Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a statement in regard to matters affecting the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

In statements after the collapse recently of certain broking members of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange I mentioned that an investigation was being carried out and discussions were taking place with the Committee of the Stock Exchange to introduce measures which would protect effectively the interests of the public. I am able to announce now that the investigation has been completed and that agreement has been reached with the Exchange on the steps which are to be taken to achieve the aforementioned object. In this connection I should like to acknowledge the high degree of co-operation extended by the Committee of the Stock Exchange to my department.

The measures now contemplated do not require any amendments to the Stock Exchanges Control Act except for one amendment concerning the appointment of auditors to which I shall refer later. All these measures will be put into effect by means of suitable amendments to the Rules of the Exchange which in terms of the existing legislation should ensure that the business of the Stock Exchange is carried on with due regard to the public interest. The amendments are now being prepared and will be effected at an early date. It is clear therefore that the failure of broking firms which took place and which was caused by fraud cannot be attributed to any basic weakness in the existing legislation. After the commencement of the amending legislation of 1971 consideration has been given, in terms of the Act, to ways and means of safeguarding the interests of investors. The safeguards which were under consideration had to be revised in the light of recent failures of broking firms and have now been brought to finality in the form of the measures now being announced.

The measures agreed on are aimed mainly at those sections of a stockbroker’s business where the danger of losses, except losses arising from normal fluctuations in market prices of securities, to the investing public is the greatest and most likely to occur, namely in respect of—

1. (1) payment by brokers for securities sold;
2. (2) moneys paid by clients to brokers before delivery of securities purchased; and
3. (3) clients’ scrip which is being kept in safe custody by brokers.

Payment by brokers for securities sold:

In compliance with the provisions of the Stock Exchanges Control Act a person who sells securities must normally deliver the securities to the broker within seven business days after they have been sold. To prevent a stockbroker, in the case of a sale, from accepting the relative scrip in negotiable form from a client before the client has been paid for the securities sold, it has been agreed with the Exchange that in future brokers will pay clients on the normal settlement date in terms of the conditions of the sale upon delivery of the securities sold.

Moneys paid by clients for securities purchased:

Section 13 of the Act requires a buyer of securities to pay the full purchase price on delivery of the securities purchased or if delivery is not made within seven business days after the date of the purchase, to pay the full purchase price to the stockbroker within that period. An exception to this requirement is made where a purchase transaction is concluded through the agency of a banking institution or on behalf of a corporate body with an excess of assets over liabilities of at least R1 million. The provisions are designed to ensure stricter financial discipline in the buying and selling of securities and experience has shown that they are necessary for the maintenance of an orderly market. Whilst all indications are that the requirements of section 13 did not contribute materially to losses resulting from the recent failures the Government and the Exchange recognize that the moneys paid by the buyers of securities to stockbrokers before securities are delivered, must be protected. Accordingly it has been agreed with the Exchange that if a stockbroker should become insolvent, the Exchange will, by means of its Guarantee Fund, accept full responsibility for all the liabilities of such stockbroker in respect of moneys which, in terms of section 13, were paid to the stockbroker before the delivery of securities purchased. The Fund will be backed by all broking members who will be responsible in full for the liabilities which the Guarantee Fund may have to meet.

Safe custody scrip:

Consideration has been given to prohibiting stockbrokers from keeping clients’ scrip in safe custody, but it appears that this service in many instances provides for a necessary need. To avoid irregularities in the handling and misappropriation of safe custody scrip it has been agreed that the following requirements should be complied with by brokers who keep scrip in this manner:

1. (i) The written approval of the Committee of the Exchange must be obtained by a stockbroker before he accepts scrip from clients for safe custody.
2. (ii) The arrangements made by a client with a stockbroker for the holding of scrip in safe custody must be recorded in a form of mandate prescribed by the Committee of the Exchange and the mandate must be signed by the client before any scrip is accepted for safe custody from the client.
3. (iii) A stockbroker who holds scrip in safe custody on behalf of a client may not use such scrip for any purpose except to deliver the scrip to the client on whose behalf it is being held or to satisfy a sale made on the instructions of that client. A stockbroker may not borrow safe custody scrip or lend such scrip to another broker or person.
4. (iv) The client must indicate on the mandate whether the safe custody scrip must be registered in his own name or in the name of a nominee company of the stockbroker or in the name of any other person.
5. (v) Every stockbroker approved by the Committee of the Exchange to accept scrip for safe custody must keep a register in which particulars are recorded of each mandate and a ledger of the scrip that is being held from time to time in terms of the mandate. Full details of any change in the scrip which is being held on behalf of a client must be recorded in the ledger.
6. (vi) The auditor of the stockbroker must audit the register twice a year and must furnish the Committee of the Exchange with a report setting forth whether or not investigations carried out, as at the date to which the report relates, indicate that the stockbroker held a signed mandate in respect of all the scrip in safe custody and that the register correctly shows details of all the scrip in safe custody.
7. (vii) Any scrip entrusted to a stockbroker for safe custody must be marked in a manner prescribed by the Committee of the Exchange to establish the identity of the person entitled to the scrip and must be deposited by the stockbroker in a safe custody account with a banking institution. The persons who may make withdrawals of scrip so deposited must be approved by the Committee of the Exchange on an annual basis.
8. (viii) A person approved by the Committee of the Exchange to make withdrawals of scrip from the safe custody scrip account with a banking institution may not be authorized to sign cheques on behalf of the stockbroker concerned or on behalf of the nominee company of the stockbroker. This prohibition does not apply to a partner of the stockbroker who holds the safe custody scrip.
9. (ix) A transfer deed may not be attached to scrip held in safe custody until such scrip is prepared by the stockbroker for sale on behalf of the client or for delivery to the client. Transfer deeds signed by clients and sent to or retained by stockbrokers in respect of safe custody scrip must contain details of the securities to which they relate. Such deeds must be completed before they are signed by the owner of the scrip in safe custody. A stockbroker may not accept a blank transfer deed in respect of safe custody scrip.
10. (x) Every stockbroker who holds safe custody scrip must balance the scrip monthly with the safe custody ledger and must satisfy the Committee of the Exchange that it has been done.
11. (xi) The auditor of a stockbroker who has been approved by the Committee of the Exchange to hold scrip in safe custody must do a complete scrip audit and verification to clients four times a year.
12. (xii) A stockbroker approved by the Committee to hold scrip in safe custody shall (if insurance cover can be obtained at a reasonable premium) insure the clients on whose behalf such scrip is held against losses resulting from the negligence, dishonesty or fraud of a partner or any person in the employ of such stockbroker. The Registrar of Financial Institutions must be satisfied on an annual basis that the amount of the insurance cover is reasonable.
13. (xiii) A stockbroker who holds scrip in safe custody must satisfy the Committee of the Exchange on an annual basis, except in those instances where a specific requirement is necessary at shorter intervals, that he complies with all the aforementioned conditions.

Apart from the guarantee in respect of moneys which buyers of securities pay to brokers in accordance with section 13 of the Act, it is considered necessary that the public be afforded greater protection than at present in respect of other claims which may arise in the event of the insolvency of a broker. After consultation with the Exchange it has been decided that the Guarantee Fund will accept full responsibility to an amount of R1 million, in any one failure, for such other claims which may arise from the stockbroking business (including losses which arise from the keeping of scrip in safe custody) of a stockbroker and which, in the case of insolvency, cannot be met from the assets of the stockbroker.

Attention has also been given to methods of strengthening the Guarantee Fund of the Stock Exchange. Direct contributions by members of the Exchange themselves have already been increased considerably and members have also accepted the responsibility to meet Special Calls should this be necessary to enable the Fund to meet its liabilities. By these means alone the fund cannot, however, be strengthened adequately within a reasonable period of time. It has accordingly been decided that by means of an increase in brokerage the Exchange will impose a special levy of 0.1% on all purchases and sales to be credited entirely to the fund which is maintained for the protection of the buyers and sellers of securities. It is the intention to review the position when the fund reaches an amount of R10 million.

Apart from the aforegoing measures, attention is still being given to further strengthening of the Exchange’s control over stockbrokers, the possible introduction of a system whereby all moneys and scrip of the public will be handled by the Exchange itself on behalf of brokers, and the application of more effective auditing procedures.

The Stock Exchanges Control Act requires one amendment and that is to make the appointment of an auditor of a stockbroker subject to the approval of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. In the case of financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies, etc., it is already a standing practice that the appointment of an auditor must be approved by the registrar and in the light of the circumstances which came to notice recently it is considered advisable to extend this practice to the appointment of brokers’ auditors. This amendment will be included in a Bill to be introduced still during the present session.

The measures for the safeguarding of investors’ interests now being introduced should afford the investing public maximum protection and at the same time instill confidence in the Exchange. However, the investor cannot rely on legislation and control measures alone to protect him from loss. Investors themselves have a responsibility to ensure that arrangements which they make in connection with their share transactions afford them adequate protection.

The hon. member for Green Point gave notice of an amendment to clause 33 as well as to clauses 34 and 52. I just want to say that these three amendments have, of course, a connection with one another, and for the purposes of my reaction to these amendments I hope, Sir, that you will allow me to refer briefly first to clause 32 and then to clause 33 and to those which follow.

Clause 32 provides in the first instance that a company must have a lawful purpose and then comes clause 33, in respect of which notice has been given of amendment, and in subsection (1) it is provided that there must be a main object for the company together with other objects ancillary thereto. In subsection (2) it is provided that if the main business carried on at any time by a company referred to in subsection (1) falls within the capacity of the company by virtue only of an object ancillary to the main object stated in its memorandum, such main business shall be deemed to be the main object of that company for the purposes of the said subsection. If, therefore, the main business of the company changes, the new main business of the company is then deemed to be the main object of such a company. Subsection (3) of clause 33 reads as follows—

I think that this subsection is self-explanatory and clear.

Notice has also been given that the hon. member intends moving an amendment to clause 34 and also to clause 52. These clauses are connected with the matter we are discussing at present. The content of the hon. member’s amendment is that the company, when it is registered, must have unlimited objects. Therefore, it must in fact be able to undertake anything which a company can possibly undertake. Therefore, the company must not be limited in the business which it may carry on by its memorandum. I think this, in a nutshell, is what the hon. member’s amendments amount to.

I know that in some quarters, including, inter alia one of the members of the commission who was an advocate of this idea, there is a strong feeling that this should be the case. I think that the fact that a very important amendment is now being effected in the legislation in regard to the ultra vires rule concerning third parties who enter into transactions with a company which are perhaps not provided for in the memorandum of association, has perhaps been as important factor giving rise to this line of thought advocated by the hon. member. I do not believe that it would be good or desirable for us to do this at this stage. I readily acknowledge that there are reasonably sound arguments for such a step but I do think that it is important, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, that there should always be a connection, as far as the objects of a company are concerned, between the shareholders, the directors and the company itself. I should like to mention an example in order to illustrate to the hon. member why it is so important that that connection in respect of the objects of a company should continue to exist, and in particular why it is so important that there should be a main object. Supposing I am interested in obtaining shares in a certain company because that company carries on a specific business. I am interested in that company because there are people at the head of that company whom I know to be particularly capable in carrying on that particular business which is set down in its memorandum of association as the main object of that company and which is in fact practised as such by that company. In the course of time, however, this company may adopt another business as its main business, a business in a totally different field and in regard to which the people in whom I as a shareholder had confidence, in my opinion lack the necessary knowhow or acumen. This new business, which now becomes the main business of the company, must now be deemed to be the main object of that company. In such a case I as shareholder may object. I may ask to be informed of what is happening. I can therefore make contact with the company and remain in touch. The commission also put it very clearly in that section of the report which I have quoted to the House—that is another very important factor to which consideration must be given—that such a company had its main objects and its ancillary objects. If then it should at any time want to exceed the limits of those objects, it was again necessary for it to get in touch with its shareholders, to obtain a decision from its shareholders which would empower it to change its memorandum of association. In this respect I think that it is important that that contact and the contact between the shareholders, the directors and the company should continue to exist. I want to indicate to the hon. member that it is of prime importance that even the name of the company should have a connection with its main objects and that it should have a connection through its main objects with its main business. I have already explained to hon. members that there is a connection between the main business and the main object. If the main business changes, the new main business must be deemed to be the main object of a company. Obviously this must be in the memorandum of association. The name, too, must indicate more or less what the business of that company is. Suppose a company with the name of, say, “Miller Cafés (Pty.) Ltd.” abandons the café business and goes into maize farming. In such a case the Registrar of Companies may approach the company in terms of the provisions of clause 45(3) and tell it that the business is now something quite different and that it has not the slightest connection with the name of the business. Then the Registrar may tell him that the name of his company is deemed to be an undesirable name and that he is consequently ordered to change that name. If hon. members study clause 45(3) they will see that provision is made for this step. In the light of all the circumstances I have mentioned, I am of the opinion that it is undesirable to introduce this drastic change proposed by the hon. member. Unfortunately I am not prepared to accept it. In regard to the objects and the business of the company, I should like the connection between the shareholders and the directors and companies to continue to exist.

Mr. Chairman, I followed the argument of the hon. the Minister completely and I agree with him that the essential relationship between the directors, the shareholders and the company itself is an important one. To my way of thinking the provisions of this clause is run contrary to the growing business practice of today and that is to provide for diversification of activities within a particular company. If a company is to be bound to a main object and if its business must be in relation to its main object and the company wishes to diversify in any respect whatsoever, there are obligations that they should notify the shareholders accordingly. I do not follow that that is essential and I do not follow it as a safeguard, because if a company registers itself and gives its main object as being the manufacturing of farm implements it provides in its memoranda that it can trade as a wholesaler or retailer and that it can own and develop property. There must be a time when there is a shift of emphasis within that company because of economic conditions when one of those properly authorized and legitimate activities may for a short period cover the main turnover within that company, where the basis of turnover is regarded as its main business. Does that then mean that this company must have a complete change of approach or a change of presentation to the public because there is a temporary excess of activity in one direction over what was originally stated to be the main business of the company? I do not think that that is what is necessary and I do not think that this clause with all its implications and complications is justified in the circumstances or for reasons the hon. the Minister has elaborated.

I want to go further. He has referred to clause 45(3), but where is the deception? The deception where this arises is, I imagine, only deception by name. It must be a very rare occurrence in small companies that one activity is given in the name and that it goes over to a new activity. That is the only case where I can think you are going to have this deception arising because of the activities of a company in relation to its name. One sees and hears of many companies, for example over the radio in the programme “The Business Scene” one may hear a dissertation on the activities of a company like Rand-Barlow. What is the main business of a company of that sort? What is the main business of a company like Rand-Barlow? Its name indicates nothing and its diversifications are so wide that one wonders what their main business is. I think that is one of the instances. I can think of other companies, where the main business can only be described as to make profits. Where does that particular company fit in with the provisions of the particular clause we have before us? I appreciate the fact that since the hon. the Minister has indicated that he cannot accept this amendment and that he will not accept the deletion of this clause and substitute it by on-other one, that I can go no further. I take this clause to fall within what we have discussed already in regard to the general amendments, namely that there will be matters that will be referred to this advisory committee. My whole purpose in drafting the amendments to clauses 33, 34 and 52 is to eliminate what I believe is an unnecessary complication in this particular Bill. I say “unnecessary” again, because no company lives on one business alone. It might have five different avenues of activity and any one of those five can in any year be the most profitable one and have the largest turnover within that group. One cannot switch the main business of a company from one year to another; this would complicate matters. Is the main object of a business the mere expression of an intention? Because of the fortunes of trade and the fortunes of business, a company’s ancillary activity may become more profitable and the law will then be able to step in and say: That is now your main business. It is not a decision of the directors, but maybe because of business and trade conditions. For these reasons I will not carry the matter any further. I merely wanted to record the reasons why I moved the amendments.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, as regards this clause I have given notice of the following amendment—

1. 34. (1) Subject to any limitations imposed by this Act, and to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, every existing company shall have plenary powers to enable it to realize any of its objects, including the common powers stated in Schedule 2 to this Act.
2. (2) A company may in its memorandum in respect of its capacity—

1. (a) exclude or qualify any specified objects or powers, including the common powers stated in Schedule 2 to this Act; or
2. (b) exclude all objects and powers, other than those specifically mentioned and objects ancillary to any such specifically mentioned objects.

I have suggested this as an amendment because I believe that if this clause were adopted, it would first of all clarify the position as to what the powers of the company are, i.e. that it will have full plenary powers including those stated in Schedule 2. Secondly, the company could, if it so wished, exclude or qualify any of the objects or powers, including the common powers stated in Schedule 2. Also, the company could establish itself for one specific object only with the powers that are necessary to achieve that particular object. I believe that this would simplify matters and would certainly simplify understanding of the law in this form.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, it really arises from the amendment the hon. member wished to move on the previous clause. Since the previous amendment could not be accepted, I could not possibly have accepted this one either. If I may just read the first subsection of the amendment—

Here there is reference to “plenary powers”. This corresponds with the amendment the hon. member wished to move on clause 33 in terms of which he wanted to grant a company “plenary powers”. It went on to provide for something for which provision already existed in the existing clause 34, namely that a company has all the powers stated in its memorandum of association or in accordance with its objects, with the exception of those powers which it specifically excludes. In a memorandum of association, as provision is being made for it now, only the following need be said: A company accepts the powers as set out in Schedule 2; its main object is such and such and in accordance with that it accepts the objects as set out in Schedule 2. Then the memorandum of association may go on to say: With the exception of the following objects mentioned in Schedule 2; and then it may state the exceptions in its memorandum of association. Clause 34, as it reads in the Bill, provides for the exclusion of those objects which a company expressly wants to exclude from its memorandum of association. Therefore I really cannot see any problem. I think that clause 34, in conjunction with clause 33, is very sound and concise. I think we should leave it at that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise one point. This clause refers to private companies as well as public companies and I want merely to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of whether this proviso is really necessary for private companies. Where a company is formed for the purpose of adopting a contract which is being entered into by a person who is stated to be an agent or a trustee for the company to be formed, is this proviso necessary so far as private companies are concerned? I merely point this out as a suggestion to be considered by the hon. the Minister, because I think that this requires unnecessary labour and does lead to complications in respect of subsequent deed office transactions and so on, which can prove costly in the event of a small property-owning company that is formed to adopt a contract beforehand.

I would rather go into this matter and investigate it. I shall do something about it if it is desirable to carry the idea into effect.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is a provision which has been taken over from the existing section 86bis of the Companies Act controlling the question of money lending by one company to another within its group. According to the clause as it stands, no part of the funds of a company shall be employed in loans to a company which is its controlling company—i.e. from a subsidiary to a controlling company—or to a co-subsidiary of the same controlling company, unless all the members consent. I have suggested that there is another form of company that I think should be included here, namely a company which is controlled by any director or directors of the lending company. As this stands, there is no legal hindrance to a loan being made by a public company to a private company which is in fact a loan for the benefit of directors who control that private company. For the sake of clarity I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, not only do I think that this amendment is desirable, I also think that it is essential. I am therefore prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

With this amendment I wish to substitute the word “include” for the word “is” in line 46. Clause 38 is virtually a repetition of section 86bis whereby a company cannot provide its own moneys for the purchase of its shares. But although the clause follows to a large extent section 86bis of the Act, it does make a provision which changes in effect what is contained presently in section 86bis. Section 86bis(2)(a) reads—

1. (a) where the lending of money is part of the ordinary business of a company, the lending of money by the company in the ordinary course of its business;

The relevant subsection in the Bill reads—

1. (a) The lending of money in the ordinary course of its business by a company whose main business is the lending of money.

We may have some confusion here as to what is actually the main business of a company. It is quite unusual to have a company whose main business is solely the lending of money. You will mostly find that the main object of financial institutions includes the lending of money. I am thinking of banks and insurance companies, more particularly of banks who carry on banking business while only part of its business is the lending of money. Its main business includes that of the lending of money. I believe that it would be unwise to make the clause as restrictive as it is. I think to a great extent it can cut across normal legitimate business. In banking many people have arrangements for overdrafts for all sorts of purposes such as for the financing of their businesses, the purchase of goods and all things of that nature. A person might for instance want to acquire shares in that particular banking company. He does not, however, come to the bank to borrow money for that specific purpose. He makes use of facilities already provided for general purposes. Instead of making use of the overdraft, say for paying an account, it makes use of its own current funds in other accounts, and finds itself with a certain amount of leeway in its overdraft facilities. I think this provision is a little too restrictive. I think we should remain where we were with the provisions under the existing Act. If it is a blatant borrowing of money from a company which lends money then I say that the restriction should be provided as presently existent. In so far as main objectives are concerned this provision in the Bill will make it somewhat more difficult and more restrictive. Even the Anglo American Corporation lends money. The National Board of Executors, which is a very big company in the country, lends money; it lends money to people in respect of participation bonds; it advances money in connection with rentals and payments made by companies for the occupation of buildings. There are many facets to some of these large companies which include the provision of such money facilities. This clause, as it stands, can become a hindrance in this respect. It will be rather like placing a halter on a horse and tying it to its foot; it will cause stumbling in certain important aspects relating to the smooth running of a company’s business, and as the commission itself rightly says, the main objective of the Bill must be to ensure the smooth running of business in the normal course of events. While we do not criticize the provisions of clause 38(1), we do criticize those of 38(2)(a) because we believe that this change makes the measure very much more restrictive and goes beyond what was intended. I therefore would earnestly like to commend to the Minister the amendment I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose this question to the hon. the Minister: What is the main purpose of a merchant banker? I refer to such bodies as Union Acceptances, Sentak or any of the merchant bankers he would care to nominate. What is their main business? You can get credit from them; here you have the lending of money. You can go to them and ask them to float your company, and this they do often; here we have underwriting. The local authorities go to them in order to raise funds, and these banks raise the money for them. But what is their main purpose? I would imagine that the hon. the Minister would contemplate, in terms of this clause, that the main business of those companies is the lending of money, but it very well may not be. Their main business might be the raising of money instead of the lending of money. That is, however, the type of institution which I think is contemplated in this clause. Therefore I think we would have greater clarity if the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes were accepted.

Mr. Chairman, we would probably have more clarity but then we might as well throw the clause overboard. Precious little of the provision would remain. This particular clause provides in the first instance that money may not be lent by a a company to a subsidiary company for the purpose of purchasing shares in the company lending the money. Subsection (2) then continues—

Now the hon. member is suggesting that this clause should be amended in such a way as to include the lending of money as one of a company’s main businesses. In other words, it must be included with a large number of other businesses and as long as the company only lends money, it must also be capable of lending it for the purpose of purchasing shares in that company. The commission expressed itself as follows in regard to this matter (translation)—

This is what I have just said. The commission went on to say (translation)—

I think that we should rather continue upholding this standpoint adopted by the commission. I am aware of the fact that it may cause a little hardship here and there, but at the same time hon. members will agree with me that it could create a very undesirable position if the company were to be allowed, and then were to abuse this position, to borrow money from a company for others to buy shares in that company. This would be an undesirable state of affairs and it could give rise to substantial abuse. That is why I think that we should restrict this to a minimum, and if we were to use the word “include” instead of “is”, we would be leaving the door wide open for this kind of irregularity which could possibly occur. I therefore feel that we should rather not accept this amendment.

Sir, does the hon. the Minister not agree that the provision in the Act as it stands at the moment has not led to any serious contraventions of the spirit of this particular clause? It says there, “Where the lending of money is part of the ordinary business” and here we say in our amendments “whose main business includes the lending of money”. It is virtually the same thing, but I do not know that section 86bis has led to any contraventions of such a serious nature that this stricture is required. What does the hon. the Minister feel about that? He is concerned about possible contraventions, and there I agree with him.

I think that the section in the existing Act is in actual fact null and void. Under the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the commission investigated this matter so thoroughly, I think that we should rather not deviate from this recommendation by the commission.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer once again to this clause which I mentioned in the Second Reading debate. This clause prevents a subsidiary from holding shares in its holding company except when such a situation exists on the 1st January, 1974. I raised the question with the hon. the Minister as to what would happen if a subsidiary took over a company which became its holding company. It would in effect have to get rid of its shares in that company before it could do the take-over; it cannot even dispose of them immediately, and all I am asking the hon. the Minister is whether this matter will be brought to the notice of the standing advisory committee because there is a real practical problem here which I think should be dealt with by this Committee.

Sir, I think I made it clear in the Second Reading debate that where such a company is taken over by another company, it means that this subsidiary, which has now been taken over, then has to sell its shares in the holding company. The hon. member’s problem is how this can be brought about in practice. I have tried to make it clear that I do not think it can be expected to take place before the so-called take-over, but I think it should take place within a reasonable period after the take-over. I think it would be the ruling of the court that such disposal of assets should take place within a reasonable period. But I must say that practical problems may result from this, which may lead to lawsuits, and I think that this is a matter which may be considered by the advisory committee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 52:

Sir, a proposed amendment to this clause appears on the Order Paper but, as has been indicated, that amendment would flow from the adoption of the amendments to clauses 33 and 34. As these were not adopted I do not therefore intend formally to move the amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53:

Mr. Chairman, there is merely a technical mistake here in the Bill. I think the word “contain” is in the wrong place, and I therefore simply move the amendment standing in my name—

I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name—

I think this would introduce clarity. There seems to be a contradiction in terms, so the changing of the words “and any” to “save and except that” makes the situation clear.

