment of this kind. One of them referred the matter to me. I thought that this was an unjust decision by the department concerned. I made representations to the department, with the result that the demand for this retrospective payment was dropped. That is the sort of complaint which, were it not to be handled by a Member of Parliament, could well be handled by an ombudsman. I am sure that all members of this House must have files of similar instances which they have dealt with. I know that in the short time that I have been a member of this House, my files on similar instances have become quite thick.

I also believe that it is desirable that discretionary powers which are exercised by civil servants and which are exercised by servants of Government corporations should come under the magnifying glass of an ombudsman. I refer to such matters as the issue of import licences, licences for new industries to be established, the allocation of houses by the Department of Community Development and the allocation of houses by the Railways. This last matter was referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point in another debate earlier this week. A Land Bank loan is another discretionary power exercised by the servants of a public corporation. You may well say that discretionary decisions are a matter of opinion and are not a matter of fact or a matter of law, and that if an ombudsman were to intervene in regard to a discretionary decision, his opinion would only be one further opinion and would not therefore be decisive. But I believe that the mere presence of an ombudsman safeguarding the interests of individual citizens, with the right to question discretionary decisions, would add very greatly to the acceptability and to the authority of the decisions made by public servants without the ombudsman even having to intervene.

So much, Mr. Speaker, I think, for the need of an ombudsman. I think it might be of interest to this House to know that during the Second Reading debate in the British House of Commons when the Ombudsman Bill was introduced in that House, the need for the appointment of an ombudsman was hardly debated at all; it was taken for granted. The debate, which was quite a lengthy one, centred virtually entirely round how the ombudsman would function, and how they would prevent the operations of the ombudsman from conflicting with the duties of Members of Parliament to sort out and look after the complaints of their constituents.

Sir, the House may well ask these questions: Are not the existing protections which we have to redress wrongful decisions or wrongful actions taken by Government departments adequate; would not the office of an ombudsman cut right across the operations of existing institutions? Let us just examine these questions in some detail. What redress has an individual citizen against a complaint that he may have against a public servant? First of all, if the complaint involves an unlawful or a damaging action, he does have access to the courts, but court action, as we all know, is expensive and time-consuming and, of course, not many of the complaints that individuals have against Government departments concern matters that are appropriately dealt with by courts, with the result that this is not a remedy in many cases of complaints. In any case, Mr. Speaker, an ombudsman is not a court himself; he is an investigator of complaints, an investigator who will take the necessary action after having investigated the complaint. That action may include referring the matter to the police or to the Attorney-General, and it may eventually lead to court action, but the ombudsman is not a court; his office can be regarded as complementary to and not competitive with the judiciary.

The second remedy that an individual has is to appeal again to the official who was responsible in the first place for making the decision or for the action about which he is complaining, or he can appeal to a higher authority. He can even appeal to the Minister of the Department involved. In my experience such appeals have seldom succeeded for the very good reason that the officials who originally made the decisions are committed to a particular line of action and find it very difficult to take a fresh view. Similarly, if the appeal is to a higher authority, there is inevitably a strong bias in the mind of the higher authority towards supporting his subordinates. I think this is rightly so in most cases. I think in any well-run organization superiors should support their inferiors, so that appeals against unjust actions made to superiors in practice are unlikely to succeed. An ombudsman, on the other hand, has no departmental bias and is therefore able to sift right from wrong.

Thirdly, there is the political remedy for citizens who feel aggrieved by actions of public servants. This is a remedy to which I pay very great importance. Individuals should always have access to their M.P.s, their M.P.C.s or to their representatives on local authorities. They should have this access in order to air any grievances they have. Where justified the public representative should take the appropriate action either by making representations to the responsible official or to the responsible Minister or, if that is not successful, by ventilating the grievance in Parliament or in the provincial council or in the local council or if necessary on a public platform. I believe that most members of this House work very hard at this part of their duties, and I believe that parliamentary procedures and the administrative organization available to Members of Parliament help them to be reasonably effective in dealing with this part of their duties. Nevertheless I do feel that the political remedy for complaints by individual citizens is a chancy one. Not all public representatives are equally effective in dealing with the complaints of their constituents. Some representatives lack the time to attend to those complaints. I think Cabinet Ministers, being fully occupied with other duties, do not have the close contact with their constituents that the ordinary Member of Parliament has. Some constituencies are so large, either in area or in numbers, that it is not as easy for the member to keep the close contact with his constituents as is possible in smaller constituencies. In South Africa party discipline is strong; the division of ideologies and policies between the parties is wide, with the result that grievances are inclined to assume a political flavour. The actions of the Government and of State officials tend to be defended by the Government for partisan reasons. There is also the fact that there is some reluctance on the part of some individuals in a constituency to go to their Member of Parliament because of the mere fact that he belongs to a different political party from the one they belong to. I know that in my own constituency there are members of the Progressive Association who are reluctant to come to me. So, much as I value the political remedy for the grievances of individuals, and much as I believe that this is a remedy which should be preserved, it is by no means a completely satisfactory remedy and I believe that it is one which could well be supplemented by an ombudsman. I believe that the political remedy has become less satisfactory and less complete since the disenfranchisement of the Coloureds and the Africans from this Parliament, because they are left with no representatives to handle their grievances directly in a body which is responsible for appointing an administration which affects their lives.

From what I have said I believe there is a strong prima facie case for the establishment of the office of ombudsman. However, before any decision on the subject is taken, I do propose that a judicial commission should be appointed to determine the need for an ombudsman and the best way in which he could operate in a country such as South Africa. I have suggested that it should be a judicial commission rather than an ordinary commission or a Select Committee for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that if an ombudsman office is to operate satisfactorily, the whole concept must be taken out of the political arena and it must be seen to be non-partisan. I believe that a judicial commission, if it came with a recommendation, would find general acceptance from both sides of our House. Secondly, I believe the concept of an ombudsman is so bound up with the administrative law and the administration of law that Judges are the people who are best suited to serve on a commission to go into the matter.

There is a wealth of information and experience from the operation of ombudsmen in other countries. Sweden has had one since 1809, Finland since 1919, Denmark since 1953, Norway since 1961, New Zealand since 1962 and since 1962 the idea has started to develop and to be implemented in countries which have Westminster-type constitutions. In 1967 the United Kingdom established the office of ombudsman and this year, 1973, two ombudsmen are going to be appointed by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. In this last ten years’ period there have also been appointments of ombudsmen in the state of Saskatchewan in Canada and the state of Queensland in Australia.

To sum up, I think that on account of the gradual encroachment of State activities into the private lives of citizens, there is a prima facie case for the appointment of an ombudsman, but before a decision is taken, I believe it is advisable to establish the size of the problem and the need for an ombudsman and the method of operation that will best suit South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Constantia moved a very interesting motion this afternoon. Initially it might not have sounded like it, but if one had listened attentively to his speech, one would nevertheless have gained the impression that he has got hold of something new here for South Africa. A new thing is not always a worthless thing; it can also be a good thing. I listened attentively to the hon. member. This is a very unfamiliar principle in South Africa. When I asked someone the other day what he could tell me about an ombudsman, he said: What sort of thing is that; is it a shift boss? Another person asked me, when I asked him what an ombudsman is, whether it is a new instrument he is using in the building industry. It can therefore be well understood that it is a totally unfamiliar idea in South Africa.

