I move as an unopposed motion:

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members on the other side of the House have taken the discussions on this Bill rather lightly, including, if I may say so, the hon. the Minister of Finance. The discussions have not been insignificant, but I think they have been significant both for what the Minister and his colleagues did not say as well as for what the hon. the Minister himself did say. Talking of colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we had another instance during the week-end of how extremely difficult it is for the public or the Press to understand just exactly what Government policy is. I refer to a Press conference which was given by the hon. the Minister of Information, I understand, on Friday morning. At that Press conference he gave out a statement. He ingenuously said that he had not read the Bill himself but he understood that the statement was a fair description of what it contained and that it was designed to improve race relations. I do not know whether the Minister thought it was wiser to break the news in easy stages to the country of what the Bill really contained or whether he had been badly briefed or whether he had not done his homework. The fact remains that he created a completely wrong impression in the minds of the Press as to the main features of this Bill, as a result of which the afternoon Press—the Bill had of course not been published yet; the Press had not seen it— came out with headlines. The Cape Argus said: “State Plans to ease Race Friction; Bill to amend Laws for the Urban Bantu”; the Burger said: “Die Wetsontwerp sal skaafplekke tussen wit en Bantoe verwyder.” The Star said: “New Deal for Africans and to get rid of Friction”; the Vaderland said—“Nuwe Rassebedeling”. But, Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the Bill is not to remove friction; it is simply to place the urban Bantu still further at the mercy of the Administration. I can only say, Sir, that as far as that Press conference was concerned—after all I suppose the hon. the Minister is the public relations officer of this Government—it was a complete fiasco. I can tell him this that it is going to take a very long time both at home and abroad before any statement that he issues will be accepted except with extreme reservation and with a certain degree of scepticism. If that makes for a successful public relations officer, then I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the first significant thing about the debate on this measure was, I think, that a number of questions were asked by this side of the House, pertinent questions affecting the policy of the Government, questions which this House is perfectly entitled to ask and upon which we quite reasonably might expect answers. The significant thing is that not one of those questions was answered. It took three Ministers and a Deputy Minister, as well as various humbler members on the Government benches, several hours to give no answers at all to any of these questions. We asked, Sir, what was to be the future of the Witwatersrand, having regard to the fact that it was faced with the closing down of some 27 or even 35 mines in the next few years. Sir, we did not even get an admission from anyone on that side of the House, not even from the Minister of Mines himself, that there was a problem posed by this prospective closing down of mines. We were told by an hon. member sitting on the back-benches that there was a private inquiry—he did not know that it was a private inquiry; he was told that later— to which the Government is making a small contribution, and we were told that mines have closed down before, and that Johannesburg still stands; we were told that the population is still increasing on the Witwatersrand—I do not know what that has got to do with it, because the miners are still employed there and after all miners do not spend their whole life underground. In other words, we were given clearly to understand that as far as this Government is concerned there is nothing to be concerned about. I want to ask the hon. Minister, on behalf of his Government, this afternoon, a perfectly straightforward and simple question: Does the Government realize and agree that the potential closing down in the next few years of 27 mines on the Rand and the East Rand poses a problem; if so, how does the Government view that problem and how does it propose to face up to it and to tackle it? That is a fair question.

We also asked, Sir, for a clarification of the policy of the development of border industries. We would like to know in the first place what is a “border area”? Nobody knows. We know that some R45,000,000 of the taxpayer’s money is to be spent on industries, in the so-called border areas, but nobody knows which those border areas are. Is Durban a border area? Durban has large Native reserves actually on its borders, touching its borders, but Durban is not classified as a border area. Pretoria has one Black spot about 15 miles north, which in terms of the policy enunciated by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development should be due for removal altogether to the Bantustans, but Pretoria has been declared a border area, and industries being started there are receiving all the assistance border factories are entitled to. Is Pinetown a border area? Pinetown is adjacent to Native reserves, but there is no suggestion of border industries being established there. Moreover, when it comes to border areas, what about all these towns on the Reef? They have a very large permanent Native population. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development to say that they are only migrant Natives and that they are only there temporarily. But when you give a man a thirty-year lease of a property it is very difficult to consider him as a temporary resident. And I would say that when it comes to the establishment of industries to find employment, some of these border towns, like Roodepoort for instance, have a very strong claim for assistance in that direction, because if large numbers of these Bantu people are forced by starvation or by decree from the Department under this new proposed Bill to return to the reserves, there will be no work for them. We have to accept the fact that they are there on the Rand and provision should be made for them and to keep the whole economy of the Witwatersrand going. Now what industries are visualized under this border development? We know that this R45,000,000 has been earmarked for spending on the textile industry, and that is presumably so because the textile industry employs a very large proportion of unskilled or semi-skilled Native labour, and this R45,000,000 is to be spent clearly in subsidizing employment for the Natives in the reserves, Natives who in the course of time under the Prime Minister’s policy will be “foreign” Natives. I ask myself why if you are going to subsidize on that scale to find employment for the Bantu people, why not subsidize White industries as well, selected industries. You see we have no list, no schedule of what the Government might consider to be White industry, that is to say White industries employing an overwhelming proportion of White labour, and it seems to me only logical that if you are going to subsidize the Black man to give him a living (which we do not object to), it is quite logical to say that you also have to subsidize the White man in order to enable him to compete with the Black man you are subsidizing already. And it may well be that when the Government finally wakes up to the problems which exist on the Witwatersrand and which will develop in the coming years, they will have to provide similar inducements to people to start industries on the Witwatersrand to keep the Witwatersrand going.