I agree and I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I have no objection to that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is the clause which deals with the articles of association. At the present moment it would seem that one cannot consolidate and have notarially certified the articles of a company or any changes in the articles of a company unless parts of those articles are portion of Table A or portion of Table B. This is a very valuable proviso. It is one of the—I was going to say—really intelligent clauses of the Bill, but it is a clause which recognizes the practical problems in dealing with the Companies Act. If this amendment is accepted, any articles of association of a company, which have been amended from time to time by resolution, will be able to be consolidated and notarially certified, and those articles will then be the articles of the company.

I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown, but then there are two further amendments that I now move—

These are merely consequential on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown, which I accept.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister has already said that he will have the standing committee go into this particular question of insurance companies and their having to disclose their share premium. I think the hon. the Minister said so during the Second Reading. But there is one other aspect in clause 76, and that is the position of the share premium account where assets are acquired by the issue of shares of a company and no consideration is recorded. I raise this matter simply in order to ask the hon. the Minister to see that this will be dealt with by the standing advisory committee because of the situation which might arise when part of the consideration is shares and part of the consideration is cash. There does not seem to be any provision in the Bill to deal with that situation, nor is there anything in the Bill which indicates how the valuation is required to be made. I think these two matters should have the consideration of the committee.

The hon. member’s amendment should rather be referred to the advisory committee, as was in fact indicated by him. I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the clause, as it appears in the Bill as clause 76, also appears in the existing section 86quat(1). In other words, it has not been changed since the previous legislation. The misgivings that the hon. member has, also in respect of provision concerning the consideration for shares which he raised, could be profitably considered by the advisory committee. In fact, I think the problems that are raised here in the discussions on the various clauses could all be profitably considered by the advisory committee.

I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 134:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

line 58, after “stockbroker”, to add “or person”.

This is a consequential amendment which follows on the amendment of the Stock Exchange Act of 1947, which was introduced in 1971 by Act 86, 1971. A similar amendment will be proposed during this session in respect of the Securities Transfer Act, 1965.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 135:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

During this session it will be proposed to amend the Securities’ Transfer Act, 1965, in order to validate the position in respect of forms which are or have been in use at any time. Since the Securities’ Transfer Act is repealed by the Companies Act, this amendment in clause 135 now becomes necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 178:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I discussed with the hon. the Minister the question of the penalties in respect of fees that are payable for the lodging of various documents and also in respect of the annual payments. The hon. the Minister referred me to the main report of the commission and read to me what the commission said. I accept that the commission talked about recommending a sharp increase in additional fees because of “a large number of contraventions of lesser importance in respect of which enforcement will remain unsatisfactory (unless they are coupled with more serious offences in any prosecution)”. The commission further stated—

I do feel in principle that the Bill goes much too far, because the Bill itself now provides penalties to the extent of five times as much as the original fee or duty after a short period of four months. I do feel that, although an additional burden is thrown on the shoulders of the Registrar of Companies in ensuring that these documents and other returns are supplied timeously, some amelioration of the penalties could still have the desired effect. In any event, should the Registrar find that the lessening of the burden of the penalties for which the Bill provides at present, does not have the desired effect, there will always be an opportunity to amend the legislation. Alternatively penalties could be prescribed by way of regulation in order to facilitate the imposition of higher penalties. I think in principle that a provision in terms of which a person, should he be in arrear for four months, could be penalized to the extent of five times the prescribed amount, is far in excess of anything we have ever yet, to my knowledge, provided for in any of our laws in this country. The period is short and the penalty is excessive. The example which the commission gives is a fee of R1. Under present conditions that would warrant a penalty of only R3, which would not be a deterrent. I think, however, that the guide should not be the minimum amount that might be involved in respect of a contravention of the prescribed period. I think we should rather look at the principle which is involved in the extent of the penalty which is prescribed. In the case of the annual duty fee it would involve, as a result of the new fee of R50, a penalty of R250 after four months. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (f) Exceeding twelve months: Three times the prescribed fee or annual duty unpaid.

The principle of this amendment is that we do not go to this excess and that, in fact, the highest amount that will be prescribed, in the event of any delay exceeding twelve months, will be calculated as follows: the particular duty or fee together with three times that amount as a penalty. We are not dealing here with the average man in the street; we are dealing mainly with professional people—accountants and auditors, secretaries of companies, etc. We are dealing with public officers whose work is to a large extent carried out by the professional side, namely the accounting and auditing side. In view of that I think we should accede to what is presently suggested in order to indicate the purpose that is intended by this clause. The purpose is to lessen the amount of contravention and virtually to call upon the profession to try to carry out what is laid down in the legislation. Clause 178 provides that the additional fee after one month will be half the prescribed fee or duty unpaid. It prescribes furthermore that the additional fee for two months would be an equal amount, in the case of three months, it would be twice the prescribed fee and in the case of four months it would be three times the prescribed fee; if the period exceeds four months it will be five times the prescribed fee. I do really think in all sincerity that if we accepted the principle as set out in this clause, we would set a dangerous principle for the future in regard to any penalties in respect of contraventions which involve the untimely payment of duties and fees. Such duties and fees are payable under numerous statutes that we have on our Statute Book. I therefore very earnestly ask the hon. the Minister to take into account the suggestions that have been made. I think that we go quite far enough in the amendment because we suggest that after one month the additional fee should be one quarter of the prescribed fee, after two months it should be one half of the prescribed fee, after three months the additional fee should be an equal amount, after four months, one and a half times the prescribed fee, after more than four months but less than a year, it should be twice the amount and after more than a year it should be three times the prescribed fee. I think that that is a fair approach and that that immediately indicates the purpose and the intention of the statute and is sufficient in itself to be a reproof to the accounting profession, which is after all, an honourable and well-established profession. It is mainly in respect of their activities that these penalties will come into play.

Mr. Chairman, you know that a certain landlord in Johannesburg is getting into disrepute because he is refusing to accept rent when it is paid a day late and then is applying for ejection of the tenants. The hon. member for Jeppes has not gone far enough because we are not dealing with a month. If you lodge a document one day late you are subject to a penalty of 50%. That is worse than a landlord. If you are one day late in lodging your annual return, or a host of other documents, some of them important and others not, the Government imposes a 50% penalty on you. I really think that this is outrageous. There is another very important factor. Usually when you do not pay your rent in the case of a lease, for example, action can only be taken provided you do not pay within seven days after notification. Nothing is said about notification here. The Registrar of Companies is not going to say to Mr. X that he has not lodged his documents and that he has not paid his fee and that steps will consequently be taken against him. He is not given notice in any way whatsoever. It is just “bang”! If you do not do it on Monday but on Tuesday you will have to pay a 50% penalty. Then it works up to five times as much after a period exceeding four months. I think the hon. Minister will be well advised to consider the amendment moved by my hon. colleague.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I quoted from the report of the commission concerning what they had to say on this matter. The commission felt that stronger action should be taken in regard to the late submission of documents. I think it is also desirable, for the purposes of the activities of the Registrar of Companies, for the people who deal with the documents of companies to be disciplined in respect of the submission of these documents. It goes without saying that the late submission of documents causes some disruption and extra work in the office of the Registrar of Companies. For that reason the commission itself felt that these penalties should be substantially be increased. Hon. members need not be so upset, however, because for the great majority of these documents that are lodged at the office of the Registrar of Companies, the lodging fee is R2.

Now, if the lodging fee is R2, then the penalty, calculated according to these scales as they have been laid down here, is not very high. It is true that the annual duty has been increased in the meantime. This has not been done in all cases, but the minimum annual duty has been increased from R10 to R50. In other words, all companies have now to pay an annual duty of at least R50, while many of them used to pay only R10. In the payment of this annual duty these penalties will also be applicable, of course, and it is in regard to the payment of this annual duty that the penalties are substantial. But I honestly think that it is such a matter of routine in any company that there is no reason for the documents to be submitted late. In fact, it can be paid at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period, after all. In the light of these circumstances I feel that in ordinary circumstances and in respect of ordinary documents for which the amount may be only R2 or R3, for there is a fee in respect of all documents that are lodged, it will make no material difference, because the penalty will not be very high in any case. I do think, in view of the fact that the annual duty has now been increased so sharply, that the matter concerning the annual duty may be one that we can refer to the advisory committee, because the penalty in this case may in fact be substantial, and that an amendment may be introduced. After all, it is not a matter that will have a serious prejudicial effect right away. In the ordinary course of events companies may, after all, be expected to lodge their documents in time. Then it would be better for the advisory committee to go into the matter in respect of the annual duty and to see whether we can do something about this matter, perhaps dealing with it separately.

Mr. Chairman. I do not think the answer given by the hon. the Minister is quite satisfactory. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will not go a little further. The Secretary for Customs and Excise has a discretionary power in certain cases. For example, if an immigrant to South Africa imports a motor-car from Germany, it has to be six months old before it can be imported into South Africa free of duty. There are cases that arise—I had one just the other day, where there was a difference of three days—where the Secretary for the department can use his discretion. He looks at the facts surrounding a case and he then decides whether duty should be paid or not. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not put to the advisory committee as well that, in addition to the basic licence, the Secretary should have a discretion to reduce these fines where he thinks reduction is warranted. Occasions do arise where this might be advisable. A man may be away from office, ill, and he cannot pay a duty. I would be more than happy if the Secretary could have the discretion to reduce these fines if he thinks it is warranted.

Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to add to what the hon. the Minister has said is that I disagree with the principle that is contained in the Bill as regards the increase of 50%. especially in regard to the special annual duty which the hon. the Minister himself admitted. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there are certain fees either in the form of licences or otherwise which are payable to the State, where the penalty cannot exceed the actual amount of the duty or fee. Regarding the principle of an increase of five times as much in such a short period. I may say that I have been occupied with State affairs for some years instead of knowing more of the detailed running of a legal office, but I am sure there are very few, if any, statutes in this country in which such heavy penalties are provided. If the hon. the Minister feels, and I think that he quite correctly does feel this, that the standing advisory committee should consider the question of “five times” then I feel that that change should be made now. Whether the hon. the Minister makes it now, or perhaps in the Other Place in due course, does not matter. I do think that it is an unfortunate principle to introduce. On the face of it, it is an excessive form of penalty. Without overstating the case, I want to say once again that one must remember that one is dealing mainly with the professional man, although not only he but also his clients will be hit. So it could lead to even greater unpleasantness. I do feel in all sincerity that a figure which is five times as high is not a sound principle to have in this kind of law.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown has raised a new point here in respect of the discretion of the Registrar. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to subsection (2) of the same clause. I must in fairness admit that the Registrar and I have had some discussions on this clause, because it is not quite clear to me what the clause means. I should like to have the advisory committee investigate the clause concerned and ascertain for us exactly what the powers of the Registrar are under this clause. I shall just read subsection (2)—

In other words, the Registrar may decide as to the time when the document has to be lodged or the money has to be paid. I agree with the hon. member and I assume that the Registrar really cannot go outside the provisions of the Bill. In other words, he has to stay within its provisions. On the other hand, the hon. member also knows that many of these documents are transmitted by post and received by post I think that the Registrar will exercise some discretion in this regard in terms of this clause, but I do not think that he has anything like unlimited discretion here. On the other hand, there is also the danger that if the Registrar is left too much discretion, he will be inundated with problems and requests in case of late payment and so on. Nevertheless I feel that we had better leave the fees as they are. I should like to have the annual duty investigated by the advisory committee and I also feel that we should have greater clarity concerning subsection (2).

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 179:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

My amendment is in a sense purely a formal amendment. I think that if the word “shall” were inserted after “prescribed” it would make better reading, namely—

If the hon. member would read the Afrikaans, he would see that it is quite clear that this word must be inserted. Actually it was merely an error, and I consequently accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 181:

Mr. Chairman, clause 181 deals with the question of requisitions of meetings. I have here a letter from the National Fund Investment Minority Shareholders’ Association in which they say, among other things, the following—

This is comparable to clause 181(1). The letter continues—

And therefore also in clause 181—

Because they said they took senior counsel’s opinion as to whether in terms of the existing section 61 they were entitled to hold a meeting—

The question that arises, Mr. Chairman, is whether there is anything in the existing section 161 or in clause 181 which can cause a situation such as this. A hundred shareholders requisitioned a meeting, but this company was advised that it was not necessary for such a meeting to be held. I bring this to the notice of the hon. the Minister because he may perhaps have some information which will clarify the position. They do say this in their letter as well—

I do not think that the two things are quite parallel, but I just want to get clarity namely that what appears in clause 181 is factually in clause 181.

There is no amendment in clause 181 as compared with section 61. Section 61 requires members to hold one-twentieth of the capital. So does clause 181. As I see it, this is a provision which provides for certain relationships between the shareholders and the directors. In other words, the shareholders may ask for given things under given circumstances. If there are hundred members of a company who have requisitioned a meeting or something of that nature, and the directors fail to comply with this request, and if the request was in fact addressed to the directors within the purview of the provisions of this Act, it is the duty of the shareholders to go either to the police or to the court. My information is to the effect that when the Registrar’s office was approached in connection with their request to the directors of the company concerned, and the directors of the company failed to comply with it, they were advised by the office of the Registrar to consider lodging a complaint with the Police in terms of the Act, or, alternatively, to go to court. I cannot see how the Registrar could do more than that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 186:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Despite the hon. the Minister’s reply during the Second Reading debate I still believe that 30 days is a more adequate period of time to give notice of a general meeting of a company than 21 days. Shares are being held right throughout the country today, in country districts, far from the registered office of a company. By the time a notice reaches some of our platteland towns and villages, a week or ten days could have elapsed. There is of course no airmail. By the time a person wants to send a proxy or make arrangements to go to a meeting, 21 days may in many cases be inadequate. I do not think anything will be lost by extending the period from 21 days to 30 days. I think there would be greater protection for the shareholders.

Mr. Chairman, we discussed this matter during the Second Reading as well. My comment then was that this provision fixing the period at 21 days was contained in the existing Act and had been applicable since the Companies Act came into operation. Under the circumstances it would appear to me that with the more modern communication media and the speedier delivery of postal articles, and also as a result of transport to the various outlying districts of the country, if a period of 21 days has always been sufficient in the past, it should be more than sufficient now. I think the hon. member will agree with me that there is another aspect to the matter as well. We are to a large extent trying to prevent irregularities with this Bill. We are to a large extent protecting the interests of shareholders. But in the meantime I believe that we surely should not inconvenience companies by complicating their operations unduly. It goes without saying that the longer the period you make obligatory for the companies, as far as notification for whatever purpose is concerned, the more difficult things will be for the companies. Hon. members will know from experience how one makes preparations for a particular meeting and then, when one is ready to hold the meeting, one still has to give notice. Sometimes it happens that one would like to hold the meeting at an earlier date than is possible in terms of the period in respect of which one is obliged to give notice. Really, I am not wedded to this period of 21 days, but I believe that in the circumstances the hon. member will agree with me that 21 days is surely a fair and reasonable period. If one goes on holiday and stays away for 30 days, one will not receive the notice before one gets back in any case. So in the circumstances I believe that a period of 21 days really is adequate.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown. I think the hon. the Minister will realize that there is now a far wider spread of persons interested in share investments and investments in companies than there used to be 15 and even 10 years ago. One finds that the man who in the past used to have purely local interests in the smaller villages in South Africa, now takes an interest in the Stock Exchange. Such persons participate in activities such as share dealing, and there is accordingly a far greater number of them who have become concerned with notices of general meetings.

A further point is that this additional period which has been asked for, relates to special resolutions, and special resolutions vitally affect the affairs of a company. I think there should be no question that shareholders should be given sufficient notice of what is going to take place at a meeting where a special resolution is to be dealt with. In any event, the hon. the Minister will know that there is a further delay in regard to special resolutions, in that they must now be registered at the companies office before they take effect. I cannot see that the additional week which is asked for here will be really material to the company, bearing in mind the time taken from the date of giving notice to the date when the special resolution is registered and takes effect. That extra week will, however, make a considerable difference as far as shareholders are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond to what has just been said by the hon. member for Green Point. I personally think that it is actually more of a material problem to the companies today to get the certificates from the auditors in time. Usually they have to receive them by the end of July so that they may send out their statements to their shareholders in time, in the first week of August, in order that the annual meeting may take place three weeks later, before the end of August. In my own personal experience I have never found with any company that the time of notice is too short. In all the years I have been practising I cannot remember ever having encountered a case where a person was not notified of an annual meeting in time. On the contrary, it has become a yearly problem for most companies to get the statements back from the auditors in time, especially after the June school holidays in South Africa, so that they may send out the statements in time before the end of July. Consequently I think that if the period of 21 days were extended to 30 days, it would simply make this problem more difficult for companies.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 203:

This clause as drafted, dealing with the dates upon which resolutions take effect, states the position negatively in so far as special resolutions are concerned, but it adopts a positive approach in so far as ordinary resolutions are concerned. Subclause (2) provides—

What I have in mind with the amendment which I have on the Order Paper is to take the same positive approach and to say when a special resolution shall take effect, and that is that a special resolution shall take effect from the date upon which it was passed when it has been registered; in other words, that before a resolution takes effect it must be registered. Sir, I do not want to enter into any arguments on the question of interpretation, but as this clause reads, namely that a special resolution shall not take effect until it has been registered, it may well be interpreted to mean that the date of registration is the effective date and not the date when it was passed. One can imagine that there may be many occasions in the conduct of a company’s business when one would want a resolution to be effective from the date on which it was passed. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

I believe that if this amendment is accepted, it will tidy up the clause and make it clearer and more effective.

Sir, I do not think that it would be advisable to accept this amendment either. I first want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this is also the position in the existing legislation, in section 65(1), and then I further want to draw his attention to the fact that it affects other clauses as well. Clause 201 is one of the clauses that would be affected if we were to accept this amendment. Clause 352 would be quite superfluous. This clause reads as follows—

In other words, this is a specific exception to clause 203, which we are dealing with at the moment. In other words, clause 352 would be superfluous, but as I have already indicated, this amendment, if it were accepted, would affect clause 201 as well, and especially clause 201(b), since clause 201(b) is really consequential on clause 201(a). Sir, although this has been the position for a considerable time in terms of section 65(1) of the existing Act, I am not unsympathetic towards problems that may be caused by it. The existing section 65(1) provides that such a special resolution has to be registered with the Registrar within 30 days and that it will not take effect until such time as it has been thus registered or recorded. I am aware of the practical problems which may be caused by this, but nevertheless I think that the registration of such a resolution can take place very soon in the ordinary course of events, and I honestly think that before we introduce this material amendment—and a special resolution is an important matter— we had better refer it to the advisory committee and see whether an improvement can be introduced.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that he would refer this matter to the advisory committee and with the leave of the House I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Clause 209:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is an amendment which really deals with a preposition which is perhaps more appropriate to the purpose of the sentence. Instead of reading “the number of directors of the company may be determined and the first directors may be appointed in writing by a majority of the subscribers of its memorandum” it will read “may be appointed in writing by a majority of the subscribers to its memorandum”, which I think is the normal phrase that is used. I have read the Afrikaans text and that is correct. It gives the proper sense. But here I think the word “to” is the correct word to use.

I have no objection to that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 211:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is merely a matter of drafting and puts the word “unless” in a different position. I do not think it needs any further elucidation.

I accept the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 226:

This clause is complementary to the clause we dealt with earlier, the clause dealing with associated companies. There is a prohibition here on loans to directors or officers or future directors or officers of the company or of its controlling company, or of any other company controlled by its controlling company. I believe here again there is a void which should be filled and that is to prevent loans to directors being camouflaged as loans to companies which are controlled by directors and which are therefore not prohibited in terms of the clause as drawn. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (d) any company controlled by any one or more such directors or officers or future directors or officers.

The prohibition will therefore also apply so far as loans to any company controlled by one or more of such directors or officers or future directors or officers are concerned.

We have already agreed to an amendment on clause 37. The principle contained in this amendment, is the same as that contained in the amendment approved on clause 37 and I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 231:

This clause deals with insider trading. We discussed it during the Second Reading but I do not think the hon. the Minister gave us any information on the point which was raised, i.e. what the position is when disclosure is made by a director or an officer to a third party. Clause 231 deals in great detail with directors of a company who have knowledge or information, or any other person who can have knowledge or information, but it does not deal, as far as I can see, with communicating that information to somebody else, which seems to me will be the worst crime of the lot, if you have inside information where you can make a profit out of it. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can perhaps tell us what his interpretation of this clause is or whether he thinks this clause requires to be amended to prevent a director or an officer of the company from conveying inside information to a third party where the third party can benefit as the result of the information which is not at that stage available to shareholders.

Here we have problems. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that this information does not concern directors only, but also, perhaps, attorneys, directors, etc. To cast a net to cover all these possible offences, in as far as one may call them offences, will be a very difficult task. I realise that provision has not been made for that, but it is not so easy to cast the necessary net. Perhaps this, too, is something which the advisory committee could investigate in more detail. Whether this is possible I do not know. I fear that we are going to meet some problems here.

I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s problem. He is correct— you will get a lot of other people involved in discussions, who get knowledge as the result of their position. I am not complaining about them at the moment. What I am worried about is a director who has knowledge and then he goes to Mr. A, who has nothing to do with whatever transaction is taking place, and he says to Mr. A that so-and-so is the position of the company, which enables Mr. A. to buy shares and make a profit. I believe that that director should be committing an offence if he uses knowledge which he has and communicates it to somebody else to enable a third party to make a profit. That is the aspect that concerns us.

I will look into that and put it right, if necessary, in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 234:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point should really have moved his amendment first, because this amendment is an amendment of the proposal by the hon. member for Green Point which deletes the words “in the opinion of the directors”. But if the hon. member is not moving his amendment, then I move the amendment as I have just quoted it to you.

I shall first give the hon. member an opportunity to move his amendment formally.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his Amendment. There is a slight difference between his amendment and the one which I now want to move formally. Whether the contract is of significance or not is matter for the opinion of the directors. The Minister’s amendment leaves it open, merely as a contract which is of significance. It seems that there is a possibility that this may be tested. In the form in which I have it the directors should apply their minds to the matter and themselves decide whether it is of significance. If one leaves out the words as the hon. the Minister has suggested, namely that the directors should decide whether it is of significance, then there is no need for attention to be particularly drawn by the directors as a group to whether this contract is of significance or not. It is then a matter for the individual directors separately to make their minds up about it. I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, my approach to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, is that I do not want it to be the directors who determine whether a matter is of significance in regard to a company’s business. I want the directors to satisfy themselves that it is of significance. As the hon. member’s amendment reads, it must be of significance according to the judgment of the directors. It is therefore they who must decide whether it is of significance. The position can therefore arise that although in my judgment or that of the hon. member for Pinelands or that of the hon. member for Parktown, a matter is of significance, the directors may be of the opinion that it is not of significance. The directors’ decision as to whether it is of significance or not, is final. That is why I say that the decision should not be theirs; it must be of significance in terms of general criteria, as regarded by me or by the hon. member for Green Point or by the court or whoever it may be. In other words, they must apply their minds to it and they must satisfy themselves that it is of importance or significance, as stated in the amendment.

Will the hon. the Minister indicate whether he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point?

My amendment clashes with his and therefore I do not accept his.

Mr. Chairman, the eloquence and the logic of the hon. the Minister convinced me and with the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 235:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The object of these amendments is to clarify the position as to the manner of and time for the declaration of interests by directors in matters in which they are obliged to declare their interests in terms of previous clauses which the Committee has approved. I do not think I need elaborate on these amendments because they were dealt with during the Second Reading debate when we gave our views in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendments. I think they effect an improvement.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 253:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I think that it is essential that we should be able to demand the same information from a foreign company as we can from a local company.

Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 260:

Mr. Chairman, the question which arises in regard to this clause, on which I would like to propose an amendment, is the position of the person who is called for interrogation before an inspector. Hon. members will observe that the person can be called by way of a subpoena or he can be interrogated, under oath. For such interrogation I believe that the person should be entitled to legal representation. It will be noted that there is provision for legal representation in subsection (5)(d) when the court takes over the interrogation, but it is silent as to the right of representation where it is an interrogation before an inspector and he himself carries out the interrogation. I believe the hon. the Minister’s …

Just state your case, do not move your amendment.

I believe it is necessary to provide for legal representation in both instances. It was with that object that I gave notice of the amendment standing in my name. However, I do not wish to move the amendment at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I have given consideration to the amendment as it appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Green Point. I have thought fit to bring about an improvement on it, and rather to make the necessary provision where he also wanted to make it, i.e. to add a provision right at the end of this clause. In terms of this, all those cases for which provision is being made in this clause will be able to make use of legal aid. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (7) Any person examined under this section may at his own cost employ an attorney with or without counsel, who shall be at liberty to put to him such questions as the inspector or the Court may deem just for the purpose of enabling him to explain or qualify any answers given by him.