We could profitably discuss the matter. It is also fairly unfamiliar in the overseas countries, although quite a few countries have already introduced an ombudsman, or an office entrusted with the functions of an ombudsman. But when one reads through books and documents dealing with an ombudsman, nowhere does one gain absolute clarity about whether this is successful, desirable or justified. I have also read through several books about that, but everywhere there is only vague reference to an ombudsman. This placed me in some doubt about the whole matter. I can assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House are not inflexible or prejudiced as far as an ombudsman is concerned; but we have investigated and considered all the facts, and we have come to the conclusion that an ombudsman in South Africa is neither desirable nor justified. The hon. member has taken the trouble to give us a few definitions of an ombudsman. But what we are particularly interested in, are the functions of an ombudsman. I have here another book by a certain T. E. Utley, entitled Occasion for Ombudsman. In it he states, inter alia:

He describes, moreover, a directive that can be given to an ombudsman. I think this is what the hon. member envisages. He states:

This is actually what is envisaged here with us as far as an ombudsman is concerned. But if we look at the hon. member’s motion, we see that he mentions a judicial commission that should be considered to investigate the desirability or undesirability of an ombudsman. But why must a judicial commission now be appointed for an ombudsman? The function of a judicial commission is to advise the government in connection with the administration of the country’s government. In other words, a judicial commission immediately carries out the function of an ombudsman as well. A judicial commission is an ombudsman. What the hon. member is now actually requesting here, is a contradictio in terminis. He should not have asked for a judicial commission. He should have asked this House to decide outright whether an ombudsman should be appointed for South Africa or not. But now he is asking for a judicial commission, which is actually just an ombudsman and that should actually advise us. According to the definition in that book, this is also the work of an ombudsman.

In the second place, who can better judge the appointment of an ombudsman than hon. members in this House, we who come into contact with thousands of people every year, who listen to their grievances, requests and representations, we who hold so many meetings where we communicate with the individual and with groups of people to listen to what is best for South Africa? We hold conferences with them to discuss policy, to smooth out our own policy. Each of us probably receives hundreds of letters every year in which the public state their case. We who sit here, who on Tuesdays and Thursdays have an opportunity to ask questions and, by debating, to become acquainted with what is going on in the country, are surely best able to say what is good for the administration and the government of South Africa. For that reason I should like to move an amendment as follows:

The hon. member was quite right when he said that the institution of an ombudsman originated in the Scandinavian countries. It is not quite correct to trace it back to the old Romans; because apart from the censors they had, there were also procurators, who fulfilled quite a different function. Both the censors and the procurators had quite a different function from those set out in the definitions in these books. The present-day idea actually originates in the Scandinavian countries. Sweden, in particular, took the lead in this connection. In 1809 it obtained its first ombudsman who had to look after the civil administration, and in 1915 additional ombudsmen who had to look after the military administration in the country. These people’s terms of reference also differ very fundamentally from country to country. One states that he must look after the grievances of citizens, and another states that he must aid the government in the administration of the country. It is a pity that the hon. member did not dwell on a few of these countries in order to draw comparisons, specifically because we do not yet have such an institution here in our country. If we look at Sweden, for example, there is this very informative book of Professor Gellhorn, which the hon. member also mentioned, entitled Ombusmen and Others, in which he states, inter alia, on page 6—

He then continues and tells us why it is a success in Denmark. The success in Denmark can be ascribed to the ombudsman they have there, a certain Professor Hurwitz. They say the whole idea of an ombudsman centres around this man alone. He makes it a success, and no one else would make it the success he has made it. One can also look at figures in respect of cases already dealt with by an ombudsman. In Denmark we find that in the five years from 1960 to 1964, 5 745 cases were placed before the ombudsman. Only 856 of them were found, on merit, to be worth the trouble, 14,9% of the number of cases. This shows us, surely, that the ombudsman is not really the success it ought to be. It shows us that here one wants to kill a midge with a cannon. It shows us that the costs involved are not justified. In Denmark the ombudsman consists of Professor Hurwitz himself, seven qualified lawyers and an additional five clerks. One now asks oneself whether these costs and that institution are justified.

If one looks at the number of cases dealt with, one finds that they are absolutely insignificant cases. I read through a few of them. One, for example, concerns the fact that people in a tax court are not given sufficient chance to plead their case. Such cases, after all, do not exist in South Africa where we have our purely Roman-Dutch legal system. Every person has the full opportunity, even departmentally, to argue and state his case. That is the type of case with which Professor Hurwitz is burdened. It was also found that the tax officer should not also hear appeals in instances where he was the person who heard the case in the first place. It is actually a ridiculous case to have to come before an ombudsman, but nevertheless it is the type of case that comes before him. It was also found that cases must be concluded with the least possible delay. We all try to do this, and I do not believe an ombudsman will get this solved. This shows us that these cases that actually come before him, are paltry cases. That is why people speak in vague terms of an ombudsman.

There are a few other countries that also have an ombudsman, and one thinks of Norway, Sweden and Finland, but the pattern remains virtually the same. In Finland we find that the ombudsman may not concern himself with the law, but can even act as prosecutor. He may even attend Cabinet meetings. The hon. member also mentioned that this should be a non-political appointment. But imagine someone who is not a politician having to serve in a Cabinet, having to sit and hear what goes on in the Cabinet! This is surely unprecedented. This would make the position of the Prime Minister and the other Cabinet members intolerable if it were allowed to happen. In other countries, too, such as Norway, the ombudsman’s terms of reference are more or less the same as what the hon. member envisages, i.e. that the ombudsman should just look after state administration. In Sweden they also have an ombudsman. His terms of reference are also such that he may go and visit state institutions and inspect them. He can also interfere in the administration of justice in that country.

If we look at New Zealand, which is a country that is perhaps closer to us and which we can compare ourselves with, we find that the appointment of an ombudsman there did not come from the public; strangely enough, in New Zealand it came from the Government during an election. They presented it to the public as an election promise that they would invite the public to assist with the administration of the country. Thus it happened that the national government in New Zealand dangled this carrot before the public in 1960. Then they subsequently appointed the ombudsman. No one actually asked for that. Neither was there any interest in it. It is very interesting to look at the cases in New Zealand: In the first 1½ years 1 843 cases were dealt with, or rather 1 843 cases came in to the ombudsman; only 161 of them were found to be worth the trouble. This gives us 8,7% of those cases which were found to be worth the trouble of giving further attention to. According to his report of 1965, the New Zealand ombudsman writes—and we also find this in Prof. Walter Gellhorn’s book on page 142:

The conclusion to which Prof. Gellhorn comes, we find on page 153 of his book. He states:

One can surely not be so negative. When one wants to introduce such a body or appoint such a person, he must be able to take positive action; there must be positive terms of reference for him. One cannot say that it succeeds in New Zealand because there is nothing for the person to do. Of course, the person who does nothing can make no mistakes.