Or is it—perhaps the Minister could tell us—that there are no such White industries and that there is no possibility of establishing any industry almost entirely manned by White people? Because if that is the case, I ask what is the future then for White South Africa under the Government’s policy? What alternative has the Government for economic integration? We know the Government does not approve of economic integration. So it seems that as a result of our endeavours to find information, we and the country are no wiser than we were when we started asking questions, except that judging from this debate it seems clear that the Government has no answers to any of these pregnant questions we put to them.

The hon. the Minister of Finance particularly criticized the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). He said that the hon. member for Jeppes apparently—he did not quote him exactly—believed in the materialistic doctrine “that nothing is politically good that is not economically sound”, and he went on to say that the hon. member for Jeppes apparently believes that “economic considerations alone should dictate Government policy”, and the hon. the Minister said “We reject that in toto”. Well, of course, Sir, the hon. member for Jeppes did not say that and so what the hon. the Minister of Finance rejected in toto was a figment of his own imagination. The hon. member for Jeppes did argue that economic policies should be economically sound. I would have thought that that is axiomatic, and I would have thought that any reasonable person would have taken that for granted. I do not know whether the hon. Minister rejects that or not, and whether that is included in his in toto. In my opinion it is a fair axiom to say that economic schemes should be economically sound. But the main argument of the hon. member for Jeppes was that in addition to being economically unsound, referring to the Government’s ideas, they were politically quite incapable of achievement and he gave figures and arguments in support of that contention. He took as his basis that economic integration is a fact, whether it is in the towns or on the borders of the reserves—when you shift the integration from the urban areas to the borders of the reserves, it does not alter the fact of integration. That again seems to me a sound argument and an unanswerable argument. The hon. Minister did have an answer, and a very remarkable and significant answer it was. He said that he believes that the time might come—and presumably he meant now, otherwise there was little sense in his argument—in the life of a country when it had to place imponderable things above every consideration in order to preserve the soul of the country. If that is so, if the hon. the Minister in enunciating that theory is correct, one may well ask that if the country’s financial and economic policies are to be shaped by the “imponderables”, why do we appoint expert commissions on economic matters to advise the Government? Why did we appoint the Tomlinson Commission? We know that its recommendations have largely been rejected out of hand. Why did the Government appoint the Viljoen Commission, a commission which incidentally recommended that the Government’s policy should always be directed with an eye to its effect on the country’s economy. That is being completely ignored. Why have we got a formidable Economic Advisory Council? We do not know what advice it gives to the hon. the Prime Minister of course; we only know of excerpts which are published in the Press, and which are presumably the bits of advice which the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to accept. But it would appear that when these commissions which are appointed, consisting of the best brains in that particular line, report, the Government is ready to disregard the whole lot in pursuit of its political ideologies. It reminds one of the old story of the rather heated football game where the ball was kicked out of the ground, and while the players were waiting for the ball to be returned one of the large forwards in the game said “Never mind the ruddy ball, let us get on with the game”. It looks to me as if in their pursuit of these ideologies, the Government is not going to be bothered with economic expert advice, wherever it comes from. I am quite sure, however, that the Treasury does not draft its proposals on the basis of imponderable things. What is this “imponderable”, this mysterious X, that haunts the hon. the Minister of Finance in guiding the financial destinies of the country? Mr. Speaker, is it by any chance a guarded reference to the hon. the Prime Minister, do you think? I can just see the hon. Minister telling his financial advisers; Look, Gentlemen, your advice is economically sound, but the “Great Imponderable” does not accept it, and that is all there is to it. I wonder, in saying that, whether we are not really coming to the root of the matter, and whether we cannot really phrase our country’s difficulties in one short sentence by simply saying that the whole country’s economic future is being jeopardized by and subjected to the ideological pipe-dreams of the hon. the Prime Minister. That being so, one can only feel sorry for his colleagues, who otherwise in many respects are rational people, having to get up in this House and to try and justify things which they know are irrational, impossible and hold serious dangers for the country. Mr. Speaker, this talk of “imponderables” and “saving die country’s soul” is to my mind quite arrant nonsense in the context in which the hon. the Minister used these words. It seems to me like vamping on the piano when you cannot read the music and hoping that the audience will not notice it. But let me tell the hon. the Minister that the public is beginning to notice it, and when they become fully aware—the audience is not only this House, but also the country—of the five-finger exercise they have been listening to instead of the concerto which they expected, it will be no excuse for the Minister to say that he is just doing his best.