The right that is granted him in terms of this provision will then apply to the whole clause.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for the amendment which he has moved. It covers the position because it provides for the necessary legal representation under the circumstance and I shall therefore not move my amendment which appears on the Order Paper.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 335:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I notice that the hon. the Minister is proposing to move a further amendment to the effect that the State President may by proclamation declare that such external company shall be deemed to be a company subject to certain provisions. It is consequential to the amendment I am moving. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on the amendment apart from merely stating that we believe the matter should receive the attention of the Minister and not the formality of the State President, although we appreciate that the amendment of the hon. the Minister is a consequential one, namely that the proclamation should be declared by the State President.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes that not the State President, but the Minister should be satisfied. Later in the same subsection there is provision for a proclamation being made by the State President, and for that reason it is merely necessary to make a small amendment there, so that where in the English version the State President is referred to as “he”, it is substituted by the words “State President”. I therefore move—

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 424:

Mr. Chairman, this clause dealing with the liability of directors and others for fraudulent conduct of business defines various circumstances where this liability can attach to the directors for the debts of a company. There is a word which is used in this clause to describe the objectional activities of directors, namely to carry on business “recklessly”, or with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose. One is looking at an expression which can equate or be as near as possible to a fraud without the intent to defraud. The draftsmen of this Bill have used the word “recklessly”, in the Afrikaans text “roekeloos”. Whilst it is true that the word “reckless” has the connotation of driving a motor negligently or recklessly, one wonders whether it is the correct word and the correct description for what one wishes to get at in so far as the conduct of directors in concerned. I therefore move as an amendment—

I suggest these words “in a grossly negligent manner” because they have been defined and have been dealt with in a series of cases and it is an easily expressed and easily understood expression in so far as the conduct of business affairs is concerned. For that reason I believe it would be a far better description than to use the word “recklessly”. “Recklessly” does not necessarily mean the same thing as I see it. The whole responsibility of a director of a company is one of a position of trust and a position of obligation towards shareholders. A duty is carried by every director of a company towards the shareholders, i.e. to manage the business in the best interests of the shareholders. I think that, to deal with the description of when he has failed in that regard, it is more appropriate to talk of his acting in a “grossly negligent” manner rather than that he was “reckless” in the fulfilment of his obligations towards the shareholders.

Mr. Chairman, on the face of it I would also have been inclined to agree with the hon. member, because in legal parlance we often use the term “gross negligence”. But it seems to me as though in this case something different from negligence is meant. To illustrate my point I should like to read a few little paragraphs to you from the recommendations of the National Council of Chartered Accountants. I think that after I have read that, the hon. member will agree with me that what they have in mind here, cannot be identified with “gross negligence”. But let me read it to you—

When an auditor arrives at this opinion, he then draws the attention of the directors of the company to the terms of section 26(3) of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act and requests them to rectify the position either by injecting fresh capital or by signing a waiver in terms of which the directors and or shareholders agree to defer repayment of their loan accounts until such time as all other creditors have been repaid in full, or, alternatively, to place the company into judicial management or into liquidation. It is only when these requests are not complied with that the auditor then reports these material irregularities to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board. It is submitted therefore that when these steps have been taken and the directors fail to remedy the situation, they are conducting the business recklessly and steps should be taken to prevent them from doing so.

They then continue by saying the following—

In the circumstances envisaged here, I think that gross negligence would definitely be less apt. In the circumstances outlined by the auditors here, where they feel that such a person is liable, there, is definitely no question of negligence, but of recklessness. When they are told by an auditor that certain circumstances in a company exist and that they must do this or that in order to rectify the position, and they do not do so, then that is definitely not negligence. Then it is something different from negligence. It seems to me as though the word “reckless” is more apt than the words “gross negligence”.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a thought to the hon. the Minister. If he gives this question some consideration, does he not feel that it would perhaps be more difficult to prove recklessness than negligence? Where, according to the traffic laws of the country a person is accused of reckless and negligent driving, they find difficulty in proving recklessness but they do not find that difficulty in proving negligence.

I agree.

This is the problem that worries me and the hon. member for Green Point. Which is more difficult to prove? Gross negligence is probably easier to prove and is, let me say, as culpable as recklessness is.

I agree with the hon. member that, in the normal interpretation of words, it is easier to prove negligence than to prove recklessness. That is true, but it would appear to me that in the context in which it is meant here, negligence is not really an element. It agrees with the evidence of the auditors, i.e. that “reckless” is the most suitable word. In the circumstances mentioned in the extract I read to you, one would not be able to prove gross negligence. That is something else. “Reckless” is more apt.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the example which the hon. the Minister gave which he read from the submission of the Society of Accountants. The position is that if the auditor has drawn attention to certain matters that should be put right within a company and that is not done and the managing director says: “Well, I was going to do it next week; I was going to do it the week after next,” then you cannot say that he is necessarily acting recklessly. He would be acting negligently in not attending to that immediately when it is brought to his attention. I believe by using the word “recklessly” you are making the escape route a little wider than it would be if it were limited to “gross negligence”. I believe that that is so, and that it would be the effect of the word “recklessly”. But, anyway, I do not want to take this matter further. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to accept the amendment at this stage and this is therefore a matter that can go to the advisory committee. I am therefore withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment is to take the words “if such promotion or formation occurred within five years after the date of the prospectus” from the end of the clause and to insert it in the second line after the word “company”. It would appear that the clause as it is presently drawn, means that a director who might have been like our friend Piet van der Byl, who has been a director of a certain company for 39 years, would have to disclose any interests he has had over the 39 years if that company were to issue a prospectus at this particular moment. I think it is the intention of the clause that information should be limited to a period of five years, and that this will be the case if we transfer the last line of the clause to the position which is contained in my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I regard this as an improvement, and I therefore accept the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4:

Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to move anything specific, except that I should like to ask the Minister to request the standing advisory committee to go into the translation. I want to mention one example. On page 405 of the Bill “secured liabilities” is translated with “gesekureerde verpligtinge”. Now I have to point out that in practice we do not use the word “gesekureerde”. We use the expression “versekerde verpligtinge”. The word occurs often, and is an Anglicism. It also appears in clause 125, and others. To introduce a great number of motions to the effect that this word be amended throughout, would be a great task. Where the standing advisory committee will come with quite a number of proposals next year, I hope that they will also give their attention to these few matters. It is quite confusing if one is used to a specific word in practice which is used by one’s clients and everybody else, and the translators use a word here we never use. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to communicate this matter specifically to the standing advisory committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has already brought this word to my attention. As regards these strange words he referred to, I am afraid that to a large extent we are the slaves of the language experts; we have to accept their translation of these words. To make a change here now would mean that these words would also have to be changed in a number of other places where they occur in the Bill. But I am nevertheless taking note of the hon. member’s dissatisfaction with this word which is now being used, and which he is not used to.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned, I was replying to the matters raised by the hon. member for Green Point during the discussion of this Vote. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Green Point made it his task, when he introduced the discussion on this Vote, to make a covert reference to me implying that I, as the new responsible Minister for this department, had rushed into things precipitately in this new department, and had done a series of irresponsible things. He referred to a few of these matters. In the first place he referred to the number of visas that had been refused, and said that this had created brand-new problems. Sir, I want to inform the hon. member immediately that, as he will notice in the report, approximately 183 000 visas were approved during that period. A number were refused; that is correct. But now I want to state a policy standpoint in reply to the following question: Why does a country, any country in the world, introduce a visa system? It introduces that system because its wants to have control over who may and who may not enter as visitors. It introduces the system because it wants to have control over what people it wishes or does not wish to allow in. If it were not for that, we could have abandoned the entire concept of visa control, and we could have said that anyone wishing to come, could come; they are welcome. Therefore one must accept that, as a result of the control which is made possible through visas, the Minister will from time to time refuse visas, and when a visa is refused, there are specific reasons for his having done so. These reasons are sometimes furnished, when it is deemed to be in the national interest, but sometimes there are cases of such a delicate nature that the reasons cannot be furnished. In this way I have always refused visas, and in this way the Government and the Minister in question, whoever he may be in future will continue to do so, Even if there should be a United Party Minister, I accept that he will also in due course refuse visas. After all, I do not want to accept that those people are going to throw South Africa open to anyone, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, who wishes to enter the country. For that reason I want to defend myself at once by saying that there has to be visa control. They are considered with great care, knowing what the implications are. On the contrary; I think the present combination of the Minister of Information and the Minister of the Interior is already a sound precautionary measure, for I know that when the Minister of the Interior refuses a visa, he must have good reasons for having done so, and must have gone into the matter thoroughly, for the Minister of Information and his officials must be able to justify that action abroad.

You have a fine time speaking to yourself!

Yes, that is precisely the problem. I hold a discussion with myself, and I have to judge what is in fact in the interests of South Africa under the circumstances. Therefore I think that the fact that the two portfolios fall under the same Minister already has a damping effect on the entire question of visas. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that it is not a question of one acting precipitately. There is too much at stake for one to risk doing that.

The hon. member also attacked me by saying that one of the first things I had said was that there was going to be stricter censure. I want to tell the hon. member at once that I deny having once said, since I became Minister, that there was going to be stricter censure. I should like to know whether the hon. member can give me the quotation, or whether he can produce any proof of my having said so. I have never yet said anything about stricter censure. Let us have no misunderstanding about that; nor have I ever said anything about lighter censure. At this stage therefore I have adopted no standpoint either for or against, for it would pre-eminently and by implication be a reflection on the Publications Board if I were to adopt a standpoint in regard to this matter. Up to the present I have not yet adopted any standpoint for or against either, viz. for stricter or lighter censure. What I did say was that the present Publications Act was creating certain administrative problems for us. This was leading to certain problems; it was leading to a position of stalemate when disputes arose between the court and the Publications Board. This then elicited a reaction from the public which resulted in a position of stalemate for me, which I was no longer prepared to accept. For that reason I said that we would investigate the matter. My predecessor had already appointed the committee of inquiry. I took it over and proceeded with it, and for that reason legislation in this connection is now under consideration. Once again I do not think one could expect greater obligingness. Firstly an investigation was instituted by a departmental committee. Subsequently a report was brought out and submitted to the Minister. The recommendations of the report were published in the Gazette. More than six weeks was allowed for any possible reaction to it, so that the public could be consulted in this matter. The reaction which came was once again considered, and after that a Bill was drafted. This Bill has now been referred to a Select Committee, in order to afford the public and the Select Committee an opportunity another opportunity to go into these matters. I do not think hon. members can expect greater reasonableness than that. I think I have been as reasonable as I could humanly possibly be. But still the hon. member attacked me for rushing into things, and wanting to pilot through a Bill in regard to publications precipitately.

Then there is the question of dual citizenship, in regard to which he criticized me. I introduced legislation in regard to dual citizenship. The dual citizenship legislation arose as a practical consequence of problems which we experienced in the application of the Drugs Act. That Act gave rise to problems, and as a result we deemed it necessary to reconsider the question of dual citizenship. We then considered it. The Bill has already been piloted through both Houses of Parliament, and, as far as I know, it has already been signed by the President. This was done because we wanted to deal with a specific problem.

The hon. member also criticized me in respect of the Aliens Act, but the Aliens Act, inter alia, makes provision for people to move about more freely in South Africa. For example it makes it easier for Indians to move from one province to another; administratively this is being made easier. It is being made easier for certain categories of people who come from overseas to visit South Africa. This is an accommodating measure. But at the same time we realized the necessity of also making provision that we do not allow aliens into South Africa who in terms of the Act are really aliens, but who come and violate every rule in this country, carry on as they please here, and then simply disappear after having entered this country as so-called visitors. That is why we had to make the legislation in this connection stricter.

I was criticized in regard to the Provincial Affairs Act, which according to hon. members was dealt with so precipitately, but it was at the request of the provinces that the Bill was introduced. It was not initiated by us. The provincial administrations of the various provinces requested us to do so. We did so in conjunction with the provinces. I read out the quotations here, indicating that everyone was in agreement with it, etc. Once again, I plead not guilty to precipitate legislation. In regard to the Electoral Laws Act we once again have precisely the same position. We are all aware of the fact that for many years the matter of simultaneous elections has been debated. A Bill was drawn up and was referred to a Select Committee which is still sitting. We are still waiting for the report of the Select Committee. Before the Second Reading the Select Committee had a free hand to amend the Bill as it wished, and to come back with a recommendation. I am asking once again: Could you expect greater reasonableness than that? The hon. member accused me of having rushed into things here; of having been precipitate with legislation; of being thoughtless and, in general, of acting in an irresponsible way. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member at once that this department is a difficult department to administer because it is a department which has to deal every day with the lives of people, and that is why it is so difficult. In the department decisions are not made in regard to dead objects or in regard to general concepts; one makes decisions in regard to the intimate lives of people every day, and that is why it is such a difficult department to administer. We are trying to the best of our ability to act as humanely and as sympathetically as possible in this department, but on the other hand, no one can expect me not to apply the policy and the standpoint of the Government and the Act as it stands on the Statute Book in the administration of this department. I cannot water down the policy and the provisions of the Act; nor shall I do so—I shall prefer to accept the responsibility for them.

Sir, the hon. member put a few specific questions to me. I began to reply to these last Wednesday evening, and I should now like to proceed with my reply. I have already dealt with the question of the reasons for the refusal of passports. My predecessor said that he would furnish certain reasons in general, and I quoted what he said to the hon. member from Hansard. My predecessor furnished certain general reasons as to why passports were refused, i.e. if a person should endanger the security of the State; if a person could, as a result of his own insolvency, be a burden to us; if a person should be guilty of race incitement in South Africa; if a person should vilify South Africa overseas; and, if a person should be a fugitive from a criminal prosecution. After all, we cannot help him to leave the country when the Police are trying to trace him; surely that is only logical. But, as I have already said, it is sometimes not in the interests of the applicant himself that the reasons be disclosed, for it could embarrass him. For that reason one cannot in all cases furnish the reasons for the refusal of a passport, but we will furnish the reasons when we deem it to be in the interests of South Africa. As far as the question of an appeal body is concerned, I just want to elucidate this matter further for the hon. member. The granting or refusal of passports is indisputably the right of the executive authority, of the State. The Government accepts responsibility for South African citizens travelling abroad, and no other authority can therefore decide for the Government, or serve as an appeal body against decisions of the Government. On the contrary, the issue of passports is not even regulated by legislation; it is dealt with in the way in which it is being dealt with at present, and the executive authority is responsible for the granting or refusal of passports. It is a matter which rests with the Government, and I therefore cannot agree to the idea that there should be an appeal body to which a person may appeal when the Government has refused his application for a passport.

Sir, the hon. member requested that passports should simply be issued to all, and that it should simply be possible to use identity documents as travel documents. This sounds practical and very pleasant, but as in all other countries of the world, applications for passports are considered on merit. A passport is not merely an identification document. When the Government issues a passport, the Government commits itself by implication to accept responsibility for the bearer of that passport abroad. In fact, if the hon. member would glance at the first page of any South African passport, he would see that the following is stated there—

This is printed on behalf of the State President in every passport, and I cannot make a passport available at will to any person so that he may use it as an identity document. I want to inform the hon. member that I am not prepared, now or in the immediate future, to consider the request that it should be possible to use identity documents as travel documents, but I am in fact prepared to extend the duration of a passport. I think it entails unnecessary administrative work to renew passports every three years, I do not think it is necessary. At the moment I am causing an investigation to be instituted into the possibility of extending the duration of a passport, even up to a period of 10 years; this would then cause us far fewer administrative problems, and it would also cause the bearer of the passport fewer problems.

The original period was ten years.

It seems to me as though it could be extended from five to ten years; I am prepared to give this matter my attention.

The hon. member then asked me what the 57 146 claims to South African citizenship, to which reference is made in the annual report, comprised. These are chiefly as a result of inquiries by the said persons themselves, and other Government Departments, where any doubt exists; in other words, in regard to the interpretation of the South African Citizenship Act in view of the circumstances applying in respect of each of the said persons. For that reason there are inquiries concerning citizenship, etc., in regard to which we must, from time to time, give final decisions. He then said that the annual report had omitted to mention the number of visas which had been refused. Yes, at the moment it omits to mention this. If the hon. member wishes this information next year, but I do not know precisely what advantage this would have, except that the outcry which is already being made in the Press in every case of a visa being refused, and which can frequently be prejudicial to South Africa, would be intensified and that we would be creating another opportunity for people to make an outcry in this regard, by stating how many had been refused. I do not know of any advantage in doing this, and I do not know what the real value of reintroducing it would be.

Would the hon. the Minister just give us an indication of whether the number refused is great or small?

I can at once give the hon. member the assurance that it is a minimal percentage. Records are not kept, but the refusal of visas is dealt with by the Minister himself, and for that reason I can at once say that I am aware of the fact that they are very few, and I could almost say that there was a major outcry in the newspapers in regard to almost every one of them, as you yourself will know and could have discovered recently. But what I find most strange is that the hon. member wants to give us more work here by keeping a record of the number of visas refused, but at the same time the hon. member objects to the fact that we are keeping a record of the number of persons who cross our borders from the neighbouring states. He said there were more than three million persons who crossed the border in 1972; he objected to that and asked whether it was necessary to keep all those statistics. The fact remains that we would like to know whether a person is still in the country, or whether he has left the country. There is the control at our border posts, and it has to be known there whether a person is entering or leaving the country.

I was simply amazed at the number.

It is as a result of the fact, as I said, that there are people from the Black neighbouring states who quite frequently cross the border into our territory two or three times a week. I am referring now to a border town like Ficksburg. I have personal knowledge of what is happening there.

Not the homelands …

No, I am not talking about the homelands; I am talking about our neighbouring states, such as Lesotho. It is amazing how many people there pass through the control posts every day to go to Ficksburg to make purchases, etc., and return again at night. All of them cross over at that point, and they are all being indicated as people crossing the border. But I think it is necessary to say that the three million shows to a certain extent that there is a very heavy traffic between our neighbouring states and us. People say we are a police state, and nobody wants to have anything to do with us, but there is very practical evidence to the contrary in that three million people from our Black neighbouring states are moving across our border annually, which very clearly illustrates the contact between these two countries.

The next question the hon. member put was why additional work was now being created through the cancellation of certain temporary residence exemptions, which I merely touched upon in passing. I just want to tell the hon. member that he must not confuse temporary residence exemptions, i.e. control under the Aliens Act, with visa exemptions which are controlled under the Admission Act. These have nothing to do with that Act; they fall under the legislation pertaining to exemptions.

7bis.

Yes, they concern the Aliens Act. I just want to say that it has become essential to control the residence of all aliens who want to remain here for longer than three months, or who want to work here without having been able to obtain permanent residence. No country in the world allows the uncontrolled residence of aliens, for obvious reasons, and there has to be control, particularly as far as labour and immigration arrangements are concerned. I now want to mention two examples to the hon. member as illustrations of why we are doing this. I just want to give a brief background sketch first. While we were a member of the Commonwealth there was an agreement among the Commonwealth countries that there should be free movement among the White citizens of the Commonwealth countries, without any control of any nature. One could travel on a British passport to any Commonwealth country without control, and one could travel on a South African passport to any Commonwealth country, without any control. That was the position, but in 1961 we withdrew from the Commonwealth, and since then almost every Commonwealth country has introduced certain control measures against us. As far as we are concerned free movement through all countries has been eliminated completely. As hon. members will know, Britain introduced work permits. They did this for certain reasons which are not relevant at the moment, but we were affected by this. Various Commonwealth countries also introduced certain permits. We are now experiencing a practical problem, and I want to give an illustration of this. We have a policy of selective immigration. In terms of that policy we allow people into this country, and we welcome them as immigrants, provided a few things do not happen. One of the things we prevent is a surplus or an abundance from developing within a certain work category. If a surplus of labour develops within a certain profession or trade in our own country, we do not, after all, want to allow immigrants to enter the country to increase that surplus of labour even further and encourage unemployment. That is why we have a scheme of selective immigration. One of the factors which plays a part in selection is the need for the worker’s labour in our country. We establish whether his labour is necessary, whether there are not perhaps already enough workers in the work category of the prospective immigrant. What happens in practice? Let us suppose that we have a surplus of workers in a certain industry in South Africa. The policy is then that we do not allow immigrants who wish to come and do similar work in South Africa into this country, for if they were to come here, they would simply disrupt the labour relations here since we already have enough local workers. If anyone resident in a Commonwealth country—suppose it is Britain—applies to come to South Africa as an immigrant, his application is considered by the Immigration Selection Board. If they then find that we already have an abundance of workers in South Africa in that person’s profession, they refuse his application and he is then informed in London, that his application for permanent residence in South Africa has been refused. If something like that should happen that person can in terms of the old Commonwealth arrangement say—it has in fact happened already—“So what! I am going to South Africa in any case and nothing can stop me.” All he needs is a British passport; he needs no further document of any nature whatsoever. It is true that he receives no travel subsidy, and he has to cover his own expenses, but he can bring his wife and children with him, in spite of the fact that he has been refused as an immigrant because there is already a surplus of workers in South Africa in his profession. He can come and live in South Africa for an unlimited period, for 40, 50 or 80 years, and there is no control of any nature whatsoever. This concession which we have had all these years in respect of Commonwealth countries can in fact disrupt our entire immigration policy in that people whom we do not, for specific reasons, want to allow into the country as permanent immigrants can come at will from Commonwealth countries and disrupt the entire immigration and labour pattern of our country. For that reason, and because it has already been done by numerous countries and we are not at present being allowed everywhere and are therefore being restricted ourselves, we felt at liberty to do so as well.

I wanted to mention another example to the hon. member. I received complaints from the Musicians’ Union. Musicians in South Africa are organized into a union, and provide recreational and dance music at hotels, etc. They came to discuss a very difficult problem with me. They had the following problems—

In this way our people are being kept out, but they are entering South Africa freely under the old, original Commonwealth arrangement. During the off season in Europe when there is no work for them, they simply come to South Africa in unlimited numbers, and we have no control over them. Because they come from overseas, there is a kind of psychosis among our people. Our people believe that because they are from overseas, they are better than our own musicians. They are then employed at hotels and such places, —and our own musicians who are native citizens and born here, are ousted from their work and are then unemployed while those musicians are here. As soon as the South African season is over those heroes return to England, and more likely than not they also vilify South Africa. Our own people must then start building up contacts all over again.

For these specific reasons, and after further consideration, the Cabinet decided to make a new arrangement under the Aliens Act in respect of persons from Commonwealth countries, 12 years after South Africa became a Republic. I should like to make the following statement which will in fact control this entire position with effect from 1st July, 1973. I am deliberately doing so in English.

†In order to attain a greater measure of uniformity in regard to the admission to South Africa, and South-West Africa, of foreign visitors, the Government has decided that as from the 1st July, 1973, all aliens wishing to enter the country for temporary purposes and who are not yet subject to permit control, will on application be provided with temporary resident’s permits on arrival at South African ports of entry. The period and purpose of the visit will be specified in the permits. The main object of the measure is to protect the work opportunities of permanent residents and approve immigrants in South Africa. With the exception of citizens of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Rhodesia, the Republic of Ireland and certain residents of Malawi and Mauritius, this procedure is already generally in force in South Africa. The existing arrangements whereby certain citizens of the aforementioned are exempted from visa control, will not be affected by the new procedure. Visitors from these countries proceeding to South Africa or South-West Africa for holiday, business and family visits, will as in the past have to report at the South African ports of entry for the usual passport control examination. Visitors who are desirous to enter South Africa for employment, including stage performers, musicians, religious workers and persons connected with news media, will in future be required to obtain permission for admission to the Republic before their departure from their own countries. Information concerning the procedure to be followed may be obtained from South African diplomatic and consular offices abroad. Likewise, universities and other institutions who wish to enrol foreign students or scholars, will be well-advised to consult with one or other of the offices of the Department of the Interior concerning the procedure to be followed in this regard. The position in regard to the admission of workers and other visitors from neighbouring countries who normally enter South Africa or South-West Africa in accordance with special labour agreements or other arrangements remains unchanged.

This measure is also not applicable to citizens of the United Kingdom and the other countries concerned who are already in the Republic. These citizens are advised in their own interest to apply as early as possible for permanent resident’s permits to regularize their position pertaining to their residence here.

Those who are not as yet in possession of such permits should in the interim when they leave the Republic and wish to return thereto be in possession of letters from their employers stating that they occupy permanent positions in South Africa or South-West Africa.

The attention of all employers is further invited to the provisions of the Aliens Control Amendment Act, 1973, which will shortly come into operation. In terms of the provisions of this Act, it is an offence to employ an alien who has not the necessary permission. Employers in South Africa desirous of employing foreign workers on a temporary basis are advised to contact the Department of the Interior in Pretoria or any of its regional offices.

*In this way we hope and trust that we will be able to exercise better control over the entire question of people who visit South Africa, and over temporary visitors to South Africa. In this way, too, we hope to place the employment relations in our own country on a better basis of control. I think it is necessary that we should now, 12 years after we became a Republic, take control over all who visit our country so that South Africa may determine who may be in and who may not enter this country. In point of fact, we are now doing to the Commonwealth countries precisely what they have already been doing to our people for quite a number of years. For that reason I am making no excuse for taking this action.

The hon. member then asked me a question in regard to the race classification case which was taken all the way to appeal court level. He referred to the Gaffoor case. The hon. member created the impression that we are discriminating tremendously here against a single person; the poor man’s classification has already been determined, and the department has with great jealousy prosecuted the man all the way to the appeal court, the highest court, to be able to determine what his position really is. I shall give hon. members the facts. Because there have apparently been conflicting decisions in the superior courts based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the department was forced to turn this case into a test case. The issue was therefore not only the classification of a particular person, nor was it done in a spirit of vindictiveness towards that person or because we did not want to accommodate him, but because we wanted clarity on the application of the Act concerning certain principles as they were being interpreted by all the courts including the appeal court. This was done because it affects numerous other people. It was essential because the department wanted to know what the position was in respect of the performance of its functions. That is the reason why this specific case was taken to that level. It was not done out of jealousy or vindictiveness towards that person; it was done in order to achieve a stabilization of a principle, of how the Act was being interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court in South Africa in order in that way to determine precisely what the position was.

What was the principle?

The principle was very clear, and I can inform the hon. member of the principle if he wants it. This was a decided case which we took to that level. Every day there are hundreds of cases in regard to which the department accepts the decisions and also amends the decisions, and why would we now have been so unapproachable in respect of this one specific case and have taken steps against this poor man with a case all the way to the highest court if it had not been a principle which had been at issue? There was no motivation for doing that.