We also want to look at what the position is in communist countries. It is true, there is no ombudsman by that name, but in the communist countries they have numerous other institutions which do the work of an ombudsman, according to them. Those are the “others” of which Prof. Gellhorn writes in his book, i.e. the communist countries. In Poland, for example, the communist party has an office to which people can bring letters and complaints. It is, however, remarkable that the members of Parliament in Russia and in Poland are not excessively critical, according to Prof. Gellhorn. In such dictatorial countries they are, of course, afraid for their own position, and therefore they are not excessively critical. That is also why these other bodies, investigation committees, were introduced. In Russia alone 2 000 procurators were instituted to investigate matters concerning the public, persons who could even institute legal proceedings. But we surely cannot compare ourselves with those communist countries. In this country we have free speech. We are a democratic country. Therefore we do not regard it as being worthwhile to use those countries as examples. If we look at Japan, we find there are several organizations or bodies: they have a judicial revision, they have an administrative revision act, they have an “administrative management agency”, and they have a “civil liberties bureau of the Minister of Justice”. These are all bodies which, according to them, do the work of an ombudsman.

I want to venture to say that we in South Africa have many more bodies than those mentioned. Who, for example, is doing the work of an ombudsman in South Africa and doing it properly? We think in the first place of the members of the House of Assembly. We are surely the ombudsmen in South Africa. When we return to our constituencies, there are immediately a few voters who come along to us with their problems, their complaints or their grievances. We are the ombudsmen and the members of our Press are the ombudsmen in South Africa. We continually have commissions of inquiry, and in this Parliament we have Select Committees that do the work of ombudsmen. There are the Prime Minister’s advisory councils, for example his Economic Advisory Council, his Scientific Advisory Council and all his other advisory councils. They all do the work of ombudsmen, because they advise the Government on how to better smooth out the administration of the country for us. Then I am not even mentioning our law courts. There is no doubt about them. Then we also have bodies such as trade unions and agricultural unions in the country. And we as members of the House of Assembly even have our conferences, party rallies and report-back meetings in our constituencies. After all, we act as a link for our people. Even as far as municipalities are concerned we have ratepayers’ associations that do efficient work or, according to the hon. member for Constantia, that do the work of ombudsmen. We must just guard against receiving complaints of an insignificant nature. We must guard against encouraging people to bring malicious complaints and stirring up mischief. The citizens of any country must be able to cope with an ombudsman. We may perhaps say that the Whites in South Africa are able to cope, but we here in South Africa are not made up of Whites only. Are the other people already able to cope with an ombudsman? All the bodies I have mentioned give rise to possible overlapping, as far as the work of an ombudsman is concerned, to ombudsmen not being necessary and the costs involved not being justified.

We must also guard against a few other matters. In the first place, for example, we must guard against making our country a welfare state, we must guard against inviting the people to adopt a negative attitude and encouraging them to come along with trivial complaints and grievances. We must not create a dissatisfied people. We now also ask: If we should now commence to appoint a watch-dog over watch-dogs, what would the outcome be, how many complaints are not going to come in and how many watch-dogs would we not eventually have to appoint over those other watch-dogs. We can also picture to ourselves how these grievances, which eventually reach an ombudsman, are going to be used by the United Nations and how South Africa will be denounced for the fact that it is a police state, that there are defenceless citizens in this country and that the State oppresses its officials and its people. Such an ombudsman’s office amongst us in South Africa can only result in its being a branch office of the United Nations Organization. Hon. members can well understand that they would not emphasize the positive aspects, that they would not bring to the fore the fine points of this country’s administration, but that they would harp on its negative aspects.

I want to repeat that there is nothing wrong with discussing the possibility of the appointment of an ombudsman, but if we take into consideration all these matters, and many more which hon. members on this side of the House will mention in a moment, it points out to us that an ombudsman in South Africa is not desirable or justified. One can tell oneself that we have about 40 Government Departments in the country, and each of those departments can arrange these matters administratively. They can assist the public in getting to the right person. Such a person can be appointed, and I think that the majority of the departments already have such a liaison officer who can give the proper guidance to the public.

I just happened to hear this morning that a certain Mr. Willie Nagel introduced a motion a decade or so again in the Durban Municipality for the appointment of an ombudsman. I understand, too, that it was summarily dismissed and vigorously opposed. Perhaps the hon. members of Natal, on that side of the House, can give us more information about that.

I want to conclude by quoting to hon. members the following passage of Prof. Gellhorn. On page 7 of the book I mentioned he states—

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Potgietersrus said that the appointment of an ombudsman was really a new idea in South, Africa, and I think he was quite justified in saying that. He also added that it was not so easy to obtain information about it. But it would seem to me, though, that the hon. member has obtained a great deal of information about it. I want to say that by virtue of that the amendment proposed by him today is not entirely justified. To be sure, the hon. member did do some research but I believe that he was too quick in coming to the conclusion that it was unnecessary and that it was not even worth the trouble to have a further investigation in that regard. I believe that we can profitably investigate such new ideas and that we should not simply say that there is absolutely nothing in such an idea, particularly in view of the fact that there are similar constitutions throughout the world, as the hon. member in fact said. There has been comment from several sources on the operation of the various means applied by ombudsmen in various parts of the world. Some of the comment is unfavourable, as one would expect. For example, it is said that these people have no work, and so forth. But I believe that in South Africa there is in fact a great task that can be performed by such an institution as an ombudsman. I should have liked to have seen hon. members opposite being adventurous enough to investigate a matter such as this one, which would be beyond the scope of politics.