The hon. the Minister talked about these discussions here in the House being interred in the annals of Parliament. He meant “Hansard”, I expect. Well, Sir, I can. only say that in time to come I think the hon. the Minister would like to see them not interred but expunged altogether from the annals of this House, because they expose the Government’s weaknesses so very clearly. Sir, the annals of the last 15 years are full of instances of “what the Opposition says to-day the Government is compelled sooner or later to accept as its policy”. And I have no doubt that this debate which has taken place is another example, and that before very long the Government will be compelled to admit that in raising these matters as we have done during the last few days, we were perfectly right. I think we have particularly established two things: First of all, that the problems of the Rand’s future, according to the Government, are not considered sufficiently important to merit the serious consideration either of this House or of the Government, and that in any case the Government has no plans for dealing with those problems; secondly we have established, I think, that these grandiose plans of border industrial development and the gradual shifting of the labour force of the country from the urban areas and from the Western Province generally, that is to say, disintegrating the present economy, are based not on sound economic lines, but on a theory, a wild theory, to my mind an untenable theory, that by so doing you save the soul of the nation! Well, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Minister of Finance can put up that reason in justification of a policy and give no other justification, one can only hold up one’s hands and say “Heaven help South Africa!”

The hon. member who has just sat down began by talking about a Bill which as far as I know has not even been before the Cabinet yet, according to newspaper reports, a Bill which was published purely for information and on which public comment was invited. Does the hon. member not think that he should submit these comments to the Department instead of raising the matter here? Something might then be done perhaps along the lines that he has in mind, but surely it is far-reaching to come and criticize the Government in this House in connection with a Bill which the Government itself has not yet considered!

The hon. member says that quite a number of questions which the Opposition raised during the second-reading debate remained unanswered. Let me just take the few that he mentioned. He referred to the future of the Witwatersrand. The United Party is supposed to be so perturbed about the Witwatersrand which allegedly faces ruin because gold mines are going to close down on a large scale. I do not know whether hon. members of the United Party realize this or whether they do not realize it, but the problem of the Vereeniging-Witwatersrand-Pretoria complex is not one of too few economic activities but of too many activities, the problem being that there are no water supplies in that area to continue to make provision for the expansion which is taking place, and it is for that reason that we must have a policy of decentralization. The development which is taking place there in the industrial sphere much more than compensates for the possible decline in gold-mining activities. It is a systematic development. Hon. members opposite must not try to suggest here that it is the Government’s policy to kill all industrial development in that complex, because that is not the truth. The Government’s policy is to shift those industries which need large numbers of unskilled workers to areas which are more suitable for them, so as to make provision on the Rand and in areas which are not border areas for industries which make more extensive use of capital and of mechanization. We cannot go and establish more industries in that part of the world than it would be reasonably safe to do bearing in mind the amount of water that is available in this area.

Then the hon. member wants to know what border industries are. Mr. Speaker, that has been explained here so often that I do not know whether he is serious in putting this question. The hon. member asks whether Durban is a border area for industrial development. Of course Durban is a border area, and the hon. member ought to know that. It was said in this House last year and also prior to that, but it was also said that certain concessions would be granted to border industries which are established away from the present industrial areas so as to compensate them for possible disadvantages which do not exist in respect of border places such as Durban and Pretoria. The hon. member’s whole quarrel therefore is that he wants concessions for Durban which are not justified because Durban is already an industrial area, Durban has a growth potential of its own and it is not necessary as far as Durban is concerned to give it an injection of vitality. The same applies to Pinetown and other areas in that neighbourhood.