The hon. member put a question to me in regard to the matter of contact with the public by officers of the department. The hon. member will understand now that this department controls the lives of our inhabitants in South Africa from the cradle to the grave, from their birth to their death; the Department of the Interior is then constantly concerned with everything which happens between these two extremes. We come into contact with the public by the millions, and the instructions to the department are very clear and as far as my knowledge extends these are also being carried out with great circumspection in 99% of the cases, viz. that their conduct towards the public should always be friendly and proper. I have available numerous letters of thanks in this regard. Humanly speaking it is obvious that in every organization, it does not matter which, one finds a few individuals who in a moment of pressure or when they are tense, perhaps act a little irresponsibly or harshly. Even that, however, I cannot condone; even that I do not want to explain. I want to say that even in that respect we have to accept and realize at all times that the Public Service, and specifically this Department of the Interior, comprises a service department, that renders a service to the community, and that that service must be rendered to the public with the greatest circumspection and with the utmost friendliness and propriety. These are my instructions to my department, and I know that they are being accepted and carried out in a good spirit. I thank the hon. member for the case which he raised in this connection. I think too that this more or less disposes of the matter raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

The hon. member for Durban Central touched on two matters, one in regard to the Public Service Commission which I shall have more to say about in a moment, and one in regard to the Department of the Interior in respect of the extension of temporary permits while awaiting permanent residence permits.

The matter touched on here by the hon. member, is in fact a very delicate one. The hon. member said there should be co-ordination and co-operation with the Department of Immigration so that the application for reconsideration of an alien who had been refused permanent residence was not thwarted because his temporary residence permit had expired. He said that the alien’s employer frequently did not know whether he could arrange for his continued employment, and that as a result of that certain problems could arise. Perhaps it is a good thing now that we take congizance of this, and that all hon. members take cognizance of this, for I get these requests from hon. members on both sides of the House and in terms of the provisions of the Aliens Act, an Act which has been on the Statute Book for all of 36 years, the purpose of the permit, the period of the permit and the conditions of residence of an alien are specified, and if he does not comply with these, he is guilty of an offence. Most of these cases are people who come to this country on a temporary visitors’ permit of three months, which do not give them any right to accept employment in South Africa.

The fact that they accept employment immediately makes them guilty of an offence. That is the situation in most cases. Once a person has been here for a while, he finds everything so pleasant and attractive that he wants to stay here. He then accepts employment and makes application for permanent residence. The fact that he accepted employment without returning to the Department of the Interior to amend the conditions as stated in his permit, is actually a contravention of the Aliens Act. An alien may therefore not accept employment unless it has been approved. As far as the alien himself is concerned, it is a concession that he is allowed to wait here for a longer period until the application for permanent residence has been heard. However, I have a practical problem, and I want to make it very clear to hon. members. It happens so frequently that although a person receives his temporary permit for three months, he waits until just before the permit expires, and then hastily applies for permanent residence. He then advances as reason for an extension of this temporarily permit the fact that he is waiting on consideration for permanent residence. Normally we then, out of the goodness of our hearts, extend the temporary permit for a further three months.

In the meantime the Immigrants Selection Board considers his application for permanent residence. That Board has to obtain certain information from the country of origin of the applicant. I have also been Minister of Immigration, and I know precisely how much time is required to do so. After two months of research they then refuse his application for permanent residence. Then the person immediately applies for reconsideration and returns to us again for a further temporary extension of his permit. This position could repeat itself ad infinitum if we did not draw a line somewhere. There is no end to the number of times he may request that his application for permanent residence be reconsidered. If we simply extend his temporary permit every time, we could keep that person here permanently on a temporary basis for 20 years. Surely we cannot do that! If we were to do so in this way, we would be wrecking the entire immigration policy.

Therefore, I have this problem and I have, let me tell you this candidly made an arrangement with the Department of Immigration. The Department of Immigration has specific requirements which are laid down. One requirement, for example, is a school qualification of at least Std. 8. When a person applies to us for temporary extension of his temporary permit while he is reapplying for permanent residence, our department telephones the Department of Immigration and asks whether there is any reasonable possibility of the person being favourably considered by them. If they give us the indication that there is only one or other aspect which they are not certain about, we are amenable and grant temporary extension. But if they tell us: “He has a Std. 4 certificate, and our minimum requirement is a Std. 8 certificate, we do not see our way clear to ever granting him permanent residence,” then surely it is foolish of us to extend his temporary residence. We would be wasting our time, and the time of the Department of Immigration if we did so.

In those cases we refuse their applications for temporary extension for it is after all very clear that it would be a waste of everyone’s time if we did so. An additional problem is that, if we keep these people here for too lengthy a period of time on temporary permits, they become so settled, with so many vested interests and problems, that they come and twist our arim In the end. It then happens, as I said last year under the Immigration Vote, that they are kept here under a temporary permit, which is extended for three months and extended, out of the goodness of our hearts, for a further three months; the M.P. makes a plea, and the Minister is lenient, and after a period that person marries Uncle Gert’s daughter and the two of them expect a baby, but that person still has only temporary residence in South Africa. Then Uncle Gert, M.P., and the clergyman all come to me and say: “Doctor, now you must really help him for if you don’t Sannie goes to Portugal next week.” I just want to make it very clear that we are as sympathetic as possible, but that it cannot be expected of us to use or misuse the temporary permits to violate in this way the entire immigration policy of the country.

I am entirely sympathetic towards such cases, but I can inform the hon. member that there are also cases in regard to which we arrange and establish clearly with the Department of Immigration that a specific person does not have a chance; we have to reconsider his position, but there is no chance of his succeeding because he definitely does not fall within the ambit of our policy. Then, of course, we refuse to extend his temporary permit for it is only a vain hope one would be giving that person.

The following matters I want to deal with are two or three matters which were raised in regard to the Public Service Commission. In the first place, there is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. This is the third verse we sing under this Vote; with the first verse already he sounded the note that we should afford the officers an opportunity of bringing any complaints which they may have to the attention of the Minister, of a senior official, or of someone. What he actually pleaded for was the appointment of some senior person or other who could go about listening to complaints.

What we were referring to was a Public Service inspector.

Yes, the inspector you formerly had. The fact of the matter is that the Public Service Commission is at present virtually going out of its way to afford people an opportunity of lodging complaints in the right places if they are dissatisfied with anything. I am quoting from Public Service Code, No. A6/1—

His request cannot be killed by the official at the head of his department, but he can demand that it be submitted to the Commission itself. Only last year, in November, 1972, a circular was sent out by the Secretary for the Public Service Commission in which he requested departments to respect the rights of officers and to ensure that complaints from officers received proper attention. The allegation of the hon. member that “non-Nationalists” are being discriminated against, is in fact a direct, undisguised charge against the Public Service Commission. This allegation must be rejected as unfounded by the Public Service Commission. I know of people who say precisely the opposite of the Commission. It is in fact this kind of irresponsible allegation which contributes to deterring prospective applicants from joining the Public Service.

All the good work the Commission is doing is nullified in this way. I do not want to talk politics now. We receive constant complaints from numerous members on the Opposition side because there are not enough English-speaking persons in the Public Service. The hon. members imply that this is because those people have no opportunities for promotion, or whatever. I maintain that a statement such as the one made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, viz. that non-Nationalists are being discriminated against in the Public Service, is a perfect deterrent to people speaking the other language and people who hold different views, to joining the Public Service. Our entire effort to recruit people to the Public Service is defeated in this way. I can now give you an account of all the things we are doing.

We have a film project we have launched throughout the country, with films in which the Public Service is advertised. An idea is given of what the various deparments offer, and what precisely they are doing, all in the most beautiful colours imaginable. All of this seems so attractive that one has an urge to go and work for the Public Service where all kinds of possibilities are being offered. We have an entire series of them here. But if people are told at this high level that they are being discriminated against on political grounds, something which is completely devoid of all truth, one is of course deterring everyone who holds other views or who does not support the part of the Government. I therefore want to ask that hon. member not to make such irresponsible statements. He is making it difficult for the Public Service to recruit good candidates on both sides of the political fence to work for the State of South Africa. This is after all something which belongs to all of us together, and not only to one party.

Then the hon. member raised another matter. He put forward the idea of a separate person who should go about to give public servants a hearing. The hon. member is apparently unaware of the fact that the Secretary for the Commission and his senior staff make it their task to make contact with the officials. From time to time he visits certain regions and stays over for a day or two. The opportunity is created for any official to contact him and discuss his problems with him personally. We go out of our way to make this this possible. I want to tell the hon. member candidly that if he has any really substantial complaint, and not just an unfounded allegation, he can give it to me and I will give it my personal attention. But then it must be a really substantial complaint for which proof can be adduced. I am not prepared to investigate wild allegations and waste my time doing so. If he has real proof and can produce it, I can give him the assurance that justice will be done. I shall see to that, for it is my duty and my task.

In addition the hon. member referred briefly to films which had been confiscated in a certain town. I do not know which town it is, but I just want to inform the hon. member that the confiscating of films has nothing to do with my department, or with the Publications Board. We are not aware of this and we have no control over it. It is purely and simply a matter for the police. If the police have reason to believe that there are films which are being misused, it is incumbent on them to take steps. Unfortunately I have no control over that, and I can do nothing whatsoever about it. I am afraid he raised the matter under the wrong Vote. He should have raised those matters under the Vote of the Minister of Police.

Then the hon. member for Durban Central also raised the matter of delegation of the Commission’s powers by the Secretary, etc. This is done to a large extent from time to time. There are a considerable number of posts on the lower levels where delegated powers already exist. This is true, and we are continuing with this procedure. As the need for this in practice is demonstrated, the delegated powers are extended from time to time as was done only recently by way of the issue of comprehensive code directives for the various people. Now the hon. member will also have to concede that the Commission does in fact have the task of trying to effect overall uniformity in the Public Service. One cannot allow every department to develop in a direction of its own. One does in fact have an umbrella concept in terms of which the Public Service in its entirety has to be protected and preserved. If that were not so, we might as well abolish the Commission. However, we grant delegated powers as far as it is practicable. However, this is only in certain categories where the commission wants to be consulted in order to eliminate anomalies and in order to co-ordinate on a broader level.

The second matter which the hon. member touched upon was the question of the structure of teachers’ salaries. I want to say at once that I have knowledge of this matter owing to my personal experience as a teacher for many years. As a result of that I sympathise with the hon. member’s entire argument and plea. The position is that the present structure is already the product of investigation, research and consultation by the Committee of Educational Heads. At the moment the structure differs fundamentally from that of the rest of the Public Service owing to the specific circumstances of the Department of Education. Greater freedom for the Department of Education to make certain adjustments was not possible at this stage. With the present salary adjustments representations were made to us to effect structural changes in regard to education as well. After thorough consideration the Government decided that it was not possible because we find ourselves in the position that if one begins to effect structural changes here, there are other departments in regard to which these will also have to be effected. Eventually one is confronted by such a prickly situation that one does not know what to do. Consequently it was decided, under these circumstances, to increase the present salaries by adding 15% to the basic salaries, for everyone. We did not want to regard this as an opportunity, or use it as an opportunity, to effect structural changes. But structural changes are in fact effected from time to time, as matters develop in due course, and this may also happen in the case of education if it is dealt with on the correct level. I know that the Minister in question is working on this, and that it will in due course be brought to the attention of the commission again. However, we could not in this case simply leave the matter at that. We decided not to amend the structure, but to grant a 15% salary increase.

The hon. member then went on to refer to a general problem. He said there were certain matters which people were not aware of, that they were not conversant with, etc. The commission was so kind as to make a series of 11 pamphlets available to me. These pamphlets are available to officials, the public and also the members of this House. These are information pamphlets on various aspects of the Public Service. Here I have one, and on the front page the following is stated: “Do you realise what the Public Service does to equip you for an administrative post?” It deals with training, the various qualifications, etc.; it is a complete information pamphlet. Then there is one on the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. Full particulars on the widows’ pension fund are furnished here. Here I have one on the Government Employees’ Provident Fund, a pamphlet dealing fully with this matter in both official languages. Other pamphlets which I have here deal with bonuses and allowances payable to certain civil pensioners, pension benefits from the Public Service Pension Fund, etc. It furnishes a complete elucidation of pension benefits, and a number of examples are worked out. Other pamphlets deal with transfer benefits, the 100% housing loan scheme for public servants, group life insurance, remuneration for exceptional and outstanding ability, retirement and misconduct. This pamphlet on misconduct will now have to be adapted in the light of the Bill piloted through Parliament yesterday or the day before yesterday. These pamphlets are available, and I really want to ask hon. members who have public servants in their constituencies to request these pamphlets from the Public Service Commission and study them, for in these publications all the particulars of these various aspects are made available. With that they can make themselves fully conversant with matters so that they could possibly furnish public servants with guidance in this connection.

Would it not have been better if those pamphlets had been printed in different colours? They all look the same.

Each has a different number. You can ask for pamphlet No. 1, No. 2, No. 5 or No. 11: there are 11 of them.

In conclusion I want to say that the Public Service Commission is to the best of its ability making adjustments from time to time to keep up with the latest research and the introduction of new facilities, etc. The world makes progress and carries on; we cannot afford to stand still or remain behind in the sphere of administration and the staff under the Public Service Commission. For that reason it is a pleasure for me to announce here now that I am going to send a delegation of the Public Service Commission, which will consist of the chairman, the secretary and a few of his senior officials, overseas during the second half of this year to do research in regard to the public service systems in other countries of the world. This will enable them to streamline it into the most modem system it is capable of becoming, and if necessary to do away with certain of the old practices which we have and which have perhaps become outdated. At this stage I am not in a position to say precisely what this will entail, but this delegation is being sent overseas to make a study of the matter. Specific countries which they are going to visit are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and possibly one or two countries in Western Europe as well. They will then return and submit a full report to me. On the basis of this report it is in fact our intention, if it should appear necessary from this report, to streamline the entire Public Service and to introduce the most modern practices if this should be necessary. The entire matter will be considered from all angles in order to bring our Public Service into line with the best in the world, if we do not already have them. I think this is essential. In this connection I want to mention one example. Take a country such as France. Shortly after the Second World War France had a new Government approximately every six weeks; I am referring now to the period before De Gaulle. In spite of that the French administration carried on as normal because the public service of France is trained according to a code which gives them stability in that country, in spite of the fact that the Government fell approximately every six weeks. I should like to ascertain in detail how the administrative system in France works, and hence this specific research and this specific study.

Are you making preparations for a fall?

No, governments in South Africa remain in power for 25 years, not six months; the hon. member knows that, and this Government will continue to remain in power for another 25 years.

This is only its first leg.

This is scarcely the Government’s first leg. If I look at the Aliwal results and the problems of the present Opposition, I am convinced that we will remain in power for another 25 years, without any doubt at all. The object of this entire visit is to streamline our entire Public Service and to bring it into line with the most modern in the world, and for that reason I am grateful to be able to make this announcement and I am looking forward eagerly to the report of the Public Service Commission, as a result of which I hope to effect certain amendments, where these may appear to be necessary.

Sir, with reference to what the hon. the Minister said just before he resumed his seat, I should like to take this initial opportunity of sincerely congratulating him and his department on the initiative they are displaying in taking this drastic step of wanting to attempt a comprehensive reorganization of our Public Service on the basis of thorough study in other countries. Mr. Chairman, over the years our Public Service has built up an image for itself, an image of effectiveness, competence and integrity. This is a well-deserved image, and we in South Africa are rightly proud of our Public Service. But, Sir, it is also true that recently it has become the fashion to disparage the Public Service and accuse it of ineffectiveness and of too much so-called “red tape” and, in the light of that, to detract from the effectiveness of the State itself. Therefore I have made it my task to try to determine what is already being done in this connection, and this links up, in the closest possible terms, with the steps that have now been announced by the hon. the Minister. I sought facts about what is being done by the Public Service and the Government to maintain even better standards, and I obtained gratifying facts, facts that indicate that our Public Service is keeping place with modern developments; that our Public Service is engaged in penetrating modernization and rationalization, and I consider it a good thing that these facts should also be brought to the attention of our electorate. Sir, if we refer to the report of the Public Service Commission, we find that they have created a special Division of Efficiency Techniques which establishes a separate and specialized component of the Commission’s Inspectorate and which exclusively devotes itself to the question of efficiency techniques. Since this division was founded in March, 1971, it has already accomplished a tremendous amount. In the Public Service the division is known as the K2 system. Sir, they have made a projection indicating that since the system has been fully implemented, they have already effected a 20% to 40% improvement in productivity. In addition, and with reference to this, mechanization investigations and departmental work studies have been undertaken. Summarizing all these efforts, they have established the impressive record, in the short time they have been busy with this, of already having been able to abolish 1 477 posts in the Public Service without adversely influencing effectiveness; of having been able to effect capital savings of R1 058 000, recurrent savings of R1 952 000 and savings in salaries of R2 954 000. Sir, I think that the Public Service Commission and everyone concerned, deserve the utmost credit and our appreciation for this fine effort, and we consequently want to wish them everything of the best on the new mission they will undertake and on the continuation of the methods they are already employing.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. the Minister has surprised us with this announcement, I should like to take this opportunity, in conclusion, of expressing a few ideas about specific aspects where rationalization could also perhaps be investigated profitably by this mission abroad. Sir, centralization and decentralization of Government offices are matters continually requiring attention, and since I represent a cosmopolitan area, which is actually one large city on its own, I want to advocate that consideration be given to the decentralization of certain Government offices to larger areas, even though they may lie close to, for example, Johannesburg or Pretoria. Because we have that tremendous concentration of people in that pulsing development in, for example, the Vaal Triangle, there are bottlenecks from time to time in respect of the services which the Government Departments must furnish at a distance. I want to advocate that where this is numerically justified, attention should be given to the establishment of branch offices of, for example, the Departments of the Interior and Immigration, in respect of the concentration of immigrants in such areas.

In addition, I also want to link up with one aspect that was dealt with by the hon. the Minister, and ask whether the problem, which was raised by hon. members of the Opposition with respect to persons who are here in terms of a temporary residence permit and who then apply for permanent residence to the Department of Immigration, cannot be eliminated completely by some other means, i.e. the means also adopted by other countries in the Western world. What I want to recommend is that consideration be given to allowing no person to complete, within the Republic of South Africa, an application form for permanent residence. America, to the best of my knowledge, adopts this system. If the hon. member for Turffontein were to decide to immigrate to America, they would not allow him, while he was visiting there, to submit an application there; he would have to return to South Africa and then apply from here. Sir, that would be a solution because one would not then have those human situations which arise owing to the fact that a person, who is only permitted to be here on a temporary basis, will be able to advance the argument: “But I am here now and I have asked for leave to remain here for always; can I not simply remain here until the department says ‘yes’ or ‘no’?”

Sir, I want to conclude by underlining the blatant contrast there was between the speech of the hon. the Minister and the speech of the so-called United Party shadow minister. From that side we again had the absolutizing of the rights of the individual and the great concern and hypersensitivity in respect of the right of free movement, etc., and from the hon. the Minister we had the balanced reply that he wants to protect and defend the rights of every individual with great care but that he wants to ensure, on the other hand, that the rights of all the other individuals are never threatened by one single individual.

I hope I will have the opportunity of drawing attention to the position of the Press in South Africa. Let me say at once that I together with every member in this House are proud of the fact that South Africa has the freest Press on the whole of the African continent. That is not a guess; it is a fact. I think that it is absolutely essential that you have a free Press, particularly in a democracy, otherwise democracy will not survive. But when you have a free Press you must also have a responsible Press, and when the freedom of the Press is attacked or curtailed by this Parliament I think everybody will be against it. But the Press, or a section of the Press, perhaps a small section of the Press, must be careful to see that they are not committing suicide themselves. I want to deal with a few aspects of this free Press, with the freedom of the Press.

You will recollect, Sir, that not so many years ago, in 1964, we passed legislation here which could, perhaps to a degree, have curtailed the freedom of the Press. At that time the Press themselves approached the then Minister of the Interior, Senator De Klerk, and said: “You leave us out of that Bill and we will control ourselves; we will form a council which will control and look after the standards of the Press.” That was acceded to.

*The Press was removed from the Bill, but not even two years later it was necessary for the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, to say that a newspaper had played him false, and he mentioned the name of the Sunday Times saying that we would have to take a fresh look at the Press and the position of the Press Council. Sir, I believe that the Sunday Times, in fact any newspaper, has the right to level criticism whenever it pleases and at whomever it pleases. I even believe that the Sunday Times has the right, if they believe it, to say that there is a Mafia on this side of the House advising the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that they may do so, but what the Sunday Times—in fact, no other newspaper—has the right to do is to base their opinions on a small grain of truth, and then present them as if they were news. I do not believe they have the right to do that. I do not think any Press in the world has the right to do so. I can quote persons, including the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Heath, on this kind of reporting. When the Press is wilfully misleading a people, they are no longer complying with the prime requirement of a Press.

†Then they are no longer purveyors of news; they do not assist in forming a decent public opinion in the country where they enjoy that particular freedom. They have a duty to fulfil. If Stanley Uys writes as his own opinion that drug-taking is a civil right that a person has, even the taking of hard drugs, as he has written, and that there are not so many advanced thinkers who will advocate this, believe it or not— if he is an advanced thinker who thinks it is a civil right a person has to take such drugs, let him make propaganda for it.

*But his newspaper must stop creating a Mafia in the Press, and Joel Mervis, the “Godfather”, with his political hirelings, must now stop being the character assassins of good Afrikaners in South Africa for the sake of dirty silver. [Interjections.] I am no longer willing to believe that the motives of the Strydoms and the Serfonteins are the motives of news carriers. They are cheap agents who are paid for the work they are doing. This could be left to other journalists—and there are many decent journalists—to say what they think of this kind of journalism. I have wondered whether the Press Council should not be given some teeth, whether that Press Council should not be changed a little, if the time has not come for us to have a Press Council under the chairmanship of a judge, assisted by two assessors, one perhaps chosen from the public and appointed by the Minister and another … [Interjections.]

†Yes, a sort of judicial commission—a popular topic these days!—consisting of a chairman and two assessors, one appointed by the Minister and the other one a top journalist.

*When a newspaper presents its own opinions as news by means of headlines, and presents comment as if it were news, or presents lies as news, they must then consider whether such a newspaper must still be able to publish what it wants to, but should then be published like the Government Gazette without headlines, and with factual news on one side and comment on the other; and let them then make the comments they want to make; no one would bother them.

The power of the Press is tremendous. If the Press honestly wanted to set itself the task of building up the morals of a people, building up a people, even building up of a Basson, it could succeed, However, if the Press is willing to abuse its power in order to destroy a country, it would also be able to succeed in that.

When did you realize that?

Shucks, that hon. member is just like a kind of parrot. I wish he would go and work for the Sunday Times.

I am only asking when you realized that.

Could the hon. member not go and work for the Sunday Times? I want to give an example of the kind of reporting taking place in this country. I have here an article which was published in the Sunday Times. The writer is Mr. Serfontein. I shall quote from it—

The Prime Minister is now dragged into this. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether there was any truth in this article. I asked him whether he ever had an interview with Mr. Serfontein. He said it was the greatest untruth in the world. Here Mr. Serfontein comes along with his kind of propaganda and even drags in the Prime Minister in order to tell a wilful lie for the sake of his own kind of low party politics which he is busy with in this country. Can we carry on like this? I want to refer to Mr. Heath in order to illustrate the power of the Press. Mr. Heath granted a question and answer interview and he himself complained. He said—

He then mentioned a case that had received attention and told the pressman that he should please not mention that specific newspaper in his report. That is how the power of the Press has grown, so much so that even a Prime Minister must make such an appeal. It is also true, however, that when power is abused, the power itself will perish. If I could be a contributory factor today, I would be glad, because I want to ask the Press: Help to build South Africa up, help to lift people up, help to get the morals of the people to a high level again. Is that too much to ask? After all, they are regarded as the guardians of the morals of the people. They should be the formers of public opinion. What are they trying to do?

I am told every day that never in the history of South Africa has the Press been less credible to the public. Why? Let the Press itself go and inquire. It is a pity that this is so, because there are still journalists in South Africa who are people of character and honour, who would not lend themselves to the kind of thing that is happening today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one virtually rubs one’s eyes a few times when one hears from that side of the House the kind of language we heard today. I am inclined to say: Well done, friend Jack from Sea Point! [Interjections.] However, I wonder why this has come so late. This side of the House has frequently warned against what were sometimes lies, sometimes half-truths and frequently distorted reports appearing in the Press. However, this side of the House did not always obtain the support which has come from the opposite side of the House today. The hon. member has surprised us a little with his address to this House. I do want to say, nevertheless, that I wonder whether the hon. member for Kensington agrees with him about everything he said. I believe he will probably tell us later that he wholeheartedly agrees with what his colleague for Sea Point had to say about the Press.

I want to cross over to another subject. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vereeniging said. As far as I am concerned the hon. the Minister could not have put his case better than he did when he said that his department deals with the lives of this country’s people from the cradle to the grave. If we look at the informative annual report for the 1972 financial year, we find that the department is involved in the registration of births, the registration of voters, the registration of marriages, with educational matters, with planning and with everything that has to do with the individual in this country of ours. We note here that the department is the hub around which the entire State machinery turns. One can say of this department that it is the hub and that the other departments are the spokes of the powerful government service wheel to keep the wagon of the state machine going and to propel it forward. It is also my privilege, as it is the privilege of any hon. member of this House, to go to the office of this department. They moved into their new offices in Pretoria not so long ago. What is remarkable is that one does not have to stand around floundering there. There is enough place to sit and write. There is top-quality service.