I find a strange contradiction in the very argument advanced by that hon. member. On the one hand he said that we in South Africa did not require an ombudsman. He put forward as arguments that such a person would not have work to do and that he would have to deal with petty matters, and that this would in effect not justify the expenditure of all this money. But on the other hand he also said that the matters which would be dealt with by such a person would be such dynamite that the U.N. would use them, and that such an institution would therefore merely be a department of the U.N. in South Africa. I want to say that the hon. member should at least decide: Would such an institution handle matters which the U.N. would be able to use as ammunition, or would there be too little work for such an institution to justify the expenditure? I do not think that the hon. member can have it both ways. I do not think that it is possible to use both of the hon. member’s arguments in one and the same speech. But the point is not whether the U.N. or our enemies would make use of it. Sir, I want to tell you what the main principle is which we are dealing with here. We have to do here with the rights of the individual South African citizen. That is what is at stake. It is he we want to protect. It is for that reason that I think the motion we are dealing with today is such an important one. I believe that every hon. member in this House has or, in any case, ought to have at heart the well-being of the individual, and particularly the well-being of the relationship of the individual with the State. I think that this is a tremendously important relationship; there must always be good faith in the relationships between the State and the individual. Sir, from certain parts of the hon. member’s speech it would appear to me as though on a few occasions he thought that an ombudsman would be there to crucify the Public Service. I want to say immediately that it would not be the task of the ombudsman to crucify the Public Service, but rather to protect the ordinary citizen, and not to take action itself, but simply to institute an investigation. Therefore the hon. member is wrong in mentioning certain institutions here and saying that they are already fulfilling the task of an ombudsman in South Africa. I want to say that we as M.P.S are in fact doing that kind of work to a large extent, but as an M.P. one also has other work. Nor do we as M.P.s have the right to hear evidence ourselves and to institute a really thorough investigation into each complaint which reaches us; that would be an impossible task, and hon. members opposite will probably concede that. An M.P cannot institute that kind of thorough investigation. In the nature of things he does not even have the right to institute such a thorough investigation, and for that reason one must rely on the department concerned when one receives complaints, and from the nature of the case that department must then institute the investigation. Because we do not, to the best of my knowledge, have in any department a standing committee which investigates complaints, that means that officials must be taken off other work in order that they may investigate complaints in addition to all the other routine work which they have in their department. In other words, to a large extent the smooth working of any department is brought to a standstill whenever a lot of complaints are received about what this or that official had allegedly done, and for that reason it is better to have someone like an ombudsman, outside politics and outside the department, who can obtain and process information. Thus no official would be disturbed in his work and taken off his work in order to investigate a complaint. Sir, the hon. member has also mentioned that there are advisory councils advising the Government on various matters. Sir, it is not the work of an ombudsman to investigate certain pertinent matters or to carry out investigations in various fields and then to advise the Government. That is by no means the purpose for which it is established; it is not an advisory committee for giving advice on matters of administration. Actually, the ombudsman performs one important task only, and this is to ensure that the laws as they stand and the Government regulations as they have been drafted, are complied with in all respects, and if any member of the public should feel that his rights are being infringed by some administrative act or other, or if he should feel that a certain public servant whose duty it is to do a certain thing refuses to do it, then that member of the public has the right to go to the ombudsman and to ask that the matter be investigated. It is not there as a policy-making organ that can tell the Government what they may do and what they may not do; it is there to ensure that everybody remains within his rights and that justice is done as far as members of the public are concerned. Sir, I suppose hon. members on that side of the House will also concede that in a developing industrial country such as South Africa our whole society is becoming progressively more involved and complex. In the nature of things, as a result of modern technological development and the tremendous increase in population, the administration is being expanded all the time. The hon. member for Constantia has already indicated to what great extent the Public Service has grown in the past few years, and all of this means that more and more levels are being created on which the State comes into contact with the ordinary citizen of the country. To an ever greater extent it is interfering in the life of the individual, and in the nature of things, since the Public Service is expanding to such an extent and since the field covered by its activities is becoming so extensive and so involved, there are after all many occasions where an official with the necessary power may exceed his authority, or where he may be negligent or where in some cases he may be wilful. Sir, I think that all of us will concede that that can happen. The task of this ombudsman would be to ensure that justice is done in all such cases.

For instance, I could mention to you the example of a fellow who came to me in my constituency and who had to obtain an import licence. He is in the fire fighting industry. Apparently there is only one firm in the whole of South Africa which manufactures the powder required for fire-fighting, and it cannot supply everyone’s needs. This person wanted to import quantities of this powder. He owns a very big company. He said that he had made application. In the normal course of events he always obtained his permits, but last year, all of a sudden, he could not obtain the necessary permit, and he did not know what the reason was. He was told to make use of the local product, but the local product cannot supply the demand. Then he went to the department concerned and kicked up a tremendous fuss there. Then they told him, “Very well, you can get it.” Then he asked what was wrong; why could he, all of a sudden, get it now? Then they said that they refused these permits to everyone on principle, but if someone made a fuss, they gave him one. I think that is an ideal example of the kind of instance which an ombudsman could investigate. What is the obvious principle on which these people acted? Apparently all those people who are not pugnacious enough to want to kick up a fuss about it, have had to suffer as a result. It ought to be possible for them to go to such an ombudsman and to obtain from him the necessary recommendations on what the proper procedure should be in the event of permits being refused, and he would then be able to ensure that it is done on merit. There is another instance of a man in my constituency who came to me and said that he had had certain contracts with the State and that for some reason after the devaluation of the rand, the Government refused to pay the increased costs incurred by him as a result of devaluation. It took a long investigation before we found out exactly what the position was. In the end it appeared that it was a contractual matter which he should have taken to the courts. That, too, is an ideal instance in which there ought to have been liaison between a body such as the one being advocated here and the department concerned in order to ascertain why the man was not being paid out.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus considers that the M.P.s should attend to these matters, and I must say that I do not mind doing so. I certainly do my best and hon. members on this side of the House are all doing their best concerning complains of that nature. But I want to say that I am pleased that this latter person came to me with his complaint, because he was a Nat and when I had finished with him, he was no longer a Nat. [Interjections.] Therefore I am particularly pleased to render this kind of service, but I believe that we are not properly equipped and do we have the necessary powers which a body such as this one would have.

As hon. members have already said, in other countries there are bodies by means of which steps of this kind are regularly taken. Sir, I want to mention to you a few interesting facts concerning what is happening in Sweden, the country with the most experience of this kind of matter. I want to refer to what their experience has been. To a large extent it supports the argument I have already advanced. I have here a booklet entitled Sweden Today. One of the chapters of this booklet was written by Alfred Bexelius and bears the title “The Swedish Institution of the Justitie-ombudsman”, and in the course of this he says—

These were not only complaints which were received; these are complaints which were actually investigated by this institution. I think that this proves exactly what I am trying to say, that the more involved our way of living and our administration become, the more one receives complaints of this nature from the general public. Legislation, I do not know how much, is accepted by this hon. House, pieces of legislation which grant new powers to public servants and other persons holding official positions, and which for the most part are not supported by this side of the House, because we believe that arbitrary powers of that nature are bad.

Which ones have you ever supported?

We do not like arbitrary powers, but in the nature of things they are continually presented to us by that side of the House so that life may perhaps be made easier for them in that powers are granted to all sorts of people, from the highest to the lowest holders of official positions. In that respect the whole situation in South Africa is being complicated. Particularly as far as our Bantu are concerned, legislation is often piloted through the House granting powers to officials holding positions right at the bottom of our set-up, powers enabling them to have authority over the life and death of the Bantu.

But you are talking absolute nonsense.

That official, because he has the power to imprint one stamp in the reference book of a Bantu, is in a position to change that Bantu’s whole life. If that does not provide scope for abuse of powers, I do not know what does.

Propose that the reference book be taken away.

I therefore believe that it is imperative for us in South Africa to have an agency such as this. We have this kind of power in many fields, and 21 million people are affected by this kind of action. Virtually every day these people walk about with these books in their pockets, fearing that those blue stamps will be imprinted in those books. The power to imprint that little blue stamp in those books, lies exclusively in the discretion of a minor official holding a post at the base of the pyramid of the administration. In other countries in which less arbitrary powers are granted to officials there is possibly less work for an ombudsman, but I am very strongly convinced that in South Africa such an ombudsman would only be able to do good work. At the moment we are not trying to prescribe what this agency should look like, how it should operate and what its powers should be; we only ask that the idea be given a chance and that the matter be investigated.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus said that this should not be a judicial commission but a Parliamentary Select Committee. Possibly there is something in what he said and possibly it should rather be a Select Committee of Parliament. Let us then appoint such a committee so that the investigation and the proper investigation of the matter may be proceeded with and so that we may determine exactly what the pros and cons of such an agency would be before accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, in the impulsiveness of his youth the hon. member for Florida said that we had to be adventurous. I think that the hon. member is sometimes too adventurous. [Interjections.] I think that the problem of the United Party in recent times has in fact been that it has become too adventurous. However, when the National Party Government has to deal with matters of this nature, it is very much aware that it may not act adventurously, that it may not act unrealistically, but that it must adhere to what is realistic, what is practical and what is in the interests of this country. Although we are quite willing to accept that this idea, which is also being applied in other countries of the world, is not wholly without merit, we nevertheless believe, for the reasons set out by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, that in this country, at this stage such an agency is definitely neither desirable nor necessary. The hon. member for Constantia, in his cursory historical review of this idea, also made particular mention of the fact that the idea of an ombudsman is closely linked with a welfare state. It is also illuminating that the hon. member for Florida, who has just resumed his seat, said that the idea behind this proposed investigation and the post which they would like to see created, is the protection of the rights of the individual South African citizen. I want to submit that this is really an uncalled-for and impudent statement. The impression created by it, is that the rights of the individual in this country are not being protected in a thorough or effective manner. I believe that if there is one body whose responsibility it is to protect the rights of the individual through its members, that body is in fact this Parliament. For that we need no ombudsman.