Then the hon. member talked about our Ideology and said that the hon. the Minister of Finance had stated that we were not going to sacrifice our ideological policy for the sake of temporary economic gain. Surely that is something which is said year after year in this House and year after year the same hon. member for Constantia comes along with a motion—usually in connection with the main Budget—in which he moves that all the words after “that” be deleted and that a whole lot of other words be substituted “because the Government’s racial policy is ruining the country economically”. That is the amendment which he moves here every year and adequate replies have been given to it repeatedly. It is pointed out every year that with our racial policy we want to safeguard the future of South Africa and that the necessary adjustments have to be made as far as these other things are concerned. Now the hon. member wants to know why, if that is the position, the Government appoints experts, economists and commissions to advise it in connection with economic matters if the racial issue is such a dominant one. I have already said on a few previous occasions in this House, and it has been said by some of our Ministers, that these people have go give us the best advice as to how to build up this country economically, but just as in the case of mathematics there are certain fundamental axioms on which they have to work and one of the fundamental axioms is that apartheid must continue to exist in South Africa, that White civilization must rule in the White areas of South Africa. Once that is accepted as the fundamental axiom, then from that point onwards you can work out what your policy should be and what the best course is economically that will fit in with that axiom. The best economic policy for South Africa must be worked out within the framework of our broad ideological policy, not outside that framework. On that point the National Party stands very firmly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a third-reading debate, and in a debate such as this one should view matters more objectively really. Here I want to touch upon a matter which I raised last year during the Budget debate. You will recall that last year I raised the question here of the rates of interest of the Reserve Bank, the commercial banks, the building societies and other deposit-receiving institutions, and I pointed out that the commercial banks were under the control of the Reserve Bank; the commercial banks follow the lead given by the Reserve Bank, but the other institutions do not do so with the result that these other institutions are paying higher rates of interest on deposits from the public and that they are growing out of all proportion to what their growth should be; and in the second place I want to point out that it puts a spoke in the wheel of State policy if the Reserve Bank gives a lead and only a percentage of the deposit-receiving institutions follow that lead while the rest do not do so. The figure that I mentioned last year was that at 30 June 1961 deposit-receiving institutions and building societies already had R344,000,000 more in deposits than all the commercial banks together. I said that this was an unsound position. Since that time the position has developed further, and in my opinion the figure to-day is no longer R344,000,000 but probably much more than R500,000,000, that is to say, the difference between deposits with those institutions and deposits with the banks. I want to add that if the deposit-receiving institutions and building societies had also reduced their rates of interest systematically, as the commercial banks have done, we would have been in a stronger position economically than we are to-day. There would have been more rapid development in the past six or nine months because there would have been more liquidity in the money market. What do we find? I have here the latest edition of the Reserve Bank’s quarterly journal, the December edition, and there we find that the rate of interest charged by the commercial banks on overdrafts was 7 per cent on 15 May 1961 and it remained unchanged until 1 January 1962 when it was reduced to 6½ per cent; on 1 July 1962 it was reduced to 6 per cent, and on 1 December last to 5½ per cent. Over a period of 11 months therefore there was a reduction of 1½ per cent. The rate was reduced on three occasions by a total of H per cent. In other words, the current rate of interest on bank overdrafts is 5½ per cent. Take the building societies. As from 1 July 1961 their rate of interest was 7 per cent and per cent on loans other than housing loans. It was only on 1 October, ten months after the commercial banks had reduced their rates of interest the first time, that the building societies reduced theirs by only a half per cent to 6½ per cent. What is the position to-day? One can get an ordinary bank overdraft at a full 1 per cent lower rate of interest than one can get a building society loan on a property. That is an unheard-of position. The sound position is that the rate of interest on a mortgage bond should always be lower than the rate of interest charged on a bank overdraft. But what do we find further? Building societies started to hold meetings and decided that they would like to accede to the request that they should also reduce their rates of interest, but they were afraid that the public would withdraw the money invested with them. Well, I do not blame them for being afraid of that because the other deposit-receiving institutions attract investments away from them by paying an even higher rate of interest. But to show the seriousness of this problem the building societies then decided to offer the public ½ per cent less on deposits. One building society—I think the biggest in the country—circulated their depositors and said that they proposed to offer a half per cent lower rate of interest but in terms of their articles of association they have to give notice of that fact. A large number of depositors then said that they refused to allow it, otherwise they would withdraw their deposits. The building societies got the fright of their lives and decided to rescind the decision which they had taken to reduce the rate of interest by a half per cent, and decided that every building society could do what it pleased. The result is that the rates of interest are not going to drop.

That brings me to the matter which I raised here last year. I asked the Minister whether something could not be done about this matter and whether we should not amend the Banking Act in such a way that deposit-receiving institutions, including building societies, will all fall under the Banking Act in this sense that they have to follow the lead given by the Reserve Bank with regard to rates of interest. The Minister said that this matter had been investigated by a technical committee. I understand that that committee drew up a draft Bill and circulated it to various parties and that there is a great deal of opposition. There are many people in this country who know the contents of that Bill, but we do not and we should like to know. In the first place, therefore, I would like to ask whether he will not allow us to peruse the Bill, and secondly I want to ask whether it is likely that we shall be able to put through that legislation this year, because I feel that here we are dealing with a matter where we have two trends in our economy. One is the lead that is given by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank and that is followed by the commercial banks, and the other is just a sort of contrarious policy that is followed by the financial institutions, and we should bring about the necessary co-ordination between these bodies. That is of the utmost importance, and I make an appeal to the Minister please to expedite this matter so that it can be disposed of this year still.

Then there is another matter that I want to raise. The other day, in his reply to the second-reading debate the Minister pointed out that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) had read a newspaper report entirely incorrectly. Well, the hon. member did read it incorrectly, of course—and I think he will admit that—when he said that we were going to have a surplus of R45,000,000 this year. I just want to give him the correct position according to the latest figures that have been published. It appears from the Government Gazette of 11 January that the total State expenditure amounted to R594,000,000, in comparison with R523,000,000 the previous year for the nine months in question, and that the estimated total expenditure for the year is R799,550,000 In other words, more than R200,000,000 still has to be spent to make up the total amount that we voted. That is the expenditure. But over the same nine months revenue increased by only R40,000,000, from R479,000,000 to R519,000,000. The expenditure increased by R71,000.000. These are the figures that were available, and with these figures available the reporter of the local afternoon newspaper goes along and places a report which is entirely misleading, and that, of course, is the report which the hon. member for Green Point used. The reporter placed this report under a three-column headline, “Hope of tax cuts; State has collected R45,000,000 more than it expected”, and then the report goes on to say—

What does the writer of this article mean by “the past financial year”? To you, Mr. Speaker, and to me, it is clear, but it-was not clear to the hon. member for Green Point because he said it was this year. Then the report goes on to say—

He is now talking about this R45,000,000—

Then he refers to the so-called underestimates in the past, and only at the end of the report he says—

I must refer to this report, because I wondered who was going to be the first person to put his foot into it and to misinterpret this report, and then it turned out to be the hon. member for Green Point who in 1948 was seriously Being considered for appointment as Minister of Finance.