With respect to this book of life I want to say, firstly, that I am of the opinion that it is a good name for the identity document which every citizen must now get. It was interesting to see how people of all languages and tongues were being served there. At times interpreters are used. Information in connection with entries in birth and marriage registers, etc., had sometimes been so incorrectly done that the person carrying the birth certificate or marriage certificate could not believe it was his. That is how the work was done in the distant past, in the distant past when the policeman was still on patrol and collected information about registration wherever he went. This department has sorted everything out beautifully and today they are able, within a few minutes, not only to obtain information in their records in connection with any individual that comes along, but also, within a short space of time, to bring about the required amendments, if necessary. In addition to the thanks we owe to all the branches of the department for the functions which it is carrying out we, as members of this committee, ought to express our particular appreciation for the way in which the election division is functioning. Not so long ago the registration of voters was undertaken. That registration is already in order. Sufficient indexes have been collected and there are sufficient registers so that it is easy to serve every constituency. I really think it is a big job, and we must give these people to understand that we are grateful for the work they are doing, and not only in respect of the registration of voters. There is also the mass of work they are now engaged in in connection with the population registration. There are scores of people who come to them for information, scores who come to them with fire-arms, with birth certificates, driving licences for motorcars, and these data are all clearly and neatly recorded in the book of life, which everyone will eventually carry in his pocket and which it is everyone’s privilege to carry. Today I also want to express my thanks to the few thousand public servants who live in my constituency and who know that they can lift up their heads today. The hon. the Minister can really feel satisfied at having struck a psychological blow in the cultivation of renewed patriotism amongst public servants. It is not so far-fetched to speak of renewed patriotism. My constituency has been trying for more than 20 years to give effect to this matter of public servants’ rights in politics. More than 40 years ago a certain official asked me: “Why do you want to go to a political meeting?” I told him that I am also a pariot of this country and want to know what goes on at these meetings. He then replied: “Forget it; your patriotism is in your trouser pocket.” Today we can say that that kind of patriotism would no longer exist in this country. The public servant who previously perhaps thought along these lines, will today know that he can also push out his chest, lift up his head and say that he is a full-fledged citizen of this country. I thank the hon. the Minister and his department for what they have done in respect of this matter.

It is quite obvious to me that it is necessary for me to come back to the question of the composition of the Civil Service. I say it is necessary to return to it partly because of the remarks of the hon. the Minister upon the subject and partly because of the remarks of the hon. member for Rissik earlier on this subject. I want to make it quite clear that this whole matter of the English-speaking person’s presence in the Civil Service was raised in two debates earlier this session when a very large number of members on the opposite side were reproachful of the fact that there were so few English-speaking persons in the Police Force. Having heard that, I was moved to say in effect that it was not enough just to reproach about the matter but that one should look for the causes. I made it plain that in my opinion one of the reasons, and I stress only one of the reasons, while there are many reasons, is that the English-speaking non-Nationalist believes, and I stress “believes”, that he will not get a square deal in the Service. That is my firm belief and I stated it in that form and it can be found in Hansard. I also gave as an illustration that even certain members on this side in this House were of this view. When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke on this subject, he made it quite plain that he was of this view too, that he who had been in the Service had felt he could get nowhere notwithstanding that he was bilingual and that he had the lower law diploma, and so on. I want to say that he is in my opinion, indeed to my knowledge, not the only person on this side whom I can quote as having had that experience. I stress and say again that some people believe that they do not get a square deal although they perhaps do get one. There are others who believe that they do not get a square deal and indeed do not get one. I am satisfied in regard to the examples I know of, that there are certainly many in the second category, namely people who do not get a square deal. Why I say that it is so important to return to this matter is that it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. the Minister, for both of whom I have respect, and all the hon. Nationalist members who spoke in the earlier debates I referred to, are quite convinced, apparently, that this belief does not exist amongst English-speaking people who are non-Nationalists. I want to stress that I am only dealing with English-speaking people as distinct from Afrikaans-speaking United Party people, because this was the point that was raised in the two earlier debates. I leave that out of account because there is no time to deal with it, nor is there time to deal fully with the question of the Broederbond, although I shall touch on that. I state that as my definite experience and I would go so far as to say that it is not only a widespread belief among English-speaking people who are non-Nationalists, but that it is a universal belief that they will not get a square deal. I am not saying by any means that all do not get a square deal and I am not saying that everyone believes that he is not getting a square deal, but I am quite convinced that there is a universal view among English-speaking South Africans that they do not get a square deal in the Service. The hon. member for Rissik …

Do you believe all this?

I certainly do believe that that is so. I wish to make it plain that I do believe English-speaking non-Nationalists do not get as square a deal, as Nationalists do. I believe that in some cases, unjustifiably, they do not get a square deal. In some cases they may not deserve the promotion they believe they are entitled to.

Give us examples.

Well, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District quoted himself as an example, as I have said. [Interjections.]

“They protesteth too much!” [Interjections.]

It surprises me that hon. members should be so convinced that they are right, because they were equally convinced in the days of the United Party Government that no Nationalist got a square deal. They were all absolutely convinced about that and are confirming it again now. They were quite convinced that in the days of the United Party Government they did not get a square deal. They are indeed very, very hopeful if they believe that it is not felt by the people I have mentioned that the boot is now on the other foot. The important reason I have for raising this is that, until it is appreciated that this belief exists, you cannot hope to get the improvement that all of us would like to see. I believe that all of us in this House would like to see that the two language groups are represented in the Civil Service in approximately the proportion in which they are found in the population. I fully accept that that is the wish of the hon. the Minister and that most hon. members would feel that that is desirable. Until therefore you look the facts in the face, you cannot hope to achieve this.

In reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, the hon. the Minister said that it was a pity that the hon. member said what he did because it was frightening English-speaking South Africans off. There is no question of frightening them off today; the facts speak for themselves. It was the Nationalists in this House who raised the matter of the absence of English-speaking people in the police. It was they who raised it and I believe that the facts bear this out. In fact, it is because this matter has gone unchecked and perhaps too little has been said about it that hon. members opposite, including the hon. the Minister, still believe that it is not in fact the belief of English-speaking non-Nationalists.

Where are your facts?

I am telling you; I am speaking from my own experience of people who have spoken to me and I am referring, also, to hon. members who have spoken here. I want to cite a portion of a document which purports to be a Broederbond document, which I think only adds fuel to this belief, and this type of thing is commonplace. I quote now, Mr. Chairman, from an article which purports to be from a circular of the Broederbond of 1969. It has never been denied and I believe it to be the truth. What it says is this—

Amptelike aanstellings.

That has never been denied, and I firmly believe that it is true. [Interjections.] The point I make is that to me it is definitely clear that the Broederbond are operating in the Civil Service to try to get their people into the leading positions. And I stress that this operates against ordinary other Nationalists and of course against all United. Party people. Hon. members can say what they like, but this is widely believed not only by English-speaking South Africans, but by many Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, including Nationalists. It must be remembered that we are told, and I also believe it, that the great majority of the Cabinet are members of the Broederbond. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to elaborate much on what the hon. member for Pinelands has just said. The allegation he made I shall leave to the hon. the Minister to reply to. However, I do not think one can take too much notice of the hon. member for Pinelands if the example he mentioned is a generalization about what is taking place in the Public Service. I think he chose a very poor example. Why did the hon. member not take the opportunity to prove the statements he made by substantiating them with facts? He shied away from that completely. The hon. member levelled a very serious charge against Afrikaans-speaking public servants, i.e. that they got into positions as a result of the fact that they had the pressure of the Broederbond behind them. I hope the Afrikaans-speaking officials will take note of the charge levelled against them by the hon. member. He is charging them, in other words, with being in positions for which they are not qualified, because they got there by means other than on the basis of merit. What is interesting is the way the hon. member quoted the Sunday Times with relish after we had heard the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. While the hon. member for Sea Point was speaking, I asked myself whether he was speaking on behalf of his party and whether he was reflecting the feelings of all the members sitting on that side. It is now very clear to me that the hon. member for Sea Point was at least not interpreting the feeling of the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands disagrees with the hon. member for Sea Point about the Sunday Times, but the hon. member for Sea Point also disagrees with other hon. members sitting there. He disagrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I shall tell you why. It is because he objects to certain people being grabbed by the Sunday Times and being built up, while others are discredited. Who is it, in the ranks of that party, who is being built up by the Sunday Times? They know very well who these people are. This proves, in the first place, that he was not interpreting the feelings of the hon. members on that side.

Sir, what I also found interesting in the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point, was that he became so tremendously upset about the character assassination being committed by the Sunday Times. I can understand his being upset about that, because it is the United Party that is now being given the dressing down. But before the Sunday Times grabbed them, hon. members sitting on that side cheerfully joined in the Sunday Times’ game of committing character assassinations on National Afrikaners. There are very few of them who did not stand there holding the Sunday Times in their hands in order to join in a smear campaign against members on this side, inter alia, also Cabinet Ministers who were sitting on this side.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words that hon. members are joining in a smear campaign with the Sunday Times in their hands.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but may I say …

Order! The words have been withdrawn; the hon. member must proceed now.

I am saying, Sir, that they revelled in the smeer campaign which the Sunday Times conducted. Time and again they quoted the Sunday Times here in that connection. Before one of them gets up and says he is interpreting the feeling of the United Party, and does what was done by the hon. member for Sea Point, one can take no notice of the attack the hon. member for Sea Point launched against the Sunday Times.

I should like to express a few ideas about the professional group within the Public Service. Here I specifically want to refer to the shortage that exists in the case of architects, quantity surveyors and engineers. Apart from doctors, we certainly have the biggest shortages in these three categories which I have just mentioned. One has the utmost praise for what is being done by the people in these categories who are employed in the Public Service. It just so happens that people in these categories are connected with departments that spend large amounts in this country. This includes, inter alia, the Department of Public Works; to mention just one example, this year we have an amount of R63 million in the capital estimates of the Department of Public Works, and that is apart from the work they are engaged upon. R108 million is being granted this year for capital works to the provinces alone. In other words, in the case of these two groups alone, an amount of R171 million is being voted. This money was granted for expenditure on capital works. Sir, we know that these people are especially scarce, and for that reason it is difficult to get them; that is why large concessions are already being made by the Public Service to draw these people to the Public Service. Because we have the tremendous development in the outside sector, there is a great deal of pressure on the services of these people; but the result of this is that as the State’s service expands, more and more State work has to be given to the outside sector, i.e. to private practising architects, quantity surveyors and consulting engineers. Because we must fall back on the private sector for planning, design and even supervision, we run the risk of having problems with the exercising of control as a result of the fact that we do not have the necessary officials; and because these are departments that spend a great deal of money, it goes without saying that there should always be control and even supervision. I do not think anyone would disagree with me there.

I know that everything is being done that can possibly be done and that great pressure is being placed on these people who are in the Service. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister and the Public Service Commission should consider giving public servants many of the smaller jobs, which these departments deal with, to carry out in their spare time; i.e. to have public servants undertake the planning and design of smaller works on the basis of bonus remuneration. I think that drawing these people to the Public Service from outside could furnish a great contribution. This would not cause any disruption in the salary structure of the officials either. Sir, in the first place I believe that the State would eventually gain by this; secondly, that the State would hereby ensure that money spent on capital works can be controlled and, thirdly, that this would enable the State to draw the necessary officials for these most important services.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down wants to know if United Party members here support the views of the hon. member for Sea Point on the Sunday Times. The gravamen of the attack of the hon. member for Sea Point on the Sunday Times was that it is portraying comment as news. In support of his criticism of this tendency, he quoted Mr. Heath, and I see that not so long ago Mr. Nixon had the same comment to make about newspaper reporters, especially political reporters, giving comment in the form of news. That was the gravamen of the attack of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East said that he hoped that the public servants would hear of the remark made by the hon. member for Pinelands that they were being promoted not because of merit but because of the influence of the Broederbond. Sir, I want to tell him that it is not only English-speaking members of the Public Service who think that the Broederbond is interfering; it is Afrikkaans-speaking and Nationalist members of the Service as well.

Why don’t you talk about Free Masonry?

Sir, what influence have the Free Masons got with the Government when it comes to the promotion of public servants? Is the hon. member suggesting that the Free Masons are using their influence to get members of the Service promoted? Sir, I would like to remind hon. members opposite, who are horrified at the idea that English-speaking people are being overlooked for promotion, of what happened to Mr. Rothseth, who should have become Secretary for Native Affairs when Dr. Eiselen was appointed to that post. Dr. Eiselen was brought in and promoted over his head, although he was a very efficient and able official. Hon. members must not pretend that this does not happen. [Interjections.] It is no good shouting and saying: “Give us instances.” The hon. member for Pinelands has said that that is the impression amongst public servants, and I know that there is that impression amongst them; you merely have to talk to officials and they will tell you so.

Sir, I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about something else. In the debate on the Treasury Vote I raised with the hon. the Minister of Finance the question of allowances for public servants employed in the self-governing Bantu areas. I am particularly interested in the Transkei, but what happens in the Transkei will now affect all the other areas which will become self-governing and to which White officials will be seconded. The Minister of Finance replied to me that this matter should be raised with the Minister of the Interior, and I do so now. This matter was first brought to the hon. the Minister’s notice by the Minister of Finance when I wrote to the Minister of Finance complaining about the withdrawal of the allowance paid to teachers in the Transkei by the Provincial Council. The Minister of Finance handed my letter to this Minister who replied to me as follows—

Now the position is that in 1970 allowances were introduced and paid to teachers in the Transkei because of the difficulty of obtaining teachers. Representations were made to the provincial council and members of the executive council visited the Transkei and saw what the position was, that they could not get teachers for the schools there, and so they agreed to pay them allowances on the same terms as those paid to civil servants, Whites, living and working in the Transkei and who were seconded to the Transkei Government. These allowances have been stopped from 1972. The teachers who were receiving allowances continue to receive allowances, as I understand, but new teachers, newly appointed, will not receive the allowance. Now, that seems to be most unfair. After all if the principle was accepted that allowances should be paid, and the principle was accepted in 1970 and it was paid for two years, then I submit that the principle should still be correct and teachers should still be paid the allowances. The Minister should know that in the Transkei there is ill-feeling among Government officials because the officials who are seconded receive the allowances and other officials, like postal officials and railway officials and the police, do not receive the allowances because they are not seconded. Now the teachers are in the same position. It must be a matter of great concern to the Government that the development in the Reserves is not taking place as it should, and everything should be done to encourage entrepreneurs to go into the Reserves and to establish themselves there as industrialists. They will not go unless they can take their White staff with them. In a very interesting survey by the Financial Mail in March they deal with the problem of establishing industries in the Bantu areas and one of the big troubles they have is that the White staffs do not want to go there. I just want to quote one White entrepreneur. He said that to persuade White employees to work at Brits cost the country an extra R50 000 a year; part goes into subsidizing housing, and part in salaries that have to be 20 to 30% higher than on the Reef. If the entrepreneurs are having difficulty in getting their White people to go to the Reserves now, there will be much more difficulty if there are not any schools for their children in those Reserves. We must understand that the Cape teachers are not transferred from post to post, teachers apply to go to posts. They are not like civil servants, who are transferred and cannot refuse to go. Now teachers are not going to apply to go to the Transkei, and in fact this was the experience, that they were reluctant to go to the Transkei, and they will be reluctant to go to other areas unless inducements are paid, unless they get the treatment that public servants are getting.

I want the Minister to understand that for the Government and for South Africa as a whole it is most important that the Whites who are working in the Reserves and who live there should be on good terms with the African people there. The people who can build up good relations there are the people who deal with them personally. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to review his refusal to give the teachers an allowance, because I want him to accept the principle that White officials working in the Reserves should be paid an extra allowance so that they can be encouraged to go there and do not work there with a grudge. Recently one has seen some of the difficulties White officials are experiencing in the Reserves. These officials come into close contact with the African. It is on them and on their attitude to the African that good relations must be built. One would have seen that the Africans demand now that the Police Force must be handed over to the Transkei. Some White policemen are going to be sent out. They have made it quite clear. They have taken over the Department of Health in the Transkei, the running of hospitals and all the health institutions in the White areas as well. I appeal to this hon. Minister to play his part in the Cabinet, as Minister of the Interior who controls salaries, in seeing that it is made worthwhile for White people to go to the Reserves so that we do keep them there and have their assistance in building up the Transkei and the other Reserves into viable areas for the African people.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we listened to a very interesting speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. It is apparently the first time that the hon. member and the members opposite have discovered what tremendous damage the English-language Press, and the Sunday Times, in particular could have done. Years ago, when this side of the House came along with legislation, and when the Sunday Times was their mediator and said we were taking away the freedom of persons in South Africa, the United Party confirmed it in this House. When the Sunday Times said we were establishing a police state in South Africa, the United Party confirmed it in this House. [Interjections.] When the National Party said that the Sunday Times was committing character assassination, the United Party did not say a word against that. Today is the first time we have heard the Opposition say that the Sunday Times is committing character assassination. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point something, and that is what Mr. Stanley Baldwin said in 1931. The hon. member could also have quoted that, but I am now going to quote it. What Mr. Stanley Baldwin said when he was Prime Minister of Britain, the hon. member could have said in respect of the Sunday Times—

Those were hard words that were used —power without responsibility, the prerogative of harlots throughout the ages. He was not the only one to have used words of that kind, because in the previous century Disraeli said of the English Press—

It does not suit the United Party to speak in these terms today, because for 25 years, day in and day out, the English-language Press has besmirched not only the National Party, because now I am not speaking of the National Party alone: but since 1948 that Press has claimed that South Africa is a police state. They predicted that the banks would close down. Today it does not actually look as if the banks are going to close down. I do not want to go into this point any further, but as I have already said, this double talk has been going on for many years. Now that the United Party has discord in their own ranks, they have suddenly discovered who their enemies are. I think it was high time for us to have heard such a speech in this House. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sea Point on having had the courage of his convictions to have at least stood up to these newspapers which initially protected and mollycoddled them. I remember how the Sunday Times protected the United Party’s Cape leader, the hon. member for Newton Park, in the past when he began with his character assassination.

I want to come to another point. The hon. member for Green Point asked the hon. the Minister what his attitude is in respect of the “preservation to the fullest extent of the liberties of movement”. Why must the hon. member ask a question of that nature? Why must the hon. member, by asking this question, create the impression that there is no liberty of movement? There has never been a case in which there has not been liberty of movement. There has always been liberty of movement in South Africa, but one cannot have liberty of movement without certain restrictions also being imposed. Why does the hon. member, who is himself studying internal affairs, ask the question, knowing as he does under what circumstances there is liberty of movement in South Africa? He also asked the following question: “What are the inherent basic liberties of a citizen of South Africa?” Does he, then, not know what the inherent liberties of the South African population are? Does he now, after 25 years, have to come and ask what the basic liberties are? He knows what the basic liberties are. What he did was just a veiled attack on the Government by virtue of the fact that he wants to accuse the Government of wanting to smother the basic liberties of the individual or of already having done so. It is no use our coming with this type of attack. In addition the hon. member said: “If he wants to move, if he wants to travel, he must be able to do so and if prevented, he must know why he is prevented.” The hon. the Minister replied to that, but I want to say that I do not think it is necessary for that kind of question to be asked. As far as the portion “if he wants to move” is concerned, does the hon. member know what the procedure is? The hon. member knows what the procedure is “if he wants to travel”. As far as the portion “ … he must be able to do so and if prevented, he must know why he is prevented” is concerned, the hon. member also knows what the procedure is. The hon. the Minister replied to that allegation of the hon. member. The hon. member knows that when a passport or a visa is refused in any other country, no reasons are given. There are also other reasons why it is not supplied—inter alia when the security of the State is being threatened. Hon. members make this kind of statement in a very nice way, but when one analyses it, one finds it to be a veiled attack aimed at the Government and at procedures in South Africa in general.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, in this debate we have again had an example of the ambiguity, the schizophrenia of the United Party …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw the word “schizophrenia” in favour of ambiguity.

That is not a very good start, is it?

You just go along to the Sunday Times.

It is specifically the Sunday Times that is now upsetting me. Earlier on we heard the hon. member for Sea Point launch a fairly sharp attack on the Sunday Times, and quite a few members opposite agreed with that. But then we find the hon. member for Pinelands, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District before him, taking part in the debate again and echoing the Sunday Times. What was upsetting them was the mistrust that English-speaking people have in regard to the National Party Government. In last Sunday’s Sunday Times there was an article with the heading “English left out of top jobs.” That is how they actually allow themselves to be prompted by the Sunday Times. On the one hand you have the members who allow themselves to be prompted by the Sunday Times, and on the other hand you have the members who attack the Sunday Times and criticize it. That is typical of the ambiguity we can expect from the United Party. On the one hand they parade as conservatives, and on the other hand they present themselves as the guardians of the national interests of the English-speaking people.

This Government has never been guilty of any discriminatory conduct in the Public Service towards English-speaking people. There is not the slightest proof of such a thing whatsoever. It is a political trick which the United Party is now coming along with to get out of their present dilemma by trying to imply that the National Party cannot be trusted with the rights of the English-speaking people. The Sunday Times speaks here of the “deep-rooted suspicion among English speakers that the Nationalist Government cannot be trusted to give them a fair deal and any co-operation with them would amount to a sell-out”. But it is surprising to see who the writer of this article is, i.e. a certain Mr. Hans Strydom. He is now suddenly the guardian of the English-speaking people in the United Party. If the United Party does not beat this drum, they realize that they are going to lose the support of the English-speaking people. This is consequently their last fortress in which they still cherish any hopes of retaining any degree of support—that is why they are adopting this attitude.

The question I want to ask is: What accusations did they make last year about the so-called Boer-hatred matter, and what is this other than the direct alternative to that? If they were shedding large crocodile tears about the so-called Boer-hatred, then now they are surely doing exactly the opposite, and there is no justification for that whatsoever. There is not the slightest proof that there is any justification for this allegation of theirs.

It is falling over flat, isn’t it?

The hon. member for Durban Point does not really have a point to make. Here is an interesting phenomenon which is presenting itself, i.e. the English newspapers are actually adopting a standpoint in opposition to the United Party. I think that the eventual outcome of that will be to create with the public a greater credibility gap in respect of the English newspapers as such.

And their advertizers.

I think it is desirable, in actual fact, for the public as a whole to realize that the political tirade of the Opposition Press is not based on anything factual. I therefore welcome the growing gap that is developing between the general public and the Opposition Press which, I may almost say, is adopting an unpatriotic attitude.

There is one further point I should like to raise in this debate about an internal matter.

Hear, hear!

I have thus far replied to points raised by the Opposition. So you need not—I almost wanted to say —be so “sanctimonious”.

You did not reply to them.

I wonder whether the time has not come for a reinvestigation or redetermination of the tasks and responsibilities of the various levels of government. In 1910 certain duties were allocated to the provincial administrations. In 1910 the position was such that four separate colonies and republics negotiated and came together to form a union.

Is that true?

But there was still a certain degree of mistrust towards each other, and therefore certain aspects were reserved exclusively to be handled by the provinces. I am referring to matters such as education, hospitals, roads and game parks, but that was 63 years ago, and in the meantime other circumstances have developed, and I wonder whether the time has not perhaps come for an investigation to be made into the possible reclassification of certain tasks at present being handled by this Parliament, tasks which could possibly be dealt with more efficiently or effectively by the provincial administrations. I am not going to mention specific examples; I am just going to refer to a few matters which could perhaps be considered. I actually want to advocate that the matter be investigated and that discussions be held with the respective Executive Committees, with provincial councillors, with the respective provinces and with the various departments that may possibly be involved. I have in mind, for example, an area such as forestry. Could there not perhaps be more effective implementation by the provinces locally as far as something like that is concerned? Is it necessary for this to be handled by Parliament? I am also thinking of the position of Health in general. Since certain health measures are being undertaken by the provinces, and others by the Central Government, I wonder whether it would not perhaps be more effective if all aspects of Health were to be undertaken by the provincial administrations. I think there are grounds for such an investigation. I also have Tourism in mind, for example. Tourism is pre-eminently something that must be locally-orientated. Tourism as such is not presented on a country-wide basis. Seen from the point of view of Tourism, publicity must be given to a specific area, for example the Kruger National Park, the Natal parks, the Peninsula or local attractions. Perhaps there is some merit in a proposal that an investigation be instituted into the possibility of readjusting certain tasks and responsibilities as between the Central Government and the provinces. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would never have thought that the day would dawn that I would agree with the hon. member for Klip River. Tonight I am in complete agreement with the second plea he made to the Minister, i.e. that the Minister should as soon as possible please institute an investigation so that the policy of the United Party can be made known to the provincial councils. We have been pleading for this for many years now. We opposed in this House the legislation which took away these powers from the provincial councils. It was the party of that hon. member which passed that legislation.

†Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed and it gives me pleasure this evening to support the hon. member and to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the handing back to the provincial councils of the powers which were taken away by this Nationalist Government. It also appears that the hon. member, the ex-member for Umhlatuzana, has now also accepted the federal plan of this side of the House. He mentioned Forestry, but I believe that in this regard I cannot support him. I do not believe that that hon. member can see the wood for the trees.