I have stated and this is an idea which has taken root and is closely connected with the welfare state in particular. That is true, and one could mention England as a very good example. This post of “Parliamentary Commissioner” in England, which is equivalent to that of an ombudsman, as we understand this concept today, came into being in the days when Harold Wilson attempted to take over the régime. Shortly prior to his election he advocated this idea. Now we should just take note of the words used at the time when the idea took root in England. They spoke about “social reform”, “suspected injustice” and a “civil rights commissioner”. You can see, Sir, that there is a definite colour to this, and I may say that the original idea was launched in England by bodies which very definitely had leftist leanings.

No, that is rubbish.

It is not rubbish. The chairman of their “Justice Committee”, one Gardner, was one of the prominent jurists associated with the Labour Government, and he came to the trial in Johannesburg in 1956 in order to ascertain to what extent we here in South Africa were engaged in violating the law. He was the great advocate of this idea. How can the hon. member now tell me that this is rubbish? It is a fact that this was advocated by and was the idea of people who were more than just Labourites, i.e. truly leftist people in England. It is accepted that the “Justice Committee” was chiefly made up of a pressure group of leftist persons. For that reason we believe that there is definitely no desirability or advisability for something of this nature here in South Africa. Now, what does this idea comprise? Other speakers have already elaborated on this question, but it can be put in the form of the old question: “Who governs the Government?” This reminds me of the old joke about the wise King Solomon’s armies, the one to look after the wives and the other one to look after the army that looks after the wives. I think that that is in fact what the United Party is envisaging by way of this motion.

We will look after the wives.

The United Party says they will look after the wives, but then they must give up this idea “of establishing another army who will look after the United Party who looks after the wives”. The question is which tasks will be entrusted to this department, this Parliamentary liaison officer, or call it what you wish. Frank Stacey, in his book The British Ombudsman, says—

Arising from this it means that if we follow this concept, we in this country shall give this body the right to interfere with all police action in our country. They will interfere in prosecutions. The hon. member is pulling a face again, but let me tell her that this is in fact the position in other countries where this is being applied, countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In all the Scandinavian countries they do not only have the right to interfere with the activities of the police, but also to step in and meddle with the conduct of the courts of law.

They may only institute investigations.

No, but they can also interfere in such matters. The question which we must ask ourselves, keeping in mind the composition of our population here in South Africa and the heterogeneous position which we have here in that we have 16 million non-Whites, is whether it would create a desirable or an advisable position if we were to establish a department which would have to act on behalf and for the benefit of all the people. Immediate bottle-necks arise. How would it be done? Who would have access? Would there be direct access? Would we give 21 million people access to this department? How would the majority of the non-White population understand what is going on? I think this would be attempting the impossible. Where would one limit it? Would one limit it here in South Africa, where we have to do with three levels of government, namely the Central Government, the provincial government and the local authorities? Would one extend it to all levels, and how on earth would it be handled? I want to suggest that it would become a department of lamentations, and I think for that we need a sick-comforter rather than an ombudsman.

The position of the Member of Parliament has been mentioned. I want to accept that in countries such as England with its larger population, where a Member of Parliament represents a constituency of 120 000 people, and in America, where a Congressman is the representative of a quarter of a million people and more, something of this nature might be a need and a void to be filled. But in respect of South Africa I want to make the statement that there is no other country in the world where there is such a close and direct link between the voter and his representative, the Member of Parliament. I do not know whether the United Party has that same contact, but that is definitely the position in the National Party. To the Nationalist voter his M.P. is the beginning and the end of everything. He trusts him and supports him because he knows that “he stands by me”, because he knows that his interests are in the best hands when they are looked after by this representative of his, whom he has elected democratically to represent him in this House. Every voter in this country has that access to his M.P., and that is true from the Prime Minister, who represents the constituency of Nigel, down to the most junior member in this House of Assembly.

Why did you not stand by Albert?

I want to suggest that the M.P. is in fact in a position to represent the interests of his voters, according to his judgement, more effectively on all levels. In this connection I want to recommend that we should rather think in terms of creating better facilities for M.P.s to enable them to carry out that task more effectively. I want to quote from the Hoofstad of a few days ago, in which a contributor wrote a letter. I shall not quote the whole letter, but I do think that it is illuminating to hear what this voter had to say (translation)—

He is referring to the Member of Parliament—

I want to support that idea, particularly the idea of the secretary.

I therefore believe that his idea which has been raised by the Opposition does not have much substance, does not have much merit. As regards this “general tonic effect” which is being advocated here, I believe that the game is not worth the candle. If I may quote the case of England in the year 1970: for the 53 million people who live in England, only 651 cases were reported, and of those only 250 were investigated. If that is the case in Britain with 53 million people, I do not think there is any need for it in this country.

There are also other aspects which in my opinion have a somewhat dangerous potential and which are definitely neither desirable nor advisable. I am thinking, for example, of the idea that this official will have no responsibility for his decisions. It may happen that the personal interests of the citizen could easily conflict with the public interest and with Government policy. Therefore it has, in my view, political implications. I believe that whereas we have at our disposal in this Parliament all the administrative machinery, the courts of law and the free Press, everything that is democratic finds expression in this Parliament and leads to a satisfactory and effective administration of our country and its people.

Mr. Speaker, the motion refers specifically to the need for someone to assist citizens, and I wish to repeat the words, because I think we have rather lost sight of them, “in negotiations with State departments and agencies and to advise Parliament on the protection of the legitimate freedoms of the individual”. I may say that I support this motion with a good deal of feeling and also with a great deal of enthusiasm. I do it for the reason that most of my own parliamentary career has been devoted to being an ombudsman.

Are you not capable any more?