But that is not all. This newspaper’s chief sub-editor, who writes the headlines for their reports, published a few letters with reference to the same report, all of them indicating that these people believed that this year there was going to be a surplus of R45,000,000 and that there would be a reduction of taxation. One of the headlines read: “Heads Should Roll for this R45,000,000 Blunder.” The Minister pointed out the other day that if he had to budget for R45,000,000 less, he would have had a deficit of R28,000,000. That is the one report to which I want to refer to show that newspapers ought to be more careful when they write on financial matters and that they should try at least to understand what they are writing about. This misleading report aroused expectations in the minds of numerous voters. I have pointed out now that up to the end of December the expenditure already exceeded the expenditure in the previous year by about R71,000,000 while revenue was up by only about R40,000,000, so on the basis of the figures that were actually available there was no reason to expect such a thing.

But it is not only this one newspaper; here I have the Transvaal Afrikaans afternoon newspaper, in which there appears a report dated 18 January by their correspondent in the House of Assembly. Let me say at once that I have no fault to find with the report itself. Amongst other things he says this—

All this is correct; it is precisely what the State President said, but now the report reaches Johannesburg and this newspaper’s sub-editor, who is supposed to be a man with some knowledge of matters of this kind, prints it under a six-column headline which reads: “R80,000,000 more predicted for Treasury.” Mr. Speaker, surely the Treasury has nothing to do with this matter. Here we have an additional R80,000,000 of currency available for foreign trade, but that has nothing to do with the Treasury. This person goes even further and this is what he writes in his summary—

If words have any meaning, this means that there is going to be a surplus of R80,000,000 at the end of March on the Government’s current expenditure account. In view of the fact that members of the public are very prone to pin their hopes and their expectations on this type of report—and I speak from experience; I have already received a stack of letters in connection with this matter, in pursuance of the report that taxation is going to be reduced because of the fact that surplus is anticipated—let us make an appeal in all friendliness to all our newspapermen to be careful as to what they write about the country’s finances. This is a delicate matter which is easily influenced by pessimism or optimism. Let them please get persons to write the headlines who know something about the subject and who do not simply think up something and then publish all sorts of nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to the subject I really want to discuss, I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) who has just sat down that the very eloquent warning he has just given the Press of the country with regard to their statements appertaining to the probable surplus might with much better force have been turned to the hon. the Minister of Information, because if ever a Minister requires a warning from his own side surely what happened over the week-end calls for such a warning, and one could well apply the strictures of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) to this incident. We have become accustomed to realizing that the Minister of Information does not really appreciate the responsibilities of his Department in regard to the public statements he has to make on behalf of South Africa, but we understand that he is incapable of this fact. This week-end’s fiasco, however, which affects not only our own Press but the world Press, I think, fully warrants his attention being directed to this particular warning.

Other than that, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) went to considerable trouble with his apologetic explanations of the delays and uncertainties about which this side of the House has criticized the Government, particularly in regard to its border industry scheme. All he has done is to succeed in emphasizing the correctness of our main charge, the complete lack of forward planning on the part of the Government, their lack of appreciation of the responsibilities and the difficulties they will experience in moving forward in this new direction of remaking the face of and the economic life of South Africa on an ideological basis. We claim that the trouble has largely been the complete absence of planning and I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) with his excuses has merely emphasized these points. I think the Government’s position with regard to that and the excuses made by the Minister of Finance in his reply to the second-reading debate have been so thoroughly debunked by speakers on this side that there is no need for me at this stage to carry that matter any further.

I want to deal with one or two matters arising out of the defence expenditure, but before touching on defence as such, I want to ask the Minister of Finance to give consideration to one point amongst the many others he has been asked to deal with. The Minister in his reply to the second reading showed that he was not unsympathetic towards the pensioners and he gave us an outline of the sympathetic treatment they have received over the past seven or eight years from this Government. There is no thought in my mind to belittle what has been done for the pensioners. Far be it from that. Also, there is no thought of minimizing the difficulties the Minister and the Government have to face in regard to this problem. But our argument is that what has been done is not enough and we claim that now is a suitable time to increase the tempo of that relief and to move forward with a far more comprehensive scheme for old age and similar social pensions which have lagged so far behind present-day living costs and money values that they are completely out of touch with reality. That was the gravamen of the criticism of this side of the House. I want to quote just one example to illustrate it.