The hon. member referred earlier—and I must take him to task on that—to the question of the distrust of English-speaking South Africans in the Nationalist Government. I want to ask him in all fairness and in all honesty: What has this Nationalist Government done to instil any confidence by the English-speaking South Africans in this Nationalist Government? I do not believe that they have done anything. He goes further and follows the line set by his Minister where he takes me to task for something which I said here a week ago. I want to appeal to both those hon. members to have a look at my Hansard again. Let us get the record straight. At no time did I make any statement that it was English-speaking public servants who felt insecure in the Public Service. What I did say was that it was non-Nationalists and non-Broederbonders who were insecure in the Public Service. These are the people who are insecure whether they are English speaking or Afrikaans speaking. I believe what I said last Wednesday that it is time that the hon. the Minister reintroduced the post of Public Service Inspector to find out what is happening in the service.

You are starting again with the Boere-haat.

There we have it again, namely the old cry of “Boerehaat”. I am sorry that that word ever came into the vocabulary of this country. I do not believe it was “Boere-haat”. There sits the hon. the Minister who introduced it first. It was “Engelsehaat”.

I want to deal with something more important, something which has a better place in this Vote that we are discussing now. I want to refer to the general registration of voters and the supplementary registration which we had in February of this year.

However, I want first to congratulate the department. I am sincere and I want to congratulate them on this report that they have given us. It is a comprehensive report, a good report and a report for which we have pleaded for many years. I want to say thank you to the department for this. I must also welcome the hon. the Minister. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of talking to him. The hon. member for Green Point put it quite clearly that it has been a rather inauspicious start on the part of the hon. the Minister. I want to go further with this argument and show tonight that even the general registration of voters was also bungled under this particular Minister.

According to this report 7 400 enumerators under 670 senior enumerators costing the Government R646 000 were supposed to register all the voters in the Republic of South Africa during a three months’ period last year. I want to say that that registration was so inefficiently done that within five months another 238 000 voters were registered.

How many duplicates?

The hon. the Minister says how many duplicates? I want to ask him that. I want to ask him and the department how many duplications there are? Why were there duplications? Has he asked himself why there were duplications? It was because of the inefficiency of the registration in the first place. The department made it quite clear at the beginning of the registration that they did not want the assistance of the political parties; the political parties had to stay out of the registration. Halfway through, when they found themselves in such a mess, they had to appeal to the political parties to help them out of the mess. The hon. the Minister knows that that is the truth, and that the political parties had to help them out of the mess. With the assistance of the political parties, we still had the situation that, within five months, we had to register another 238 000 voters.

The hon. the Minister must not tell us about duplications. In the Durban area alone we have found over 2 000 duplications. What does this mean, as far as the Select Committee which is sitting right now, is concerned? We have a Select Committee which is sitting to discuss amendments to the Electoral Act. These figures are essential to that committee and the hon. the Minister has the temerity to ask tonight: “How many of them are duplicates?” What figures is the Select Committee using? Is it using figures which include all these duplications?

But this matter goes even further than that. According to the report of the department, 27 851 applications for registration as voters were rejected at the time of the general registration. I wonder how many of those applications were rejected on the grounds of insufficient proof of South African citizenship. I doubt whether the hon. the Minister recollects this, because he did not handle this particular portfolio during the debate last year, but I am sure that the officials of the department and members on the other side will recollect that we raised this very point in debate last year. We suggested a solution to the hon. the Minister to prevent just this very thing. How many people have been refused re-registration as voters because of insufficient proof of South African citizenship? Does he know what he has done to these people, who are nearly all new South Africans? I have had them coming into my office and saying: “Mr. Webber, I have had your country. I am leaving your country. Why must I be perpetually treated as a second class citizen? Why must I be perpetually asked to produce proof that I am a South African citizen? I was on the roll; why must I prove it again a second time?” This is what is happening, and I am sure that the officials of the department know that it is happening. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some idea of how many of these 27 000-odd people were rejected on those grounds. In the case of some of these people who were previously on the roll, they had come to South Africa 30 and 40 years ago, but they were no longer in possession of the necessary documents to prove that they were South African citizens. There is one case, of which the hon. the Minister’s department is aware, of a person who received a passport in 1969. But in 1972 he is told he is not a South African citizen, and therefore he cannot be put on the voters’ roll. Why does this sort of thing have to happen? It is completely unnecessary.

After the rolls came out and the department realized just what a mess they were in, an appeal was made to the political parties to assist them to put matters right. I may say that this involved considerable expense to the political parties concerned, both as regards money and time spent by voluntary workers and paid workers of the parties.

In two polling districts in my constituency, each with over 1 000 voters, we sent the whole roll back in response to a request by the electoral officer in Natal, who said: “Let us know of the changes. Just type a list and let us know of the mistakes in the voters’ roll.” But in those two polling districts we sent the whole roll back because more than 80% of the entries had errors of one kind or another. Some peoples’ names appeared three times on the roll. But then, when you go into Pietermaritzburg, you find that there are people registered in the constituency of the hon. member for Pietermaritzbug City whose addresses are given as “c/o The Nurses’ Honey, Prince Alfred Street, Pietermaritzburg.” Where is the “Nurses’ Honey”, Sir? Sir, can you imagine the embarrassment of one of these ladies who has to apply for a postal vote? Because in terms of the regulations, that voter has to register her address as it appears in the roll. I am sure the hon. the Minister realized that this is not the “Nurses’ Honey” at all; it is the Nurses’ Home, but what about the embarrassment of the poor nurse who has to tell the presiding officer that she is registered at the “Nurses’ Honey” in Pietermaritzburg? Then, Sir, we also had the case of “Jaap Street”—shades of Jaap Marais! We had “Jaap Street” and “Jeep Street” in Pietermaritzburg; these should have been “Loop Street”, but these are the errors which have crept in. We also had the situation that after the roll closed we were advised by the electoral officer that he had 10 000 cards which had been received late. How did that come about? Within a day or two we were told that there were 10 000 cards which had not been received in time, and then the hon. the Minister talks about duplication! Those 10 000 voters received no acknowledgment cards until after the supplementary roll of February, 1973, was published. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it surprises me that a person with so little knowledge can kick up such a fuss about so little. He adopted the standpoint of being able to criticize the Department of the Interior by means of half-truths, which have apparently blown across to him from the Press, and he did so by stating that the department launched a poor registration campaign, apparently as a result of carelessness or because of some or other mistake. This evening I want to state here unequivocally that he does not know what he is talking about. In the first place, hon. members on that side made a great fuss last year about there supposedly being 30% to 40% of errors in the voters’ rolls, and when the voters’ rolls appeared, they and their newspapers paraded the fact that there were a tremendous number of mistakes. Sir, the United Party, the National Party and all the other parties then had the opportunity of carrying out re-registration. The hon. member speaks of duplications and mentions the figure 250 000. Sir, I want to tell you that 50% of those 250 000 are duplications and that the overall majority of them come from Natal, and that is because they were bent on registering every Tom, Dick and Harry. The hon. member had the temerity to mention a person’s name here—I take it we are thinking of the same person—who had been on the voters’ roll as far back as 1959 and who then found, in 1972, that his name was not on the roll. I presume he was referring to those people who fled the country when we became a Republic

In 1969.

… and returned to find their names no longer on the voters’ roll because they had been abroad for quite a few years. Sir, the United Party administration in Natal thought fit to again appoint those same people, who held senior positions, to those same senior positions because of their Britishness; and then they come along and accuse this Government, this department and ourselves of drawing a distinction between Broederbonders and people who do not belong to the Broederbond. Sir, I am making an analysis of this matter, and tonight I want to tell you unequivocally that hon. members on that side are making these statements here because they want to try and drive a wedge between people who belong to cultural organizations and to the ranks of Afrikaners and those who do not. That is their only aim. In addition they are bent on suppressing everything in connection with their cultural organizations, because if we refer to them, they come along with the British Press and call them “this stuff”. Last year, after the hon. the Minister of Defence made a speech here before the Oudtshoorn election, they joined the Sunday Times in proclaiming to the whole world that we Nationalists, in the person of Minister P. W. Botha, were participating in Boer-hatred. I ask the hon. member for East London City whether they said so?

Yes.

And what did that hon. member proclaim when he was a general of the Ossewa-Brandwag?

Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN [Inaudible.]

Sir, hon. members on that side spoke, not in so many words, but by implication, of the feebleness and the unsuitability of the Public Service, and with reference to that I want to quote you the following to show you why they are doing so. When the United Party were still hangers-on of the Sunday Times, the following appeared in that newspaper in April, 1972; the heading was—

They took part in that. They quoted Mr. Marais Steyn here, and I wonder what he now thinks of that, now that they are harassing him like this …

Harrying him.

Under the heading “Grand Slam at P. W.”, the following appeared in the same article—

Why don’t you read out a part of the Sunday Times that is really funny, rather than “Passing Show”?

Sir, that hon. member ought to know better. I have never denied my progeny, and if he wants to do so in this House today, then he must say so. I shall not deny mine. They state further—

Yours sincerely,

D. Mitchell, M.P.

R. G. L. Hourquebie, M.P.

Sir, I now come to the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that the English-language Press and hon. members on that side as fellow travellers, or parallel travellers and now travellers and now following a somewhat circuitous course, want to get at the Public Service because the Public Service consists chiefly of Afrikaans-speaking people—Afrikaans-speaking people for a very good reason, i.e. that they are prepared to do a hard day’s work for their salaries, and as I read this article, their people are busy making money at card games and gambling.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to make an allegation like that on the basis of a satirical column?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Sir, they want to get at the Public Service because it is chiefly Afrikaans speaking and chiefly National, and then they want to link it to the Broederbond, the Afrikaans churches and all those things which are sacred to the Afrikaner. But when the Sunday Times comes along and attacks only one aspect of their society, i.e. their love of the fatherland, then they break with the whole lot; then they say: “We shall no longer go along with you.” They do not say: “You have now driven us into a corner, because we now have to choose between the pink liberal course, which this Press has always tended towards, which we went along with and which we chiefly agreed with, but now that you are attacking our integrity and our love of the father-land, we are no longer going along with you.” And then one gets speeches like that of the hon. member for Sea Point. And why does one get that type of speech? Because the hon. member knows they are now snapping at his heels, because they now want to take some of his bench mates to go and throw him out of Sea Point so that they can put a person there with an Afrikaans name and a red heart.

On a point of order, Sir, is the term “red heart” parliamentary?

Sir, I have never seen a white heart in a person who thinks the way they do.

I now want to come to the point I actually wanted to make. At present we have a provincial policy and a parliamentary policy, and I cannot neglect to say that according to what is taking place today, there is a new dispensation. We now find people in Natal going round and telling other people they cannot obtain hospital facilities as before because the Government is giving them too little money. If one were to examine the figures, one would see that the Government gave the province of Natal R22 million more than before, and what do they do with it? They build houses at the sea. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has spoken for ten minutes of which nine minutes were devoted to insinuations while only the last minute was devoted to dealing with matters in Natal, things which should have been dealt with under her Vote of the provincial administrations rather than under the Vote of the Department of the Interior.

In the time available to me I want to deal with one or two matters arising from the Minister’s remarks before dinner this evening. He asked me to justify my request to him to follow the example set by Mr. Gerdener, his predecessor, in giving reasons for the refusal of passports, and also reasons for the withdrawal of visas. I want to give the hon. the Minister those references. In January, 1972, the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Gerdener, refused passports to the former president of Nusas and one other of Nusas’ office-bearers. The hon. the Minister, Mr. Gerdener, for the information of the general public then issued a statement in which he gave reasons for the refusal. The reasons were that one of these gentlemen had been taking part in the arms embargo campaign against South Africa and both had been taking part in the sports boycott campaign against South Africa. The Minister was apparently unaware of this when he asked me to give him examples, and there are various examples. The other example I want to give him was that his predecessor found it necessary to withhold visas from certain leaders of a church in this country. He then made a special point of inviting to his office the leaders of those denominations to discuss the matter with him so that they might be fully informed of the reasons for the refusal. All I want the hon. the Minister to do is to take the country into his confidence to the fullest possible extent when he finds it necessary to curtail what he himself has referred to as such “intimate matters” referring to individuals in South Africa. That is what I ask him to do. I ask him to follow what was commenced by Mr. Gerdener and I hope it will become the practice as far as the department is concerned. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept the suggestion that when passports are withdrawn there should be some sort of review tribunal. I still believe, even though certain Ministers might regard themselves as infallible, that mistakes can be made and injustices can be perpetrated unless there is an opportunity to review the administrative decision of a Government department under a Minister. I believe this tribunal can be set up quite simply. It can sit in camera and it will give satisfaction to the country and to the individual, but mainly to the country, that there is a review tribunal to which to appeal in case the Minister may have been mistaken in his decision.

Then I want to refer to the announcement the hon. the Minister made about the visit overseas of members of the Public Service Commission. I hope that a considerable time will be spent at the French school for higher administration in Paris. This is a training centre for public servants which has existed for a number of years and to which 400 selected persons are admitted each year. That school has produced over the years a solid cadre of qualified, efficient public servants which has enabled France to maintain its efficient administration, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, despite the frequent changes of Government. I might say to the hon. the Minister that perhaps they might bring back a message to him. One of the claims of the French Civil Service as to why they are so successful is that they are allowed to get on with their job with the minimum of ministerial interference. That is one of the points which the French Civil Service claims benefits the Service in that country.

I am perturbed at the statement which was made before dinner by the hon. the Minister in regard to the section 7bis movement of visitors to this country and in regard to what will now be required from visitors from the other Commonwealth countries and the colonies. The hon. the Minister said in this statement that the main object of the measure was to protect the work opportunities of permanent residents and approved immigrants. That is a justifiable reason. I concede that there is justification for that. But if that is the main object I want to know what the other objects are. And I find those in what the Minister says further. I am deeply disturbed at what is contained in this statement, because the Minister goes further and says that visitors who are desirous to enter South Africa for employment, including stage performers, musicians, religious workers and persons connected with news media, would in future be required to obtain permission for admission to the Republic before their departure. Now, Sir, why is it that in the category of musicians and stage performers, the Minister should select particularly, of all the categories of employment in South Africa, religious workers? Why should he make special reference to religious workers and to news media personnel? If the hon. the Minister is so ham-handed as to make a statement like this, he cannot then take umbrage when the public asks why this reference; why has he referred to a number of occupations where there is a possibility of there being too many of them in this country? I do not believe that there can ever be too many religious workers in South Africa. And if it is to protect workers, which is the main object of this, why must religious workers be brought in as persons who must be specially scrutinized? There can certainly not be too many of them. Then I want to go further in regard to what connection there is between the protection of the work opportunities of legitimate immigrants and universities and other institutions who wish to enrol foreign students, who are told that they will be well-advised to consult one or other of the offices of the Department of the Interior concerning the procedure to be followed in this regard. What on earth has that got to do with protecting work opportunities in South Africa? When the hon. the Minister introduces these aspects into a statement, which is, so we are told, aimed at protecting the work opportunities in South Africa, he must not blame us when the country as a whole becomes suspicious as to his intentions and how genuine is the real reason he gave us this afternoon. It does not wash. The main argument, the protection of work opportunities, does not apply to religious workers or to students at the universities and certainly it does not apply to persons in the news media. No, I think the hon. the Minister has perhaps shown his hand too obviously and that this measure is being used so that he can introduce a new form of control over the people who come into South Africa. Sir, we will watch what is done in that regard, because it seems to us that it becomes more and more important that the report of the Department of the Interior shall show which visas were refused by this department. I asked earlier for this to be done but the Minister said it was too much work.

It has nothing to do with visas whatsoever.

Can the hon. the Minister assure me that he will now give the list of work permits that were refused? Does it mean that the minister who wishes to come out here to do religious work can wander around the country but he must not draw a salary because he does not have a work permit?

The hon. the Minister asked me why I suggested that he was going to be so rough as regards censorship, that he was going to be stricter. I can only go on what he said at Port Elizabeth at a meeting in October last year. That was when he was the “kragdadige Connie”, because on that occasion he said that one thing was certain: There would have to be amendments to the present law. He added: “Normal laws are useless when dealing with an abnormal situation.” What did he do? He introduced a Bill into this House in regard to which he said that even a judge could not tell him or his committee what was right for the morals of South Africa. I have asked the hon. the Minister—he has not replied to me, but perhaps he will give a reply when he comes into the debate again— whether he can tell me of one newspaper, whether English or Afrikaans, of one organization, whether English or Afrikaans, that has indicated to him that it supports the terms of this Bill which obviously reflects his views. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate we have had up to now, the hon. member for Green Point has not had a good debate. As the main speaker on matters relating to the interior, the hon. member for Green Point has already had several turns to speak. It seems to me as though the hon. member and his team, as far as this debate is concerned, have been quite confused. Hon. members of the Opposition tried to touch upon various matters, but in the light of the speeches made by the hon. members for Sea Point, Pinelands and Transkei it is clear that there has been a great deal of beating about the bush and confusion. The hon. member for Green Point found himself in the difficult position that he simply did not have a united team and that he himself, as the main speaker, could not refute certain basic arguments advanced from this side of the House.

But, surely, now you are talking nonsense.

Where is Japie?

I want to make certain comments on the control which the Department of the Interior, under the guidance of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, should have over the control of aliens in South Africa. The hon. members of the Opposition often level the accusation that it is in fact the National Party, its supporters and representatives that do not have any understanding or knowledge of the world in which we are living. They often make the remark that it is we who are staring at walls and do not have a full grasp of the tendencies and trends in a modern world. However, hon. members will agree with me that the advent and the events of the Second World War, with all the consequences that stemmed from it, brought about a tremendous change in the pattern of life of mankind. One of these is that there has been a tremendous movement of various people from one country to another as a result of the modern means of transport which we have at present. Today it is much easier for a robber to do harm than it was for a pirate in the olden days to do so. Today it is very easy for robbers in various spheres of human life to commit acts of robbery in various spheres in other countries. It does not matter in which spheres or facets of life such acts are committed, but it is imperative for a Minister of the Interior to be in a position to scrutinize closely any alien wishing to enter the country. This remains equally true irrespective of whether these are people wishing to enter the country in the sphere of literature, music, religion or any other. It remains the responsibility of the Minister and his department to keep an eye on those people. South Africa is a friendly country, and South Africa is a country which likes seeing people of other countries here. We go out of our way to extend to these people the hospitality which is characteristic of our country and its people. However, we would be grossly neglecting our duty if we did not, in addition, make attempts to prevent beforehand certain people from entering our country, i.e. those who are unkindly disposed to South Africa and its people. If they have already entered our country and have eluded our nets, our catch-nets, if one may call them that, we must have measures in terms of which we may send such people out of our country.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Pinelands. I do not think I can pass over the hon. member for Pinelands without commenting on what he said. A week or so ago he took up certain basic standpoints in this House, and he has now had ample opportunity to deny the statements he made or at least to put them in their right perspective. I am afraid that the hon. member has not succeeded in doing that. I want to take him back to the attitude he himself adopted. He said the following—

The hon. member went on to say that this applied not only to English-speaking people, but to those English-speaking people who were not Nationalists. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District went along and elaborated even further on that. All that I have asked the hon. member for Pinelands, is that he should come to this House with tangible evidence. If he does not do so, he would in fact be guilty of that and he and his party would be one of the historic factors giving rise to there being antipathy amongst English-speaking people in South Africa towards the Public Service. I say this because he made a statement without substantiating it. I asked the hon. member, if he did have examples as he and his hon. colleagues on that side of the House had been claiming to have, to tell us when he approached the hon. the Minister with those examples. The hon. member should not shake his head now. He is a representative of a constituency, and if it did come to his notice that any person was being discriminated against for any reason, then it is his duty as a representative of this House to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. If the hon. member has not done so, he has not done his duty. Then he has grossly neglected his duty.

I furnished evidence of it in this House.

The hon. members of the Opposition did not bring us any evidence of that. [Interjections.] I do not think it is correct or good for our argument that the hon. member wants to use the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District as an example.

Why not?

I think we should spare the hon. member the embarrassment. The hon. member says that he has many other examples. Let us leave the hon. member. These hon. members should bring to this House other examples of discrimination against people in the Public Service. I want to tell the hon. member that I have read up the Hansard of the ’forties in particular, the last few years during which the United Party governed. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall be able to quote from it numerous examples of questions asked by the Opposition members of that time. These questions were asked in respect of certain public servants. These public servants were mentioned by name, and it was asked that reasons be given for these people having been dismissed from their posts. In other words, when this side of the House were in the Opposition benches, we confronted them with the facts. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that we are living in a difficult world and under difficult circumstances. We do not mind debating certain basic and fundamental problems with the hon. members of the United Party.

You are talking nonsense.

We in South Africa do not have the right to create, without our having the examples, a kind of milieu or atmosphere in respect of one of the most important facets of our machinery of State as a result of which those people may feel that they are being discriminated against. We may not do this. For that reason I want to ask once again whether the hon. member for Pinelands or any hon. member of the United Party has ever, since the hon. the Minister has been the Minister of the Interior, approached him in order to tell him that Mr. A, Mr. B or Mr. C was being discriminated against. The hon. the Minister can also reply to that. Because we do not have that, I want to level the accusation that the hon. members of the Opposition are creating an atmosphere in our Public Service under which not only, as they think, the National Party is going to suffer, but under which they will suffer and under which South Africa and its people will suffer even more hardships.

Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this debate has now come to an end, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking all the members who have participated in this debate sincerely for their contributions. From the greatest heights we sometimes descended to rather low levels, but we have at least kept the debate lively throughout, and I think interesting as well. I want to say to all the hon. members that I am grateful for their contributions and I shall in the course of my reply, as far as it is possible, reply to the matters which were raised.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Pietermarizburg District and the hon. member for Pinelands, who discussed the so-called position of English-speaking persons and non-Nationalists in the Public Service who believe—I hope I have the allegation precisely correct—that they are not receiving fair treatment in the Public Service and do not have a good chance of promotion. I want to say at once that the possibility exists that they believe this, but as the hon. member for Rissik indicated, neither of these two members produced any proof of any nature whatsoever that those people have reason to believe that. It is a belief which may stem from the history of the United Party when we were in the minority and were the Opposition, and when they discriminated against our officials on the Nationalist side. That belief is perhaps being transferred now to the Opposition’s officials, the people who support that party. I want to refer hon. members to the wonderful book by Wennie du Plessis, Die Goue Draad, in which he proves conclusively with chapter and verse, giving quotations, how he was discriminated against when he was in the Public Service. I just want to tell hon. members that the fact remains that the Public Service Commission, as an impartial body, judges and promotes people on merit to the best of their ability, as they think those people justify such treatment on merit.

This was done during the time of the United Party as well.

I hope so. I want to add at once that the disappointment a person feels when he thinks he has not received his justified promotion which he thinks he deserved, applies not only to Opposition supporters. The same applies to Nationalists who sometimes think that they deserved a promotion which they did not receive. If there is a vacant post there are 12 aspirants. One can get the post, and 11 people are disappointed. It makes no difference to what political party they belong, nor does it make any difference what language they speak. Everyone thinks they ought to have been given the post. Surely that is a logical and normal phenomenon in any sphere of life. To single out now, and to say that only this little group of non-Nationalists feels this apparent injustice, is not correct. The problem is that these two hon. members ought to know better. They ought to rise on the Opposition side and support our attempt when we ask people across the political lines and across the language lines to come forward and join the Public Service, for a good, sound Public Service is essential for the development of our wonderful country, South Africa. We should encourage them to join, for we need the best brain-power. We have now improved salary scales as much as we could and we have introduced a pension scheme which excels that of any other organization in South Africa, including private organizations. I want to boast of that at once; it is a fact. We have recruiting teams in the field to recruit people, and we are making all kinds of attempts to attract people to the Public Service. Then two responsible members on the Opposition side come along and say people believe that they are being discriminated against. Without proving anything, they then adhere to what they said. I would have had far more respect for the hon. member for Pinelands, for whom I normally have a great respect because he is a good person, if he had said in conclusion: “Although this fear may possibly exist, I have no information to substantiate it, and for that reason I want to make an appeal to everyone—unless I find evidence to the contrary—to English-speaking persons and United Party supporters, to join the Public Service.” I would then have had far more respect for him.

But I did prove it.

But you did not produce the proof here.

I did prove it.

I listened to both the speeches made by the hon. member, and in not one of the two did he present any proof. I am still waiting for the proof. It never came.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was mentioned as an example. It is true that the hon. member was a public servant. For that reason there is a file available on the hon. member. I just want to tell the hon. member that I will not say a word further about it, except to say that he knows as well as I do as a result of what he was not promoted on certain occasions. I do not think the hon. member would want me to say why; it is no reflection on him, but the clash he had, was not with a Nationalist …

Have you been looking at my file?

No, who said I was? [Interjections.]

Have you been looking at my file?

I am making it very clear to the hon. member that the file is available. I did not even look at it. But I know it as a fact—and I want to say nothing further—and the hon. member knows it, as a result of what he experienced problems. His clash was not with a member of the National Party. He knows that as well as I do.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is he now telling the House that, in fact, somebody has investigated my private life? [Interjections.]

There was no inquiry and no investigation. I can set the hon. member’s mind at rest immediately. If he has a guilty conscience about his file, I can set his mind at rest immediately, for there was no investigation into his file.

Who has looked at it?

I have information at my disposal, and the hon. member ought to know this. If I am wrong, he must deny it, but he is after all not denying this now. After all, he is aware now that I can prove this to him.