In fact, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I am applying for the job right now. I want to say that with 47 members on this side of the House and with all the Nationalists’ complaints we have as well as our own to deal with we lead a dog’s life as far as this aspect of affairs is concerned in this House. We deal with an enormous number of complaints and when I say this I am not joking; I wish the hon. members on that side of the House had some conception of what hon. members on this side have to deal with in the way of complaints. The hon. member for Constantia made the point that an obmudsman could afford to reject frivolous complaints and my hon. friends on the other side suggest that so many of these complaints in other countries have been frivolous that only a few of them have, in fact, ever been seriously investigated. The fact remains that the ombudsman is in a much better position if he is in a position to reject frivolous complaints, which is something no politician is in the position to do since we have to handle everybody from the lunatic fringe, as hon. members know, to people who have really bona fide serious complaints. He is in a better position than any of us to handle them. I think that we on this side of the House devote a great deal of our time to assisting people of all colours, be it said, in redressing wrongs or in negotiating for assistance for them of one kind or another. We call it “elbow-twisting” on this side of the House. It is a very necessary operation, from time to time whatever Government happens to be in office. My experience is, and I am sure this applies to all of us on this side of the House, that this type of operation often—indeed invariably—involves a great deal of lengthy correspondence which is often unnecessarily protracted for various reasons. This is partly because of congestion of work in Government offices themselves and partly because these matters are often passed, as hon. members know very well, from one official to another and even from one department to another. Sometimes it takes weeks on end before any definite conclusion is arrived at. I suggest that the motion that was introduced by the hon. member for Constantia, which asks for the appointment of an official of this kind, would mean that proceedings could be considerably speeded up to the very great benefit of the individual whose interests we are trying to protect and about whom we are so concerned.

There is another factor. Today we have 38 Government departments, that is if one includes all those administered by Deputy Ministers as well as Cabinet Ministers themselves. If you are just Mr. Poggenpoel or Mr. Smith and you have a problem and you wonder where you have to go, how do you, the common or garden citizen of South Africa, find your way about with all these Government departments and the complexity of administration? So many of the problems with which the ordinary man in the street is beset today involve more than one Government department. He does not know whether he is coming or going because there are so many. There is considerable overlapping as hon. members must know themselves when they deal with these problems, and there an intermediary of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Constantia with an official standing could play an invaluable part. The sort of voluntary assistance which is being rendered to the public already by something like “Argus Action”, which has been running now for a very long time and which is tremendously popular with the public, is welcome but it is totally inadequate; it is not their fault, but it is inadequate. When you talk to many people in your own constituency and they say that they are having trouble with something you say to them: “I will give you a hand, write to me.” Then they say: “Good heavens, that is wonderful, but do we turn to members of Parliament for everything we want?” What do you say then? If they vote for you, you say “yes”!

Another point that has not been mentioned yet and which I do not think is an issue which is abused by hon. members in this House is the question of privacy. This is an important aspect. Frequently personal problems, as I know only too well, are presented to one with a request for help in the hope that one will find a solution somehow. Such a request means the revelation of extremely personal and confidential information regarding the background and the living circumstances of the people who are involved and who approach you. The fact that there is someone who is not attached to any political party, who is not involved in politics and who has access to the Government departments on this basis would inculcate a degree of confidence in the ordinary member of the public who feels that he can go to such a person with a legal training, because he would feel that he could get an impartial, non-partisan opinion and assessment of where to go from there with his problem.

If you want an example of how the Government is in party carrying this out, let me say that we had only a few sessions ago, since I came to this House, the appointment of parliamentary officers. The appointment of parliamentary officers, attached to each Minister of the Cabinet, is an innovation. The job of the parliamentary officer, as I see it and as it seems to work today, is to act as an intermediary between the members in this House and the Minister himself who is handling a specific matter about which we may have written to him. The whole object, I imagine, is to improve communications in this field. That being the case, I cannot for the life of me understand why hon. members on that side have moved an amendment to suggest that this is either unnecessary or unwise. As for the hon. member for Ermelo, how in heaven’s name Solomon and his wives and Harold Wilson got into all of this, God only knows. I would just like to tell the hon. member for Ermelo, who has these suspicions about “linksgesindes”—just in case he thinks that is what we are—that it was the Tory Party in Great Britain who eventually passed this Act. The hon. member might just put that in his notebook.

In any event, Sir, the fact is that there is a very serious aspect to this matter which worries me in a practical sense, and that is that during the life of this Government we have seen a tremendous multiplication of laws, especially those that can so easily be broken without anybody having the faintest idea that they are breaking the law, because of public ignorance on the subject. This cumulative legislation has been formidable. We are far too over-governed, in fact, in this country at the moment. Ignorance of the law is, as hon. members know, no excuse for breaking it, wherever you happen to be. The endless complexities of our laws are such that few of the ordinary people in South Africa even begin to realize their implications. The majority of South Africans going about their daily affairs either find these laws quite beyond their comprehension, or imagine that they do not apply to them, or are unaware of their existence. Officialdom, to the average South African, presents something of a blank face and individuals are quite unable to decide on their own, in many cases, whom to approach. If there were an official of this kind, impartial and non-partisan, and who could act as an intermediary, they would feel that there was someone specific, other than a party politician, to whom they could turn.

Then, Sir, there is the serious matter of those who have no franchise. I do not know how this affects hon. members on the Government benches, but all I can tell the hon. the Minister is that I have literally hundreds of cases from Blacks, Coloureds and Indians every single year, a mass of cases totally unrelated to the political scene, but which are very much related to their business affairs, their manner of living, their personal affairs, and so on. These people are often deeply worried and do not know where to turn for assistance, as they have no representatives in this House, which is the seat of power. With due respect to our civil servants, who are a fine bunch of people, there is no question that in any civil service in the world there are officials who push people around and there are people who get pushed around. That goes for any country and not only for South Africa. I have found that these people who are not enfranchised in South Africa, are often extremely timid in bringing their problems to one’s attention. I have often found also that many of them—and I am not being unkind about this—are not very well educated and that they suffer from a lot of the legislation passed here. They have a sense of grievance and although they could probably have their grievances redressed, they have no idea of where to turn unless they can go to someone whom they feel is not going to throw their case out on political grounds.

Then, Sir, there is another aspect, and that is the impersonality of government everywhere today. The size and the complexity of administration in any country, any industrialized country certainly, totally bewilders the average man. If you ask Mr. X or Mrs. Y, of whatever colour they are, you find that an awful lot of people in the world today, people who are voters, feel that they can make no impact upon the vast bureaucracy that controls their lives. This applies here and in countries overseas. I think this motion is important,because in this regard, as I have already said, at least 50% of the legislation that we deal with in this House, applies not only to White people but to people who have no vote and whose lives are very definitely affected, sometimes in a very drastic way, by the laws which we pass here.

It all applies to them.

Yes, it all applies to them, in fact; the hon. member is perfectly correct. It was very interesting to see that the hon. member for Potgietersrus took such exception to this motion. We are such a rigid society by comparison with so many societies overseas that I wonder what would happen in South Africa if we were to get a Ralph Nader on the job; you know, Sir, he even starts investigating how many debates members of Parliament attend and what their voting averages are, and exposes them in the public newspapers so that the people can see whether they are good public representatives or not. I daresay that if such a fellow appeared here, he would be banned; one never quite knows. The difficulty is also that the average person finds certain things extremely complicated. They may not be very complicated to you or to me, Sir, because we happen to be involved in the administrative process, but to the average person there is something complicated about applying for a pension or a disability grant or applying for a Government housing loan or a telephone, or a passport. Applying for a telephone is probably the worst of all!

A telephone? What is that?

There are many complications regarding citizenship, over residence permits and railway problems. I see the hon. the Minister of Transport sitting here. He does not like us dealing with Railway problems, but we have dozens of these to deal with. They drive me around the bend, because I know nothing about the Railways.

Like the Minister!