Here in the Peninsula wage determinations brought about under the Government’s wage legislation have laid down that the maximum old-age pension which can be received by a White man and his wife who are both qualified to draw a pension is about R24 a month. That is the maximum; the majority do not receive the maximum, and for the Africans and Coloureds it is much lower. I am sorry, I said wage determinations, but I meant the pension laws not wage determinations. Under the Government's labour legislation the wage determinations lay down that a minimum wage for an African unskilled worker is approximately R40 a month, just about breadline level and practically double the old-age pension for a White man and his wife. This example shows that the level of pensions has fallen right out of touch with reality. The wage determination is an attempt to keep wages in touch with reality and we have to try to bring our pensions somewhere within approachable distance of that. Whilst the Minister is in such a sympathetic mood, I want to plead the case of a very special group of people. They are relatively small in numbers, owing to age, but they are a group of people who well deserve the best we can give them. I refer to the men and women who draw the old-age pension as war veterans’ pensions for service to South Africa in the First World War. When the Government and Parliament approved of the special concessions which we gave to the survivors of the Anglo-Boer War on both sides, whereby the means test would not be applicable in their case, they established both a principle and a precedent which won the instant approval of the whole of South Africa. It is the principle that any man who fights for his country merits special treatment from his country in the closing years of his life. Not only men but women also. This is one of the things on which I can claim that everyone unites in supporting, irrespective of politics. I believe it is time for that principle and precedent to take the next logical step forward and be extended to First World War veterans. I believe that consideration should now be given to at least the older group of the war veterans from the First World War, many of whom in their advancing age are now suffering from the hardships and privations they experienced when they fought under appalling conditions in the 191418 war. Many of them are drawing pensions, but they are handicapped by the means test. I believe it is time that at least those of a particular age level, say 65 or some other age which the Minister feels justified, should be granted a similar exemption from the means test as we applied to their comrades from the Anglo-Boer War. There cannot be a great number of them left and unhappily, due to the ravages of age, the number of pensioners from the Anglo-Boer War to whom it applies is steadily declining. I believe the Minister would find widespread support if he made such a concession in his new budget. Last March, at the request of the Minister of Defence, Parliament approved of additional defence expenditure of just over R48,000,000, a 68 per cent increase on the Defence Vote. The Minister told us in the Appropriation Bill debate that share dealings under the arbitrage scheme had resulted in a further R1, 600,000 for the Defence Fund, making it approximately R50,000,000 altogether. Surely if to-day we can find those amounts to guarantee the security of the Republic against aggression, we can also afford to find the relatively insignificant amount required to honour our obligations to those men and women who fought for South Africa in the First World War and to guarantee their security in their old age. I would like to commend that to the Minister when he considers his budget and to ask him to add not only sympathy but boldness to his vision when he deals with the matter.

I now want to pass over to the question of defence itself. When the Minister of Finance presented his Budget last March he described it as essentially a defence budget. When he introduced it on 22 March last he concluded his speech by saying: “This is a budget of national security. Defence is at once its dominant theme and its ultimate justification.” Later he went on to say—

When he presented that Budget the Minister provided for R120,000,000 for defence, 67 per cent higher than in the previous Budget. Actually it was the highest defence budget in the history of the country, not even excluding the war years. I think it is as well briefly to remind the country of the responsibilities which that budget imposed on the public. The abolition of the 10 per cent discount on the normal tax increased the normal income-tax of the average family man by 10 per cent and took roughly R10,000,000 away from the people. It also abolished the benefit of certain concessions in the Companies’ Tax which took another R4,000,000. It helped to push up the cost of living by imposing extra duties on petrol and oil, which in turn meant a general increase in the cost of living. To meet defence requirements, the Minister took R14,300,000 by way of increased duties on liquor, including an increase in the price of beer. Increased taxation on records amounted to R100,000 and it increased the cost of reading and books. In the family home the budget pushed up the cost of prams. It meant dearer candles for the poor. All these may seem small items, but they are relatively important to the families concerned. Overall the taxpayer had to provide R40,000,000 extra, including the underestimated R5,000,000 to which the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) referred. Defence expenditure also has an impact on this Part Appropriation of R241,000,000. What we want to ask both the hon. Ministers of Defence and Finance is: What are we getting and what have we got for last year’s defence budget of R120,000,000? I do not intend asking a lot of detailed questions, but I believe it is a matter which calls for a statement by the Minister of Defence, to tell the taxpaper what progress has been made towards substantiating the claim of the Minister of Finance that defence was at once the dominant theme and the ultimate justification of the Budget. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information to support that claim of justification. Particularly, what is our position to-day with regard to meeting the external aggression referred to by the hon. the Minister of Finance? Since that budget was passed there have been tremendous changes in the world, changes which involve South Africa from every aspect. We want to know what we have got and what we are getting for last year’s Budget. Tell the taxpayers what progress has been made towards substantiating the claim that we are going to provide security for the future of the country, and particularly what steps have been taken, if any, with regard to forming any external alliances so as to get a combined defence organization which must increase our security. Since those statements were made by the Minister of Finance there has been a judgment given by the World Court stating that court is competent to deal with the South West Africa question. There have been events to the north of us, in the Congo, in Katanga and in Rhodesia. There has been a growing demand in UN for action against us. There has been the recent important statement by the Secretary-General of UNO regarding the decision to boycott us. There are events and pressures in Angola and Portuguese East Africa, all a sure indication that the pincers are slowly but inexorably closing on South Africa. We should know more about these things because they affect our security. It is more than ever necessary for the Government to keep the country informed and reassured regarding the progress and the sufficiency of what is being done to guarantee the security of South Africa, particularly in regard to the potential aggressors mentioned by the Minister of Finance. You see, apart from its repeated appeal that we must stand together to meet the dangers threatening South Africa, the Government has done little to acquaint the people of the Republic regarding the nature or the extent of the steps actually being taken or as to what positive steps they are actually taking to avert these dangers without the necessity of fighting against them. It is true that the Prime Minister has given the people of South West Africa an assurance that the Republic will support South West Africa under certain eventualities. We would like to know from the South African side what he has committed us to, and I have not the slightest doubt that the people of South West Africa would like to know what the value of that assurance really is to them and what lies behind the Prime Minister’s statement. He has committed the country, not the Government but the South African Republic, and I think the South African Republic has the right to know from the Prime Minister what he has committed us to. Sir, I have said that the demands of national security impose a considerable restraint on the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence as to what they can actually say; they are not free agents to say just what they like, and one accepts that. But even with that necessary limitation there is still a very wide scope regarding the information which the hon. the Minister can give to satisfy the fully justifiable request of the South African public to be told what value they are getting for the money that is being spent on defence. You see, Sir, the public have a very personal interest in this matter. Their own security and that of their family rests upon adequate defences. Under our system of a conscripted Defence Force limited to White South Africans, it is the White taxpayers’ sons and daughters who have to man the fighting lines, in the air, on the sea and on the land in case of trouble. It is the taxpayer in any case who has to pay the hard cash that is needed for an adequate Defence Force and it is the taxpayer also who will have to bear the costs of any failure in that respect, both in cash and in life. During the past year the public have been bewildered by the multiplicity of public statements— statements made on the South African defence supplies of equipment, particularly in regard to the air arm of our defences. The majority of these reports undoubtedly were unofficial; some were obviously inspired; others emanated from sections and officials in the Government not associated with the defence organization. Some were later contradicted and some were just allowed to go into orbit without comment at all, all of them further bewildering South Africa as to just what is happening with regard to defence. The public have the right to know whether they are getting an adequate defence. The hon. the Minister also has a paramount responsibility. As Minister of Defence it is his duty to keep the nation satisfied with regard not only to the sufficiency but the efficiency of our defence organization and our ability to maintain those defences both in time of peace and in time of war—not only maintain them as regards the weapons we have received but in many cases where the equipment and machines that we are receiving require the nuclear type of munitions he must satisfy the country that he will be able to get those supplies in time of hostilities, that we will not have a Defence Force with its teeth drawn. The Minister should make a statement as to what it has been possible to do with regard to our Air Force as far as aircraft and equipment are concerned, both for defence, and if necessary, for attack against an aggressor. The country would like to have it cleared up once and for all whether or not we are getting the French Mirage jets. I know that the Minister made a statement of sorts in that regard in the Other Place; but we have had half a dozen differing statements in the Press, and we would like to have something definite. There has been so much mystery about this matter that I doubt whether except for one or two right at the top anybody really knows just what is happening to-day. Sir, can we be assured that adequate supplies of spares and replacements and, even more important, adequate reserves of munitions for these particular aircraft and other weapons are being supplied to us? Those of us who have been fortunate enough to see them have been impressed by the increased mobility given to our defences by the new transport planes that we are receiving, but it is quite obvious that those planes will require an air-cover defence if they are ever to be used under hostility conditions. Can we be satisfied that that requirement has been foreseen and dealt with?