I want to go further in regard to this entire position. I want to go further with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, if he will give me an opportunity of doing so. He also attacked me here in regard to the alleged poor general registration of voters which took place. He alleged that the department initially refused to make use of the assistance of the political parties, but that in the end we had to fall back on them in any case. The hon. member knows as well as I do that we said from the start that people were welcome to recommend anyone, and that we would appoint as many of them as we may have needed. Now I want to make a further statement. The registration was not as poor as the hon. member tried to make out. Let me give you the facts. According to the 1970 census, adjusted to the number of people who turned 18 after 1970 and therefore became entitled to vote, and added to that the number of persons who were naturalized during the two years prior to halfway through last year, we calculated that we would be able to register more or less 2 150 000 voters on the voter’s roll. The number we were in fact able to register was over two million. Therefore, it is logical that there was a possible 140 000 people who had not been registered. This sounds like a tremendous number, but it is only 7% of the total number of voters. I want to say that with a de novo registration, requested by both the United Party and the National Party, we had to register everyone from scratch. The heartbreak story of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District …

He is not listening now.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District does not have a point of order in regard to his file. I did not examine it; it is therefore a waste of time for him to talk to the Chief Whip about it, for he does not have a point of order in that regard. I am certain of that. As I have said, the point at issue here is the question of a so-called poor registration. The strangest thing about it is that out of the 230 000 additional registrations which have been sent in, 87 000 have already been rejected by the computer as duplicates. In this way, therefore, we arrive at exactly the right number; there have been approximately 143 000 new registrations, and that is precisely the number we knew from the beginning could possibly come in. It is logical and obvious. A faulty registration of 7% out of a total of more than two million is an excellent achievement if one considers that it was necessary to begin from scratch and to ask each individual to have himself registered all over again on the voters roll. It is therefore not all that unsatisfactory. Now the hon. member is complaining about those people who were on the roll, and have to prove their citizenship, etc. again. The party of that hon. member and my party jointly requested that we should hold a de novo registration. When one holds a de novo registration, one goes into each individual all over again to make certain whether or not his registration on the roll is justified. One checks from the start whether that person may be registered, and whether he did not get onto the roll with the previous registration in some or other unlawful way. One must check these things. It is the task of the department. For that reason I am not making any excuse for that.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another very interesting point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. It is that the Opposition, which in regard to one election after another during the past few years has been levelling accusations at us to the effect that the lists were old, obsolete, incomplete and completely unusable, and that one simply could not hold a decent election with them. Those were the arguments.

It is true.

Yes, it is true. The hon. member for Green Point agrees; he said it is true. I am pleased the hon. member agrees. But that Opposition was then placed in the position, during the by-elections both parliamentary and provincial, to fight elections on the new list throughout. If we had been able to hold the provincial over until the 1st May, we would have been able to fight them on the new roll. It would have been a far newer and better roll. The old roll would then have fallen away completely. In the three provinces in which the National Party exercises control, arrangements were made for the by-elections to be held after 1st May. On 9th May we fought both parliamentary and provincial elections in the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape. This was done so that we could have the benefit of the new roll. But the same United Party who said of the old roll that it was so hopeless and totally ineffective, soon saw to it that they fought the by-election in Umhlatuzana on 4th April, before the new roll came into operation. They therefore preferred to fight on the old “rotten” roll. Now I am asking hon. members in all kindness: What becomes of the logic of a party which rails at a roll as being totally incomplete and then slyly arranges that they fight on the old roll in Natal before the new roll comes into operation? There has to be a reason for doing this. Natal is controlled by a United Party Provincial Administration. I think it is necessary for the Committee to know these facts. The hon. member for Green Point must furnish me with an explanation for this.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District also touched upon another matter. He discussed the readjustment of the functions of the Provincial Administration. This was also discussed by the hon. member for Klip River, and he was supported in that by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I want to say at once that such an investigation can be made. An investigation can be instituted into the readjustment of the powers of Provinces, etc., in respect of certain aspects. I have no objection to this being investigated, but hon. members on both sides must simply understand that such an investigation cuts both ways. It may appear from such an investigation that more powers should be transferred to the Government. An investigation may prove this. The hon. member cannot tell me that I should have an investigation instituted, but want to determine in advance what the outcome of the investigation should be.

If the provinces are deprived of more powers, there will be no powers left.

No, I am saying nothing. I am saying that the investigation may indicate that it is desirable to transfer more powers to the Government. After all, that is logical if one calls for an objective investigation.

There are no powers which have not been transferred.

Very well then, let me mention an example. One department which was mentioned was the Department of Forestry. In this regard the two hon. members do not agree. I want to inform the hon. member for Klip River that I do not think that his investigation can do any harm; I just want to inform hon. members that such an investigation cuts both ways. One cannot, with such an objective investigation as to whom the powers should be entrusted, say in advance that they should only be entrusted to the province. It is just like saying that you can buy any colour car as long as it is black. That is what it amounts to in practice. I want to leave the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District at that.

I am sorry, but first I just want to rectify the matter relating to duplicates which the hon. member exploited so eagerly to the vast amusement of his colleagues. When he was discussing the voters’ rolls I said by way of interjection from this side: “How many of them were duplicates?” He then carried on about the duplicates occurring in the original rolls. That was not my intention. He spoke about the general registration, and the duplicates there. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to duplicates which have now been rejected by the computer. Of the new registrations on the supplementary list, 87 000 were duplicates. We are still engaged in this process of rejecting duplicates, but so far we have found 87 000. Now I want to say this to the hon. member at once: There were duplicates on the old rolls as well, but we are now having this checked. What are the facts? We receive registration cards from the electoral district. They come to our offices and the cards are then fed into the computer. Now one finds two cards with the same name and the same number, but there is, for example, a difference in regard to a date of birth or an address. How must the official in Pretoria now determine which one of the two cards, which come from the Pietermaritzburg District is the correct one to feed into the computer? How does he know which one he should keep and which one of the two he should reject? There may be a difference in the name, or there may be a difference in regard to the date of birth or the reference number. How must the official in Pretoria deride which of the two he should keep and which one he should reject? We then had a choice. Firstly, we could refer all those errors back to all the constituencies so that they could be physically investigated and checked one by one, which would mean further surveys by officials, in order to determine which one of the two cards was correct. If we had had to do that, the hon. member himself, as a practical person, could imagine how long it would have taken before we would have been able to get hold of the list again and make it available to the parties. Instead of that we then decided to accept the list just as it is with duplicates. If two cards are received, we place them both on the list. We did this deliberately. We then decided that we were going to make the list available to the parties just as it is, so that the parties could subsequently, with re-registration, rectify the matter. In this way the problem will solve itself. I must say that the problem has in fact solved itself to a very large extent. We are at present engaged in clearing up the old roll and checking physically which of those cards are correct or incorrect. That is being done now. As I said, the choice we had was either to check it in that way and then make the rolls available to the parties a few months later, or to accept it just as it was and afford the parties the opportunity of making the rectifications themselves with a supplementary registration. We chose the latter course, in the interests of the parties, and not in the interests of the department.

I want to leave the hon. member and come to the hon. member for Green Point, who once again discussed the question of the refusal of passports, as well as the reasons furnished by my predecessor. I stated very clearly to the hon. member that I am prepared to furnish reasons when doing so is in the interests of South Africa. I am prepared, as my predecessor was, to furnish reasons; not specific reasons, but general reasons. For example I am prepared to say: “This passport has been refused as a result of the fact that this person’s conduct is a threat to State security.” Period.

That means nothing.

Oh, that means nothing?

You must state specifically.

Very well then, specifically he is a threat to State security. Is that not dangerous enough?

But in what context?

If I state in what context, the hon. member is going to ascertain whether the context is correct, and then he is going to make a long story of it. It is then going to appear in the newspaper and world-wide publicity will be given to the matter: “South Africa refuses visas for this or that reason.”

Minister Gerdener specifically stated …

I shall specifically give a general reason, for example: “This person is being refused a visa as a result of his subversive activities in South Africa.” Period. That is the issue, that is what I feel myself called upon to do, and more than that I am not prepared to say in public.

I come now to the question of discussions with churches, etc. During the past year I had the case where a congress was held which was to have been attended by a certain number of people. I called the members of that organization into my office and said to them: “Look, I am going to refuse applications with regard to these specific individuals on your list, for whom you want to request visas. My reasons for refusing are that these people are closely involved with the World Council of Churches, which is openly donating money to terrorist organizations operating against South Africa. I cannot accept them in South Africa. If you want to save South Africa embarrassment now, then you must please not apply for these visas. Then there will be no embarrassment, for if you do apply, I am telling you in advance that we are going to refuse the visas.” The co-operation was there. Application was not made for visas for those persons. The result was that there were no refusals and in that way an agreement was reached. This is being done; this is the normal way, and it can be done. This was also very clearly what was done in this case.

They were for the heads of the churches?

Yes. Hon. members must remember one thing, which is that one has a task in regard to South Africa, and that the personal right of some individual or other can never be placed above the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member also attacked me and said that I should establish a higher authority to reconsider passports. “Tribunal” was the term he used. I have given the hon. member a very clear reply and I have nothing further to add. It is the privilege of the State to issue or refuse a passport, for the State accepts responsibility for the conduct of that person abroad, when it gives him a passport. The request contained at the beginning of every passport is addressed in the name of the State President, the highest authority in our country, and when a person then proceeds overseas and gets up to all kinds of mischief there, South Africa as his country remains responsible for his conduct, and he may be deported back to South Africa. We must then accept him because we issued a passport to him. Now, surely the hon. member cannot tell me that I should make a body other than the Government of the country responsible for approving or refusing passports. Apart from whatever considerations this body may have, the Government is ultimately the responsible authority, which has to bear the responsibility and the criticism. This we shall do and in this way we shall continue, because we believe that it is in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member made a strong attack on me in regard to the statement which I issued this afternoon in regard to the new control over aliens entering the country on temporary permits. I want to inform the hon. member that we left the Commonwealth in 1961. Prior to that date there was free movement in the case of inhabitants of Commonwealth countries, including South Africa. In 1961 we left the Commonwealth and now, 12 years later, we have not yet intensified a single measure in respect of people from Commonwealth countries. They can come here at will and create the most impossible problems for us here. They can be totally undesirable, but we have no control over them. They can enter the country at will, and we have no control of any nature over them. They can overthrow our entire immigration scheme. They violate our immigration policy in all respects, and we have no control over this.

My point was: Why put religious workers with stage performers?

The hon. member now wants to know why we put religious workers with stage performers. I am telling the hon. member now that I mentioned a few examples of the type of persons who would be affected.

It is an odd collection.

It is an odd collection, but I want to inform the hon. member that the United Party is an even odder collection. The fact remains that I simply mentioned the names of the kind of persons with whom we have experienced problems over the years. I was honest enough to do this. I could have been dishonest, and could have made an understatement. I could simply have selected a few inoffensive little words; I could have said “bricklayers, painters and actors”. The hon. member would then have had no point of attack. But I was honest enough to mention the names.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister said in his statement that the main reason for this was to protect those who are entitled to employment.

Yes.

Has he had difficulty with church workers taking the jobs away from other church workers?

If the hon. member understands English well he would have heard me saying that this was “the main reason”. But it is not the only reason, Sir; it is the main reason.

That is what I thought.

Precisely, the main reason. It is very clear that we want to protect our labour relations, etc., in South Africa. But in the second place, Sir, I want to put a question to hon. members. Britain has now decided that we South Africans must have a work permit if we want to go and work there, and they refuse permits very easily. As I indicated this afternoon, our artists, the musicians, etc., are being refused permission to work in Britain. They are not even being allowed to work on a single ship docking at a British port; so strict are they against us. But should we simply adopt a meek and mild attitude and say: You can keep us out if you like, but we have an open mind; you can come to us at will, it makes no difference what problems you cause us?

That was not his point.

That was his point; that was precisely his point.

You know it is not his point.

The point I am making is that it affects everyone, every single person. Everyone will be affected. Not a single person will now enter South Africa who does not have to have a temporary permit, not a single one. This is the fact I am now going to state to hon. members. Do they understand this properly now? I have referred specifically to certain categories that are going to be affected. Previously a British citizen with a British passport could board an aircraft, land at Jan Smuts, walk into South Africa, accept work, stay here for 40 years without ever having to register, or anything of that nature, make money and then return to England. We had no control over him, because he was a Commonwealth citizen. Should we have left it like that permanently, while they were applying all kinds of regulations against us? Is that what the Opposition is asking me?

That was not his criticism.

His criticism was: Why did I mention religious workers? I mentioned religious workers because they will also be affected in the same way as all the others. Is that clear? I mentioned students because they will also be affected in the same way as all the others. Now I have mentioned them. Is there any further objection? I should like to hear any further objections from the hon. member, but that is the reason, viz. that they will be affected in exactly the same way as the others. There is no difference. In regard to the question of control I want to make it very clear to hon. members that we believe that we should have control over the situation, and that it is not unjustified. We are now doing, 12 years after we became a Republic, what most Commonwealth countries have already been doing in regard to us for the past 12 years. There is no other country in regard to which this has been done. It is simply that we are now in a position to reciprocate and do what they did to us long ago, and I think that it is justified in the interests of South Africa, and I am making no excuse for this.

Sir, the hon. member for Vryheid stated his case here, and I do not think that he expects a reply from me in this connection. I have already replied to the hon. member for Klip River.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp dealt very neatly here with the entire question of the right of freedom of movement. I just want to emphasize again that one is free to move about anywhere in South Africa. One is also free to do whatever one chooses to do, as long as one remains within the framework of law and order, which is laid down by this Parliament on behalf of the people of South Africa. One has full freedom, untrammelled freedom, within those limits, but if one exceeds the limits laid down by this Parliament, and if one contravenes the laws made by this Parliament, then we do not ask who the person is; then we will take steps against that person in the interests of South Africa, for it is our duty to do so. That is my summary of the entire philosophy of freedom, the highest freedom lies within the limits of the law; and surely that is the Biblical concept in this regard as well.

I then come to the hon. member for Transkei, who raised the question of allowance for officials in the homeland areas, and specifically in the Transkei. He referred in particular to teachers in the Transkei. Sir, I think that the hon. member broached this matter under the wrong principle. These allowances which are at present being paid to certain officials in the Transkei, are not being paid to them because they are in the Transkei. They are not being paid to them because they are in remote areas, for there are other even more remote areas which are not situated in Bantu homelands and where the officials are not receiving these allowances. The officials in the homelands are not receiving these allowances because they are suffering any inconvenience, for there are other places, not situated in the homelands, where officials are suffering greater inconvenience.

This allowance which is being paid in the Transkei at the moment is being paid to officials who have been seconded to the Transkeian Government and who are therefore serving under the Transkeian Parliament. Because we were not certain whether we would find a sufficient number of officials who would be prepared to serve under the Transkeian Government, we approved an allowance for officials who are seconded to the Transkeian Public Service and who therefore take their orders from the Transkeian Parliament. That is nature.

The Cape Provincial Administration, ignorant of the decision of the Cabinet, paid this allowance to certain teachers in the Transkei. When we discovered this we realized at once that it created a precedent which we could not tolerate, for we have numerous officials in all parts of the country to whom we would then immediately have to pay that allowance. We then stated immediately that we could not deprive anyone of vested rights; that those officials who at that stage had received the allowance, could keep it, but that it would not be payable in the case of new appointments because we would in that way be creating a precedent which was not justified and which would cause us problems in other parts of the country. I want to inform the hon. member at once that if it should appear, as a result of some reason or other, that problems arise in finding teachers or officials for certain areas, one shall have to reconsider whether an allowance should be paid to such officials, but for another reason than the reason for which these allowances are at present being paid to people who were seconded to the Transkeian Government. If that position arises, we shall give our attention to it, but under the present system the hon. member cannot advocate that we should pay this allowance, for these people are not working for the Transkeian Government; they are working for the Cape Provincial Administration, and for that reason we cannot pay them the allowance in terms of the present provision.

Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East referred to architects, quantity surveyors and other highly skilled people who were in short supply in the Public Service, and requested that an effort be made to retain the services of these people by ensuring them a higher income. I have been informed by the Public Service Commission that we already have such a system; that these specific officials are being allowed to work on certain projects in their spare time, and that they may then receive additional remuneration for that. But the Public Service Commission itself is not satisfied with the way in which the system is functioning at the moment, and I have been informed that at present attention is again being given to this matter in order to develop it further and to make further adjustments in this regard. I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised this matter.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Pinelands in regard to the officials. The hon. member for Innesdal then became almost nostalgic about the old days, and how voters’ lists were compiled in those days and how the registration of births and that type of thing was done, when it still had to be done by officials on horseback. Sir, we are so modem now that I do want to avail myself of this opportunity, if I may, to boast for a while of the Department of the Interior and our computer, and what it is capable of. I just want to furnish a few statistics to indicate what we are working on, and how modernized our work in this connection is. To mention only one example: At present approximately a thousand birth, marriage and death certificates are being issued by the department every day. To issue those 1 000 certificates the particulars have to be assembled from more than ten million registers. It is becoming physically quite impossible to render the required service by means of the conventional methods, particularly if it is borne in mind that the staff turnover—the staff consists mostly of women—is almost 100% per year, for women have the habit of getting married. It is not possible to keep on employing more and more staff and occupying more and more accommodation.

The only solution is the maximum computerization of the registers and the functions. The department is at present working on this. For example, for a computerized register to issue a birth certificate requires only one-tenth of the time which has to be spent doing this by means of conventional methods. The information and physical records which occupy a thousand square metres is confined by the computer storing media to less than one square metre. It is compact, everything in one place. To keep track of the movement of approximately five million persons across our country’s borders annually, it is being envisaged to computerize these records as well. Inter alia, it will then be possible to determine automatically, without further ado, whether a person is entering the country illegally and/or whether his stay here is illegal and/or whether he has already left the country. To have prepared the master proofs for the printing of voters’ lists would have taken 100 typists 40 days; but the computer completed this task in fewer than four days. At present we are printing voters’ lists at the rate of one constituency every three hours. With the establishment of production norms and the introduction of incentive systems in many branches of the department’s activities we have been able to increase production by as much as 30%.

As far as typing services in the main office are concerned, the production is even greater. Where 20 typists were required previously, eight typists are now doing the work in question. So we can continue to boast. The computer is of course very effective and very efficient in many respects. I want to give an example. During a visit which I paid to the computer, I put a few difficult questions to it; and one receives rather interesting replies. It was programmed according to the voters’ lists and identity numbers, etc. Married persons all have a code and unmarried persons have a code, males have one code and females another, ages are automatically included in the code, etc. On a certain occasion I stood there and said: “Suppose Mr. A. wants to marry Miss R; feed it through the computer, obtain a marriage certificate.” Mr. A.’s particulars were fed in, and Miss R.’s particulars were fed in and the computer immediately replied that it was not able to issue a certificate, and when we ascertained what the trouble was, we found that according to the computer’s information Mr. A. was a married man and could therefore not get married again.

Is it just as easy to get divorced?

I want to tell hon. members at once that those of them who have such ideas, must realize that from now on the computer will trip them up.

The hon. member for Vereeniging then touched upon a matter in regard to aliens who have temporary permits here and then apply to remain here, a problem which was also touched on by other hon. members today. I want to say at once that because there are so many problems in regard to aliens who declare unequivocally when they come here that they are only coming here on holiday for three to six months, but as soon as they are here, make application for permanent residence, I am at present considering, in conjunction with the Minister of Immigration, refusing to consider the application for permanent residence of aliens who are here on holiday and who do not have permission to work in South Africa after expiration of their period of three months, and that they will have to make application from across the borders.

This is a difficult problem, but as matters stand at present, the problem is being created that one’s arm is simply being twisted by every conceivable party. If it is refused in one place, it breaks out again elsewhere. We then receive a letter from this or that attorney, from this or that advocate and then, too from this or that M.P., and even from this or that clergyman. Our arm is constantly being twisted, and on each occasion an appeal is made to one’s humanity to give the person in question a chance for three months. If you have for the third time given him a chance for a further three months, you must give him even another chance. It quite simply becomes an impossible task. I shall take up the matter with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Immigration, and see what the possibilities are. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging raised a very good point here.

I want to inform the hon. member for Pretoria District that the question of subsidizing the interest on house loans is constantly receiving attention. At present there is consultation between the Public Service Commission and the various departments in order to eliminate snags and to streamline the scheme in its entirety.

The hon. member also broke a lance for the sessional officials in regard to an increased sessional allowance. If officials think that I am going to make an announcement tonight on increased allowances, they are making a mistake, for we are not yet in any position to do so. However, this matter was considered in January, 1972, and it was then found that it was not justified. This entire question is periodically reconsidered, and as soon as it is necessary, the necessary adjustments will be made.

In conclusion I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point in regard to the Press and the newspapers in particular. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sea Point immediately on having had the courage, under these circumstances, to discuss this matter in such clear terms. [Interjections.] I want to agree with him, and endorse what he said. South Africa attaches the greatest value to the freedom of the Press, for the freedom of the Press remains for us the symbol of a democratic, developed, civilized country. In addition, I also want to agree with the hon. member—these are sentiments which I have also expressed before —and say that the freedom of the Press is inseparably linked to the responsibility of the Press; the responsibility of the Press to the country in which that Press is operating and in regard to its law and its own standards which it ought to maintain.

There they are sitting.

You appear in the comics. [Interjections.]

I want to say to the hon. member at once that I listened with great attention to his suggestion. It is true— the hon. member is quite correct—that when the Publications Act was piloted through in 1963 the Press came to the Minister with a request that they should not be included, but should be given exemption because they would keep their own house in order. They would appoint a Press Council which would determine their standards for them. The Press Council was then established, and a few matters were consequently brought before the Press Council, with whatever results that may have had. In the Other Place and also in public I have adopted a very clear standpoint, that there are a number of things which South Africa, as in the case of any civilized country, cannot tolerate from a Press, and not even from a free Press. One of the things which it cannot tolerate is irresponsibility, through which the country’s image abroad is marred to the disadvantage of all the inhabitants of the country. I want to say at once that what is involved here is not a political party. When the Press wants to attack us as politicians, or wants to attack our policy, it is their right to do so, and I shall defend their right to do so. If they want to draw cartoons, they can do so with the greatest of pleasure, and I shall defend their right to do so. However, when they write and send blatant stories about South Africa abroad for the sake of sensation and publicity overseas, and a big generous cheque returns from thence for certain freelance writers who are resident here, I say that if South Africa’s name is besmirched abroad owing to Press reports which are sent out from this country, a government cannot shut its eyes to this, and this matter will be looked into. In addition, I want to make it very clear that if the Press in South Africa should, in view of South Africa’s population structure, which is not homogeneous, but consists of a considerable number of peoples, proceed to blatantly and openly encourage racial hatred in its columns or foment ill-feeling between the different population groups, for whatever reason, no responsible government can shut its eyes to this and do nothing, for then it would be prejudicing all the people in the country, White and Black, without exception. [Interjections.] The standpoint I am adopting here is very clear. In the third place I want to say that if the security of the country is endangered owing to Press publicity, or if the Press should in any way act in a manner endangering the security of the country, a government will have to take action. The hon. member mentioned a certain method which was very interesting, one which one could look into. One of the things which I find very interesting is that the greatest confusion has arisen as a result of the fact that the Press has succeeded in intermingling commentary and fact in such a subtle way, and in addition giving such sensational headlines to these reports, that when one reads them it makes an impression on the unprejudiced and unprepared voter. Hon. members must bear in mind that these Press people are skilled; that it is their vocation. The innocent voter then reads that a certain person said certain things, while it is only comment by the Press on what he said. I therefore want to thank the hon. member for his standpoint. I have already adopted a standpoint in regard to this matter, and I want to repeat it here. I, and the Government as a whole, place a high premium on the freedom of the Press, and we should like, in all spheres, to preserve South Africa as a country in which there is freedom of the Press. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Press to act in such a way that it will not be necessary for the Government to take action. We prefer not to take action. I want to make this request and address an earnest appeal to the Press to realize their responsibility and act in such a way, with the freedom they have, that it will not be necessary for us, and that it will not be necessary for the Government, for the sake of South Africa and its security, to decide against the freedom of the Press. If that should happen, it would be a sad day. But let me add that if we are convinced that it is in South Africa’s interests, it will be done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly express the strongest objection to the revelation which has been made in this House this evening by the hon. the Minister. He made the revelation that someone had looked into my personal file.

I did not.

The hon. the Minister can deny it till he is blue in the face, but he admitted as much. He admitted only that he did not investigate the file, but somebody had. I want to say that this is merely a repetition of something we had two years ago in this same Committee, regarding my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. the Minister of Transport did exactly the same thing, then. I want to go further and say to the hon. the Minister concerned that we are aware of the fact that for a number of years the personal files of ex-civil servants who now sit on this side of the House were brought into that box whenever the respective Vote came up. They were kept in there in case we said anything they could use against us.

Prove it.

We are aware of this. I am telling the truth and I am alleging it. Let the Government deny it if it is not so. This is what happens and we are aware of it. I do not believe that officials can deny it. I want to express my utter disgust tonight at the reprehensible misuse of ministerial and governmental powers in this way. I want to say that it is this type of intimidation to which we referred earlier this year when we spoke about the feeling of insecurity which civil servants had. They have this feeling of insecurity because if this is the sort of conduct that this Government can be guilty of regarding members of this honourable House, how much protection has the average civil servant got?

I want to say that if ever a case was made out for the argument of this side of the House, it was made by the hon. the Minister this evening by this admission that my personal file had been investigated.

I also wish to reject with utter contempt the allegation made by the Minister that my promotion in the department was held back because of an argument or a scene which I might have had with a senior official. I am absolutely and totally unaware of anything of that sort. I also reject his insinuation that I left the department because of such a confrontation. No such argument ever arose to my knowledge and I reject it with utter and total contempt. As I have said, the actions of this Government bear out what we on this side of the House have said about the insecurity that is felt by civil servants who are not Nationalists. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to come with such platitudes and to believe that this is going to satisfy the civil servants who are utterly loyal to South Africa no matter which Government is in power.