No, he knows the Railways well. Let us take the problems connected with race classification. There was an hon. Minister in this House once who paid me the compliment of saying that I caused him more headaches than anybody in this House over that particular problem. I was not concerned with his headaches; I was concerned with the people who had these problems to solve.

Mr. Speaker, when you think of the situation here in South Africa, there are permits required for shows of different kinds, permits for sporting events, permission to enter universities, import permits, export permits. You name it, Sir, and one has to have a licence for it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, when he makes his first appointment, whether he would give me serious consideration, because I have had a good deal of experience in this field. In the meantime, Sir, I very strongly support the motion moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively, especially to the introducer of this motion, the hon. member for Constantia. I was truly impressed by his seriousness and his good intention. He dealt here with a subject which has already been discussed in this House on several occasions. The first discussion of this kind which I could trace, was in 1945, when Mr. Hamilton Russell moved that a sort of scrutinizer or scrutineer should be appointed. The matter was then referred to a Select Committee and the findings of the Select Committee were referred to an enlarged committee in 1949, consisting of the following persons: Mr. Conradie, the then Speaker of the House of Assembly, Mr. Havenga, the then Leader of the House, the late Dr. Malan, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Paul Sauer, Dr. Conradie, Mr. Tom Naude, Mr. Serfontein, Mr. Strauss, the previous Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Higgerty, the then Chief Whip, Mr. Trollip and Mr. Pocock. This committee was of the opinion that the recommendation was impractical and on the motion of Mr. Strauss it was unanimously resolved to leave the matter at that—“to drop the subject sine die”. That was the first motion. Subsequently this subject was again raised by Mr. Plewman and the present member for Durban North, Mr. Mitchell, on two occasions, but the motion lapsed without any discussion.

Sir, a great deal has also been written on this subject. Apart from the books which hon. members quoted here, articles on this subject have also appeared in this country. Advocate Fölscher wrote a very comprehensive and also very instructive article on this subject, which was published in the latest issue of the magazine of the Justice Society—Nuntius. A certain Dr. Barry, who is attached to the Rand Afrikaans University, also wrote on this subject. Then a certain Mr. G. C. Kachelhoffer also wrote about the “ombudsman”. Then of course we have the two Acts of New Zealand and Britain. Sir, from all these writings—and I have examined them quite closely, as well as everything that has been said on this subject—two things are clear to me. We do not know what measure of success was achieved with this system, even in those countries where the idea was accepted, except that we do know that the system worked successfully in Denmark. But, as the hon. member for Potgietersrust pointed out, it was mainly attributable to the holder of the office, Prof. Stephen Hurwitz. He was a wonderful holder of the office, and he disseminated the idea so widely amongst people, that at one stage they spoke of “ombudsmania”, and no longer of “ombudsman”.

Then there is another thing that is very certain and that is that it is a hopeless failure in France. Up to this stage, that is in fact all we have by way of an experiment, namely the experiences of Denmark and France. If we look at the hon. member’s motion it is clear that it has only the usual purport. He asks for the appointment of an “ombudsman” to assist citizens in negotiations with State departments and agencies and to advise Parliament on the protection of the legitimate freedoms of the individual. From the entire discussion which we heard here this afternoon, it is clear that hon. members, especially on the other side, do not see their way clear to dealing with the problems of those people whom they are supposed to help.

Cheap politics.

No, that is the impression one gets. Any person sitting up there on the Gallery, gets that impression. Sir, I do not want to reject the proposal out of hand. The system is in operation in only two countries comparable to us, namely New Zealand and Great Britain, from whose experience we may perhaps learn. The system has been in operation there, in the one case since 1962 and in the other case since 1967. The result that it has not yet been in operation in comparable countries long enough for us to benefit from it in any way. But now the thought has occurred to me: What usually happens in regard to the average citizen in this country? What usually happens in regard to the average citizen in this country is that if he has a problem, he goes either to this provincial councillor or to his local city councillor or to his parliamentary representative, depending on what the problem is. As for the poor man who has no idea of where to go, I doubt whether he would know of an “ombudsman”, if somebody should be appointed as “ombudsman”. His problems are solved there, or the position is properly explained to him there. Members on that side who feel that some of their voters were wronged, would in the first place most probably bombard the Minister concerned with questions. It often happens. In the second place, if they still do not obtain satisfaction in that way they wait for the discussion of his Vote. Then they have ample opportunity. The Minister has to answer for the administration of his department, if the department has allegedly failed in its duty towards the citizen. We see it happen here annually. But that is not all. People also write directly to the Minister concerned or to the head of the department. Now I could not agree with the introducer of this motion when he said “superiors must necessarily support their inferiors”. That has not been my experience.

It takes three months to get a reply.

But one has to investigate the matter carefully. One cannot simply reply extempore. When I now think how many different complaints I have received; the one person has been run over; something else happened to another; or a woman has a problem of one kind or another. Then one replies and one acknowledges receipt of the complaint and one makes inquiries. I do not know everything, nor does the Secretary, but he knows where he can make inquiries. And then the reply is received. But I readily concede that anybody who has bungled, will be inclined to try to cover matters up a little, as is only human. But the matter must eventually come to the Minister, and the official has to try to get past the Secretary. Between those two persons the complainant will get satisfaction. During the last seven years this has been my experience of how the Public Service and Government departments operate. My experience has also been that we have even sent inspectors to investigate cases where a complaint was made about some official or other, and then he did not ask that official for an explanation, but he asked people who should have been aware of what had happened. In this manner I can honestly say that, during this entire period, I know of no cases where a person did not get a proper explanation. There were even cases where a person told that the Minister was sorry that it had happened but that the necessary steps had been taken to prevent something similar from happening. Now, if this is what is done in one department I take it that this is also what is done in other departments. The same applies to provincial councillors. People will complain to them, whether they are members of the Opposition or members of the Government, and it will come to the attention of the Member of the Executive Committee concerned, and eventually satisfaction has to be given. In the case of local authorities it is exactly the same. I know of no other body the members of which are so intent on trying to help their people than the members of a town council. This is simply how it is. Apparently they regard it as the start of their public career and that is why they give so much attention to the peoples’ complaints. It is to be commended. I am not saying this derogatorily. When I take everything into consideration, and the experience which we have had, on the one hand, of the operation of the system of an “ombudsman”, and on the other, according to the little knowledge I have, of the operation of the Public Service and the State administration, and how people can get satisfaction, I cannot see that we should, at this stage, pass on to the possible appointment of a person in a position of this nature. I believe it can wait; I will not say it can wait forever, but at this stage I believe, as does the hon. member who moved the amendment, that no practical purpose would be served by the appointment of an “ombudsman”. Nevertheless, I think that we should keep the idea of an “ombudsman” in mind. I furthermore believe that more information should be gathered as to what is envisaged and the need for an “ombudsman”.

Today I got the impression that some people and especially some people in a particular constituency in the Cape Peninsula simply do not know where something starts and where it ends. Let us assume that the “ombudsman” should apply, on other peoples’ behalf, for a permit of some kind, should apply on their behalf for an old age pension and for all the different matters for which one must apply from time to time. One would then need a Government department bigger than any of the existing departments. I think something like that would be hopelessly impractical. To establish a Government department to perform functions of this nature, would simply mean that funds will have to be spent on a tremendously large scale before it is possible to achieve something for which, to my mind, there is no real need in this country.