There is the question of the ballot and the call-up, a question which has affected practically 90 per cent of our homes in South Africa. I think after a year’s experience of that system, the hon. the Minister owes some sort of explanation to the country as to whether the Government is satisfied or not with this system. Is this scheme working correctly and satisfactorily? How many ballotees, how many conscripts, have we been able to call up? What is the Government’s policy with regard to numbers? Sir, you will remember that when the scheme was first discussed the call-up was going to be on a sliding scale, the numbers gradually increasing as the facilities and as the instructors became available. I understand that the first call-up was in the region of 10,000. Undoubtedly there must be teething trouble in a scheme of this sort. Nobody expects perfection from the start. Undoubtedly also the scheme has worked reasonably well under the circumstances, but the fathers and mothers of those boys and of the boys still to be called up would like a statement from the hon. Minister on the lesson of the year’s experience and what is proposed to be done to improve matters or to rectify any deficiencies which may have become apparent.

Then there is the question of the gymnasiums which justifiably have a magnificent record. There has been some criticism of the method of selecting entrants to the gymnasiums. There is a very heavy demand for admission to the gymnasiums, far in excess of their capacity. I suppose that some criticism by those rejected is inevitable, but there again I think the Minister owes a duty to the country to acquaint it with what has happened and what steps are being taken in order to overcome these difficulties. Let me quote just one instance. How is it possible for a trainee who has applied for admission to the gymnasium, a trainee who has a magnificent record of cadet service in his school, who has moved up into the officers’ group, who is physically fit in every respect, who has the highest testimonials of military service as a cadet, and who has expressed the desire to carry on into the Permanent Force of the Republic as a profession—how is it possible for such a lad to be refused entry to the gymnasium and for a friend of his, who does not desire to go into the Permanent Force, who has never taken the slightest interest in the cadet movement, who has shown no military aptitude of any sort, who is in the same group and in the same area, to be selected and entered in a gymnasium? These are things which are rankling in the public mind, and I believe that the Minister will be doing a service to the gymnasiums and to defence by clarifying the position and satisfying the country that there will not be a recurrence of these things. Maybe you cannot prevent it when it happens the first time, but if it happens a second time then it is time to know something about it.