Mr. Chairman, I did not know the hon. member was so sensitive about his file. I repeat that neither I nor any of the officials had any access to his file.

You say that you had the information.

Yes, I did have the information. There are people who, by chance, happened to work in the Public Service during the time when the hon. member also worked there, and who know from personal experience what went on.

It is always by chance!

This is the position, and it is as clear as daylight.

I do not accept that.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I ask for your decision. I have given the hon. member an assurance here, and he says he does not accept my assurance. He has therefore accused me of lying. Is the hon. member entitled to accuse me of lying?

No. The hon. member is not accusing you of lying. He has, however, the right not to accept it.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that neither I nor any of my officials have examined his file. In any case, he is not so important that we would be interested in his file; on the contrary, I did not even know that the hon. member was going to speak in this debate. I simply stated a case here according to what I had heard, and I am not prepared to reveal my source; that is not necessary. If the source was lying, I want to apologize at once. This was disclosed to me, but judging by the hon. member’s reaction it seems to me as though it is true. He has reacted so sensitively about it that I must believe it to be true. Once again I want to repeat very clearly that we have not seen his file and that I am in any case not interested in it. I just want to add here that the rule in the Public Service is that a person’s file is destroyed ten years after his retirement. I do not have the vaguest idea as to how long ago the hon. member retired, but I accept that his file has probably been destroyed already. The way we do things is different from what was done by the previous Government, who, the day after they had lost the election, made huge fires in Pretoria so as to destroy all the files they had. In all honesty I now want to tell the hon. member at once that what I said about him I had heard confidentially from a person who was in the service during the same period, i.e. without ever having seen a file. If this information is not correct, I apologize to the hon. member and withdraw it. If it is correct, the hon. member is welcome to take offence; in that case it is his own responsibility.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 29 and S.W.A. Vote No. 16.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, as the responsible Minister I just want to say that this Vote will be dealt with by the Deputy Minister and that I shall only deal with the question of drugs. The rest of the debate will be dealt with by the Deputy Minister. He will therefore have unrestricted time to speak whereas my time to speak will be limited to ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, at the very outset I would like to say that we from this side of the House welcome the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in his new post. It is indeed a very important portfolio that he has now undertaken. One recalls that the present Prime Minister too was formerly a Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and the present Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has retained that portfolio since his elevation to the Cabinet and is now regarded as an heir apparent. Consequently we view the appointment of the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions as being a very important appointment. It is indeed when one considers that this Vote involves something in excess of R200 million, that it affects many thousands of old people and many thousands of people receiving social pensions. This amount will continue to increase in view of the increase in the life-span of humanity and in view of the fact that there is an increasing number of old people qualifying for social pensions, and in view of the fact that this is a challenge which the Government must meet. If one looks at the figures one can see that in the year 1911 there were only 2.4% of the White population over 65 years of age in South Africa, whereas in 1970 this figure had risen to 7,1%. This in numbers means approximately 290 000 White persons over the age of 65. Consequently the Government of the day must formulate a policy in dealing with this challenge. As a modern developing society where rapid industrialization is taking place in various parts of the country bringing about rapid urbanization of the community it is obvious that certain social problems will arise. It is therefore important that the Government should have a policy to meet this important challenge.

When one looks at the position as it exists today, the enormous difficulties, the deprivations and real financial hardship that is being experienced by the poor and needy sections of the community, one can see that the policy of the Government requires overhaul as far as this is concerned.

Referring to the policy of the Government, I wish first of all to deal with questions affecting the care of the aged, although during the course of the debate on this Vote, other members on this side of the House intend to raise various matters affecting social welfare as well as the care of the aged. I raise this matter of the care of the aged because the policy of the Government was enunciated by the hon. the Minister in a speech he made shortly after becoming Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions on 22nd November, 1968. This was then printed by the research and information section of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions under the heading: “The Policy of the Care of the Aged.” In this policy statement the hon. the Minister indicated that one of the important points of his policy was that the aged should be kept in the community as long as possible. We also believe that the aged should be encouraged to remain in the community for as long as possible, but how are these people to remain within the community under their present circumstances? Surveys have been undertaken by a professor of social work, Prof. Anderson, which deal with the question of the person wishing to remain independently within the community. He found in his survey that 67% of the persons over 65 years of age live independently, that 21% live with their children and that 8% are living in old-age homes. These investigations also showed that it was the wish and desire of these people to live independently within the community. It is along these lines that we on this side of the House have made various suggestions so as to assist these people to remain in the community for as long as possible. If one looks, also, at the reports which have been submitted to this House by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions such as the report for the year 1970-’71, which is not the latest report but is the report which deals with the question of the division of the care of the aged, one sees that a survey was undertaken in the country, and the results of this investigation confirmed the department in its view that one of the major shortcomings in the care of the aged in this country was a general lack of services to encourage and enable the aged to lead an independent life for as long as possible. This is the opinion which is held by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an indication as to what steps the Government is taking for these people to remain within the community as long as possible. For instance, it is virtually impossible— and the hon. the Deputy Minister admitted it during a previous debate that we had in this House on a private member’s motion —for a person to live on the present social pension, even if one qualifies for additional allowances. Consequently it would appear that the hon. the Deputy Minister should endeavour to take steps to see that additional amounts are paid to those persons who are entirely dependent upon their pensions as a basis of income. We know that the means test has been relaxed in certain instances as from the 1st October last year, but the fact remains that over 90% of the White social pensioners are receiving a maximum pension today, which indicates that 90% of these people fall well within the means test and that their position is such that they qualify for the maximum pension.

We hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will also give some consideration to assisting welfare organizations who are endeavouring to provide ancillary services for the aged to keep them within the community for as long as possible. I must mention that many of these organizations are finding it extremely difficult to extend their services and in many cases even to maintain an efficient service to these people. As inflation takes its toll and the ravages thereof become more evident among the poorer section of the community, so this demand will grow on these welfare organizations to assist these people. When I refer to the question of ancillary services, I refer particularly to the meals-on-wheels service. A pensioner is finding it impossible to live on his income as a result of increases in rents which are occurring regularly, even in rent-controlled buildings. In recent cases where there have been increases in the wages paid to the staff servicing these flats, extra expenditure is obviously handed on to the tenant. It means too, that with the increase in the cost of clothing they can only economise on food. Therefore it is essential for these people to maintain a reasonable standard of health, that they be given food in order to exist. That is why these welfare organizations have been approaching the Government for a number of years to obtain assistance in so far as the meals-on-wheels service is concerned. I have raised this matter before by way of questions in this House. On each occasion I have been told that the matter was still under investigation. The last time that I asked this question, the hon. the Minister replied that the matter was still receiving serious consideration but that it had its difficulties. I do want to ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister give urgent attention to this matter so as to assist these people.

Then there are other matters that can assist in alleviating the position of social pensioners. The possible issue of food vouchers could also be of assistance to them. We know that food vouchers are issued in terms of social relief, merely as a temporary measure. It is not a permanent part of the service that is rendered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The rate of pension is such that the pensioner is unable to maintain himself and surely it should be possible for these people to qualify for food vouchers so as to assist them in their difficulties.

Then I would also like to deal briefly with the question of the means test. We have heard from Government members and from the hon. the Deputy Minister of various concessions that have been made concerning the means test. Obviously these concessions are welcomed. The position here, as indicated by the hon. the Minister of Finance, is that for this year there is to be no change in the means test whatsoever. I believe that it is vitally important that the Deputy Minister should review the unrealistic stipulation that where a single person is receiving more than R58 per month and a married person R116 per month as a pension from any other source, such a person shall not qualify for any social pension whatsoever. I believe that with the increases that are to be granted to Civil pensioners, bringing the minimum pension up to almost R65 per month and that of Railway pensioners to R65 per month for single persons, the Government should give immediate attention to at least extending the income ceiling of R58 per month to R64 per month so as to accommodate those persons who unfortunately fall into that group where, if they could only qualify … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, mentioned various things in respect of which he thinks a great deal can be done, not only to ease the lot of these people, but also with regard to how their energies may be utilized more effectively. He mentioned various aspects of the matter. I think the past has proved that this Government is in earnest about the lot of the aged. I definitely believe that the things which he mentioned and about which something can in fact be done, did not fall on deaf ears. I should very much like to associate myself with what he said in welcoming the Deputy Minister in his present capacity. The Deputy Minister has not only entered a sphere which may not quite be his province as far as his training is concerned, but he has already distinguished himself in the interest he has shown in various projects relating to social welfare, and we want to wish the Deputy Minister the very best for the future and hope that what he envisages for this department will increase in scope as he goes further.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few things which I should like to mention here. In the first place, I want to express the gratitude of everybody concerned with children’s homes for the increased allowance of R3 per child per month. In these expensive times, where there are so many commitments that have to be met, this is a very welcome extra for which we are sincerely grateful. But there are two matters in respect of which I should very much like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister tonight. I am thinking, in the first place, of the handicapped. In my constituency in Kimberley we have a large modern school for the physically handicapped, but we also have the special project for seriously mentally handicapped children. Our experience has been that those physically handicapped persons, and the seriously mentally handicapped children as well, do not have a hope of being able to compete in the labour market and of being able to make a proper living there. But each of them, no matter how handicapped he may be, be it physically or mentally, does have some particular aptitude, no matter how limited this may be; they also have their particular interests, no matter how limited they may be. If places of work could be equipped for this type of handicapped person, then that handicapped person would not only be able to realize himself and develop with the aid of the one small talent or the half-talent which he retained or received in life, but he would also be able to become an asset to our country. But you will understand, Sir, that it costs a great deal of money to establish such places of work, and for that reason we need help and ask the Minister to be so kind as to make it one of his tasks for the future to ensure that places of work of this nature are established for those handicapped persons, irrespective of whether they are physically handicapped or mentally handicapped. This is the first matter for which I want to plead very strongly.

But then there is a second matter, and this is that consideration should also be given to establishing special children’s homes to which children who are severely emotionally disturbed may be sent. Sir, you will note that I do not say “emotionally disturbed” child, for I think that if we want to be honest we must admit that more than 90% of the children who are in children’s homes today, are emotionally disturbed. If one considers the circumstances from which these children come, if one reads the court proceedings, if one goes into the history of those children, one finds that it is simply a miracle that such children can still be normal in some degree; that is why I say that all of them have suffered serious hurt in life as far as their emotional life is concerned. But I am pleading for that seriously disturbed child, the child who should not really be in the children’s home because he is a danger to others and because he cannot get the necessary help there. Sir, let me mention one concrete example to you. We do not easily turn a child away whenever we are asked whether we have a vacancy for him, unless we have very good reasons for doing so. But let me now mention one specific example to you, a case where we said in the children’s home, of which I am in charge, “No, that child cannot come here; it would be an injustice to himself and to the others.” I am referring now to an application for the admission of a five-year-old boy. The records showed that this boy could be qualified as a dagga smoker, as a drink addict and as a homosexual—at the age of five years. One feels that that child may most definitely not be placed among the other children in a children’s home, for his influence in that children’s home could be a pernicious one; it could be detrimental to the other children, and not only that, but he himself actually requires special treatment from morning till night. Now I say that that is one case, but there are many similar types who may perhaps not be as seriously disturbed, but nevertheless seriously enough, those who are uncontrollable, excessively aggressive or have some characteristic which is so aberrant that it has an adverse effect on the other children. Those children receive special treatment. Special institutions, special children’s homes, which are specially equipped, are needed for that type of child. I plead with the hon. the Minister to bear in mind in the formulation of the welfare policy for the future that we must have such specialized children’s homes in which attention may be given to these seriously emotionally disturbed children. If we could rehabilitate these children—and they can be rehabilitated—we would be rendering a major service, not only to such children, but also the country. I therefore make a very serious plea in regard to these two matters, namely that there should be places of work for the handicapped and that there should be special children’s homes in which the seriously emotionally disturbed child may find shelter, for his own good and for the good of other children in homes.

Sir, I shall leave the hon. member for Kimberley South there. I feel that he has made out a good case and that the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken cognizance of it. The hon. the Deputy Minister—I am pleased that he is handling this Vote today—levelled the accusation at me earlier in the session that we on this side, and I in particular, were trying to make political capital out of the distress in which the aged and the pensioners were finding themselves.

Of course.

To hon. members who say “of course” I want to say that if, through my pleas in this hon. House, I can in any way help the aged to get a little more money by way of pension, hon. members are welcome to say that I want to make political capital out of it, but it will give me satisfaction to know that I have accomplished something good for the aged. But I make no apologies for pleading with the Minister year after year, on this Vote and on every possible occasion, for relief of the distress of our aged and of our pensioners. But what worries me, is that it is necessary in this year, 1973, to ask on behalf of the aged for higher pensions in this House. But I want to say immediately that as long as this Government, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, fails to do its duty towards the aged, and as long as the aged cannot make ends meet on their pensions, we shall raise this matter on this Vote every year. In 1970 I pleaded here for a more compassionate approach in respect of pensioners. In 1971 the hon. member for Westdene came to this House with a private motion in which he asked for a thorough inquiry into the economic and social care of our aged. Now I just want to know what has become of this plea. I ask the hon. member for Westdene whether he has heard of or seen any constructive efforts on the part of the Government.

But we had an increase in pensions; surely you know that.

What did happen was that pensions were increased from R35 to R38 per month in that year. At that stage already we warned that it was too little.

Where does it stand now?

We shall come to that. I shall deal with every increase. At that stage already we warned that the increase did not keep pace with the rising cost of living. At the time we compared that R3 with the increase in prices of basic commodities such as bread, milk, and so on. As far as I am concerned, we proved adequately that that increase was not sufficient. In 1972 pensions were increased once again, i.e. from R38 to R41. At the time we advanced certain arguments, which I believe could not be refuted by the Government. We said, amongst other things, that in order to make provision for the depreciation in the value of money from 1948 to 1972, an increase of at least 250% would be necessary. We argued that the national income of South Africa had risen by 600% from 1948 to 1972. We argued that Government expenditure in South Africa had risen by 1 100% over that period. But from 1948 to 1972 pensions in South Africa increased by only 241%. This year, on the occasion of a private motion moved by the hon. member for Umbilo, we drew the attention of the Government to the matter once again. We submitted a budget in respect of the basic expenditure of pensioners in South Africa, and hon. members can look it up again. They will find that pensions, as paid out at present, are not sufficient.

Compare them with 1948.

What happened this year? The pension was increased from R41 to R45, but not as from today; only as from October, 1973. R45! Is that the best we can get from this Government for our pensioners? The bread-line figure for a Bantu person in Soweto is given as R90 per month.

Now you are talking trash.

The combined income of two old age pensioners is R82 per month at present, which is less than that figure. We know that in 1962 it cost a married man with two children R190 per month in basic expenses in order to stay alive. By 1972 that amount had become R349. We know that over the past ten years the cost of living has risen by 45%, which gives us an average increase of 4,5% per year. In 1972-’73, however, the cost of living rose by 8,3%, which is twice as much as the average increase over the past ten years. The latest figure for the month December to January is shown as 1,1%, and if we project that, the cost of living will rise by 13,2% this year.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I do not wish to reply to any questions, because I do not have the time to do so. [Interjections.] Now I ask: If one looks at these figures, where does this leave the pensioner in South Africa? When this new increase comes into effect in October of this year, the position will be such that the pensioners with their R45 will be able to buy less than they are able to buy with their R41 today.

What about the means test?

When this matter was raised with the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of the debate on his Vote, we argued that the rand in 1973 was worth only 40 cents of the 10 shillings of 1948. In reply to that the hon. the Prime Minister said that if that formula had to be applied, the Government should actually have paid our aged only R25 per month. That hon. member is shaking his head, but it is an accepted fact that any good government should at least double the standard of living of its people every ten years. If we take this amount of R25 which was mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister, I believe that the pension paid by us at present should be two and a half times that amount. Then it would come to R62-50 and not to the meagre sum of R41 on which our aged have to live today.

The other matter I want to raise, is that we hear from time to time, from the hon. the Minister and from hon. members opposite, that we should not over-specialize in respect of the aged. I think the hon. the Minister was the first person to raise this point. We hear that we should be on our guard against making South Africa a welfare state. The latest argument being advanced is that the United Party is beginning to get socialist ideas in respect of the aged. The hon. member for Constantia will speak after me, and he will take up this argument with hon. members on that side of the House. In considering this background and the approach of the Government, one asks oneself whether we are making it possible for the aged in South Africa to subsist independently from the community. I do not think so, and one must from sheer necessity plead with the hon. the Minister and his Government for relief of the distress of the aged. The least one can ask the Government to do, is merely to reassess pensions in line with the rising cost of living. We could consider, in principle, paying a Christmas bonus to the aged. Concessions must be considered and influence must be exerted in other departments or in other organisations in South Africa in order to come to an agreement as regards the property rates which our aged in the cities are finding so difficult to pay. As far as accommodation is concerned, the Government may give thought to the payment of subsidies to our aged in certain cases. We had the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister in which he said that if I did not have accommodation for people in my constituency in Turffontein, I was to send them to Hanover, where there are a large number of vacant houses and places to live. His argument is that these people may as well be “trucked” to Hanover, for they are not people and do not have their roots in that community. He says they may simply be moved from the urban areas … [Interjections.] I want to ask that the Government consider, in respect of medical services, extending such aid to our aged, for they find it difficult to pay personal visits to hospitals or to a district surgeon. When they are unable to do that, they are obliged to call in their own medical doctor, the account for which they often have to pay themselves. Then they often have to pay the chemist accounts as well. I believe that all these small expenses eventually run into large amounts which our aged cannot afford.

I want to say in conclusion that it is no use introducing a R2 or R3 increase every year. It has become necessary for a whole reassessment to be made of the position in respect of pensions in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak about the elderly tonight; nor is it my intention to do so. When the hon. member for Turffontein had been speaking for a little while, I thought I might as well do so, but when he came forward with the absurd comparison concerning Soweto, I simply decided to ignore him. At most I want to tell him that two years ago I stated my standpoint and made my plea here on research in regard to care of the aged. I trust that there will be an opportunity in the course of this debate for him to get the necessary replies. In fact, all he has to do is to look at the department’s latest annual report. By doing so he will be able to acquaint himself with what is going on.

I want to touch upon another matter. I notice in the report of the department that the filling of the department’s professional posts presents a considerable problem. It is a serious matter if professional posts in this particular department remain unfilled, for professionalism in social work is becoming increasingly important. I am making this statement because I believe that professionalism in the sphere of child welfare is perhaps the most important task of the department. The department has a task of promoting social stability. The department would best be able to do this if it were to start with its various child welfare services. I want to emphasize the role played by professional officers in this sphere by way of a few figures which I should like to mention. I want to point out that during the past financial year there were 2 581 children whose adoptions were finalized. In this respect the department’s professional officers, with the assistance of the professional officers of the family welfare services, played a major role. I want to mention another example, namely that in 103 children’s homes in this country there is a daily average of just over 6 000 White children who are being cared for, i.e. children who are in those children’s homes because of being in need of care. In regard to committing those children to children’s homes, the professional officers of the department also had to play a truly major role, and this was also supplemented by the work of the professional officers at the various Christian Social Councils and at the various welfare organizations employing these professional officers. When we refer to this the important factor is the fact that when a child is declared to be in need of care, or when a child is given out for adoption, there is drastic interference in the lives of three bodies or persons. In the first instance, there is interference in the life of the natural mother of that child. Circumstances have now given rise to that child having to be removed from the care of that mother. In the case of adoption the child is eventually placed in the care of a new mother, a different mother. In the case of children’s homes the child is placed there in the care of various staff members who have to care for that child. Let me therefore put it this way: If that intervention that takes place in the life of the child is not effected by absolutely well-equipped professional officers, the department cannot carry out this basic instruction which it has, i.e. to promote social stability in respect of a large number of children—just in respect of these two groups the figure is approximately 10 000 per year. We are sincerely grateful to the department for the fact that this year it has once again increased considerably the subsidy in respect of female social workers employed by voluntary organizations. In the past the Minister of Finance used to announce this, but this year it was merely done automatically—I made a plea to this effect in this House on an earlier occasion. We are pleased that it has now been done automatically. There are approximately 600 of these White social workers—professional officers—who are employed by the voluntary organizations and whose salaries are being subsidized in this way.

We notice and suspect, however, that a very big deficiency is developing in practice. We think that there is insufficient liaison between the voluntary welfare organizations and the children’s homes. The voluntary organizations are not removing the children or committing them to the children’s homes to which they should go. The social worker, the professional officer, advises and submits a report to the commissioner of child welfare, and then that serves as advice on the future of that child. I want to ask whether we should not very urgently do two or three things in regard to this facet of our welfare work. I think, in the first instance, that it is necessary for considerably more study and research to be undertaken on a national policy in respect of child welfare. We think there is room for improvement here, in spite of what is already being done. I believe that it has become necessary to lay down standards in respect of adoptions, in respect of the committing of children and in respect of children who are being detained, not only in foster-care but also in institutions. I feel that a great deal of research should be done in respect of ways and means by which closer liaison may be maintained between the social workers in the field and the children’s homes, irrespective of whether they are professional social workers employed by voluntary organizations or by the department. The daily average in children’s homes is 6 000. Their numbers vary because some of the children leave every year, whilst others, new ones, are admitted. The circumstances of such a child are also changed drastically the day the child leaves the children’s home. When our children leave our homes—for instance, to go to university or to take up employment—one finds that the parent-child relationship is maintained. There was a period in the life of the child during which the parent prepared the child for the day he would leave home to study or to work. At the children’s homes we have a deficiency in this regard. In a few cases a child may in fact be prepared—I myself can think of fine examples where this was in fact done •—but as regards the large majority of those leaving children’s homes every year, there is a missing link when those children leave those children’s homes for their new employment in order to make their own living. In this regard, I think, we have a great deal of research which we can do and standards which we can lay down. Especially since the year 1956, when we witnessed a new attitude in our family-welfare policy and our subsidization policy, many improvements have been effected. I believe that if the department sees its way clear at this stage to creating a joint research machine comprising the department and these voluntary organizations and the children’s homes—a triangle, therefore—we shall really be able, with the experience we have at our disposal, to do something in the interests of the life of this child who may in future, because of the attitude of his parents, be declared to be in need of care and may have to be removed from the parental care. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are still available to me this evening, I would like to raise the matter that was indicated by my hon. colleague from Turffontein, namely the extent of the role which the State should play and which the State is playing in the affairs of our country and in the affairs of the individuals in the country. I should also like to raise the question whether we in South Africa are tending to become a socialist State or a welfare State. When the hon. the Minister of Finance replied to the Second Reading of this Appropriation Bill, he accused this side of the House of advocating more State responsibility in the affairs of the country. He went further and accused us of going to the extent of pushing the State towards a socialist State. He went even further and accused us of advocating that South Africa should become a welfare State. The hon. the Prime Minister, in his Vote, also accused this side of the House of propagating socialist doctrines. With the greatest respect to these two gentlemen, these two very senior Ministers, I would suggest that they are accusing us, very wrongly, of advocating what in many respects the Government is actually practising itself. Viewing the matter as a whole, I think that on that side of the House, including the thinking of these two hon. senior Ministers, there has been a great deal of woolly thinking this session on what constitutes Socialism, what constitutes a welfare State, and what the responsibilities are of the State in regard to social welfare, which are three different subjects. This side of the House is very determined that we should remain essentially a private enterprise community. We believe that it is through private enterprise that the resources of a country can be used to the best advantage of the population of the country. But on the other hand, we recognize that the State has a very definite responsibility to ensure the welfare of those citizens who, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to care for their welfare themselves. As far as the welfare of the White population of the country is concerned, this responsibility rests with the department whose Vote we are now discussing. There are two aspects to this matter. On the one hand, there is the aspect of socialism poaching on the preserves of private enterprise; and on the other hand, the responsibility of the State for social welfare. These are two quite different subjects and we should treat them as such. We on this side of the House are concerned that this Government is in practice treading the path of socialism. We are concerned that by spending an increasing part of the national income and of the community’s savings on Government activities, by participating either directly or through State corporations, to a greater extent in the overall activities of the country, we are treading a path which is leading to socialism. But on the other hand, we are not satisfied that the Government is shouldering its full responsibility in regard to the welfare of the needy. I think this can be amply illustrated by two very simple figures. If you compare the actual expenditure of the State on Revenue Account last year with the budgeted expenditure this year, in total there is to be an increase of about 22%. But when you compare the figure of expenditure last year on social welfare with what is budgeted for this department this year, the increase is only 15%. In other words, the State as a whole is spending a greater proportion of the national income this year; but on social welfare it is barely keeping up with the increase, at current prices, of the national income when inflation is taken into account. In other words, social welfare is playing a smaller part in the overall plans of the State than it did last year. I would like to say that we on this side—I wish to make it very clear—are not pleading for a welfare state. Certainly we do not want anything such as they have in some European countries, for example, the United Kingdom and some of the Scandinavian countries, where they have gone to such lengths in regard to welfare orovisions that they spoonfeed the population, with harmful results, as far as productivity, initiative and enterprise are concerned. But we do plead from this side of the House that the welfare provisions of the State should be adequate to provide for the bare needs of those members of the community who are unable to provide for themselves. We would very much like to see the machinery set up so that those people could help themselves to provide for their welfare rather than having to provide for their welfare by way of State hand-outs. We would like to see, for example, a contributory State pension fund which would help people to help themselves.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.