The hon. member who introduced this motion, referred to the Coloureds. The fact of the matter is of course that from time to time representations are made to the various Cabinet Ministers by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council on behalf of the Coloured community when it is felt that the community must be helped.

I do not have much more to say on this matter, except that at this juncture I am sincerely convinced that we have not yet reached the stage where we could consider the appointment of an “ombudsman”.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the motion moved by the hon. member for Constantia in that he is not prepared to condemn it out of hand, but that he is retaining an open mind on the matter and that he is prepared to allow events in other countries to take their course so that we may learn, perhaps in a later stage, from their experience and apply that to our own position here in South Africa.

May I say straight out at the beginning to the hon. the Minister that there was no intention on the part of the hon. member for Constantia to say that we were unable to cope with the work which we found loaded upon us. It is quite obvious that we have a great deal of work to do. What our intention is, is to make available to constituents a better and easier and quicker means of access to State departments than some of them may find through members of Parliament, because we are all very much divided as a result of political influences and political outlooks. I must say that I think most of us have a very good working relationship with members of the public who belong to another political party, but there are cases—there is no question about it—where people, because of their political feelings, feel inhibited going to their own member of Parliament and they then approach a member nearby or somebody else in order to go through a political channel. If we could create some kind of a non-political channel which would be available to all people, we might get among the people at large an easier access to the State departments.

We have in our country institutions which are peculiarly South African, but I do not see any reason why we should not be able to adapt the experience of countries overseas to our own particular circumstances. Really and truly all that the motion of the hon. member for Constantia is asking is that we should appoint a judicial commission. In other words, we ask that a judge should have the opportunity to investigate all the factors which operate in other countries and then to come back to make recommendations as to how that could be applied to this Parliament.

It must be borne in mind that the ombudsman is an official of Parliament. He is not attached to State departments. He is under the control of this House, under the control of Mr. Speaker. I think it is a very important point that we should realize that this person is an officer of Parliament. He is impartial in that he is one of the officials of Parliament.

All that we are asking in the motion is that a judge should be given the opportunity to investigate what has happened overseas and to come back to us here in South Africa with the necessary recommendations as to how the overseas systems could be adapted to serve our purpose.

I want to make the point that this appears to be an historical trend which is now setting in. The hon. member for Constantia said it operates in New Zealand, it operates in Great Britain, the state of Saskatchewan in Canada has adopted the procedure, the Commonwealth of Australia has appointed not one but two ombudsmen at a federal level and I believe one of the state governments in Australia has an ombudsman as well.

I want to make the point that throughout the world in all democratic societies we are going through a process of collectivism. The old individualistic tradition that we used to have and which was the basis of our democracy under the pressure of mass populations seems to be fading away and it is significant. The hon. member for Ermelo talked about the “linkse neigings” of people who come here to look at our institutions. It is noticeable that in the countries which are the most socialistic this particular ombudsman system is coming in. In Great Britain we have the position that the Conservative Party as well as the Labour Party is a socialist party. In New Zealand exactly the same obtains. I believe that Saskatchewan is the Canadian state which is ruled by the Socialist Party. In all these places where you have a socialist outlook it is precisely those people who are finding it necessary to introduce a parliamentary officer in order to safeguard the rights of the individual and to give expression to those rights in their connection with the State departments.

I think it is important that we realize how far this system, this idea of socialism, of collectivism, this leftist idea, if one wants to use the word, has proceeded. The Conservative Party in Great Britain today stands on ground which 20 or 30 years ago would have been regarded as being to the left of the centre of the left; it is becoming extremely left. However, today it is accepted as a commonplace that that is the ground of the Conservative Party. In the churches themselves we find that many of them are adopting the radical or activist line which we have associated in the past with socialist ideas, but is becoming accepted as a commonplace.

I think it is important that we, in this country, should realize our position in this matter in that the Government is more and more intruding on the rights of the individual. We are becoming a very heavily governed country. We, the White people, bear a tremendous burden in this respect because of the fact that we are so few. Because we are the educated element in the populations, there is such a large portion of our section of the population which is loaded with the burden of administration. It must appear to those who are non-White as though the White people are governing them and pressing them down simply because we do not have the people among them to share the burden of administration. I believe that a person of this nature would be a vital link to be able to make it appear that certainly there is somebody in Parliament itself and not in the administration or in the Government, but in Parliament that governs the country, who cares and is able to intervene and who can take action on their behalf.

The hon. the Minister said that in Denmark there was a man who became known as an ombusmaniac. If you want a really good advertisement for the post of ombudsman and you want a person who would be accepted immediately and who would need very little publicity in the Press, then the offer which the hon. member for Wynberg made to the hon. the Minister to take the post …

Do you want to get rid of her?

No, I should not like to get rid of her; I should like to keep her. That would be an automatic advertisement for this post and would have a very great impact upon the people at large.

The point that has been made, that only 8,7% of all cases brought to the ombudsman have been settled, is not important, to my mind. What is important is that there is a person to whom people can come; regardless of the percentage of successful complaints, at least it is a gain that 8,7% of those cases have been settled. I think it is a testimony to the importance of this office that 8,7% of the cases could have been settled.

The one problem that I have in my mind, raised by the hon. the Minister, is the relationship between an ombudsman and a member of Parliament. I think in this country we have the advantage that we, as members of Parliament, have a relatively restricted number of voters, because only the Whites vote. In Great Britain, I was informed by a member of Parliament, the constituencies are made up of something like 70 000 voters. In America the number is even greater.

400 000.

That is a lot of people. Our relationship is a far more intimate one. I think that all of us conduct a sort of long love affair with our constituents as we go along … [Interjections.] on a strictly Platonic level. This is a relationship which becomes closer and closer the longer a member is returned to Parliament. However, I think it is perfectly within our capabilities to work out a meaningful relationship with a person who is appointed as an official of this Parliament, to act as a link between the public and ourselves, and it may well result in that person being able to take some of the load off us which we have to bear at the present time.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has not turned this motion down out of hand, that he is prepared to leave the question open in future, so that, as we learn from our experience and as we see the need, we will be able to come back to this House and perhaps find means of adapting this particular office to our own needs.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to this debate, I would like to thank all members of this House who have participated in the debate for the level of the contributions they have made to it and for the serious consideration and clear and thorough thinking that they have given to the motion before the House. I am naturally disappointed that the Government has rejected the proposal that the idea of an ombudsman should be subjected to an investigation by a commission. The motion never suggested that an ombudsman should be appointed. It only suggested that the idea should be investigated. I am disappointed that that could not be accepted by the Government, but I am encouraged by the hon. the Minister’s statement that the idea will be kept open and that developments in other countries will be watched.

In proposing this motion, I made it clear, I think, that I felt the office of an ombudsman could only succeed if it had the full support of both sides of this House. I believe that that is the case. I believe that the public, the individual citizens, must see that the ombudsman is an office that is supported fully by all sides of Parliament. As that is not the case at present, as the Government is opposed to the idea, I am prepared to withdraw my motion, because obviously the office could not succeed. I am prepared to withdraw the motion, if the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who moved an amendment to it, will withdraw his amendment.

Is the hon. member for Potgietersrus also prepared to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Speaker, I shall also withdraw the amendment.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—