Then there is the tremendous double procedure and time-delay in applying for exemption and deciding upon applications for exemption. Here again I believe that the hon. the Minister would satisfy the country and improve matters if he included in a general statement some information in that regard and told us whether it is not possible to simplify the procedure. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether he has received representations re these delays from certain educational authorities, who put up what appeared to be a pretty sound scheme, which would probably halve the time taken to deal with these exemptions. At the present time a lad is kept in uncertainty for about five or six months when the situation could be cleared up within a month or two. The procedure should be revised and the general overall delay should be reduced. There are other points, I believe, which can be dealt with with regard to the Navy and to the Defence Force as a whole— the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Are steps being taken to meet what must be an inevitable demand which provides the hard core for the training of our thousands of trainees as well as manning the new equipment and machines we are obtaining to increase the size of the Permanent Force. With the increased size of the Republic’s Defence Force with the number of trainees we are dealing with, with the new weapons that are coming forward, with the year-by-year call-up of trainees it is imperative that the hard core of the Permanent Force should be increased. At the present moment a large number of the naval personnel are overseas to fetch the three new ships. They are rightly taking advantage of their stay in England to go through certain courses, which will be of benefit to this country. As the result of this a much larger number of trainees have to be used to keep the ships remaining in the South African waters in operation at the moment. Well and good; nobody objects to that, it is only natural, but that state cannot continue as the new ships take up their positions on the station and we have to man them. These ships are solid masses of scientific instruments; they have electronic equipment from bow to stern; they require highly specialized knowledge and experience. You cannot put in trainees for nine months and then expect them to adequately handle that sort of equipment. These ships will have to be manned by permanent people. Are we taking adequate steps in time to increase the permanent complement of the Navy? The same thing applies to the air arm and to the land forces. You cannot make a cake without breaking eggs, and we cannot build up our defences unless you are prepared to foot the bill for it. If footing the bill also means a substantial increase in the cost of our permanent defence, then the country must be prepared to pay that bill or to accept that a large proportion of the money we are spending on the trainee scheme and our new equipment is so much money wasted. You bring a chap up to a certain stage of perfection: then he completes his training period and goes off. In the next two years he has two periods of training of ten days or a fortnight each. Sir, in 12 months the whole technique of warfare changes, as the hon. the Minister knows. Even whilst a piece of equipment is in the process of being built, while a ship is being built, the cost may be increased by 50 per cent because of advances made by science in that period. The same thing applies in the training of officers and men. In order to keep them trained we must have the necessary resources in equipment and experienced instructors. In order to do that, you must have a sufficiently large permanent force, experienced and trained in the things that count.

I think the time at my disposal is almost exhausted so I am not going to deal with other matters but I would urge the hon. the Minister to make a general statement on these points. I am not asking for State secrets to be disclosed. Nobody wants to jeopardize the defences of our country but there is a reasonable limit to which the Minister can and should go to satisfy the country.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) complained at the beginning of his speech that we had allegedly not replied to him in this debate on the question as to what the Government proposes to do for the Witwatersrand. I do not propose to deal with that portion of his speech at length, but I just want to say that I cannot understand how anyone can believe that the Government is neglecting that area when it was announced only last year that in the next few years Iscor alone is going to spend no less than R560,000,000 on its own expansion and development. The vast bulk of that money is going to be spent in that area. Have hon. members forgotten that an announcement was made here last year in connection with the tremendous expansion of the chemical industry in that area? Are hon. members of the Opposition not aware of all the millions that the Department of Defence is spending at this moment to give an enormous fillip to the manufacturing industry in that area by manufacturing as much as possible of our own arms and ammunition here? These are all things which are being done to build up that area. I cannot understand how anybody can say that no attention is being given to that area. A very great deal of attention is being given to it. The question is, having regard to what that area can carry in the future, whether too much attention is not being given to it; whether we shall ever be able to carry that expansion later on.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything else in that connection. The hon. member elaborated first of all on the size of the defence budget and he then asked this question: “But what are we getting for that expenditure?” The hon. member said that it was my duty to tell the public what we were in fact getting for that expenditure and he then asked whether we were getting certain types of aircraft. I want to ask the hon. member whether he did not read the news item in the Press only this morning that pressure is being brought to bear on Great Britain and France at a certain conference in Africa not to provide South Africa with arms? Does the hon. member want me to embarrass countries which sell weapons to us, even before those weapons are delivered? What could we achieve by doing so? I am prepared to take into my confidence a few members on the other side nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and a few members whom we will nominate on our side and to show them what we are purchasing and how much we are purchasing, but at this stage when all these threats are being made against countries which provide us with weapons, I cannot play into the hands of the countries which have uttered these threats. The Opposition has been trying since last year to get me to tell them which countries are supplying us with arms. I cannot imagine for a moment what the Opposition wants to do with that information. What is the object of it? Do they want to make the position as difficult as possible for the countries which sell arms to us? I cannot imagine that the hon. member for Simonstown would be so irresponsible as to expect us to make the position more and more difficult for those countries which provide us with arms. The hon. member for Simonstown was my guest the other day and there he saw some of the equipment that we purchased for the millions that we spent last year, and I do not think that what we showed him was a poor example of what we have purchased. As a military man he ought to know what the things that he saw there will mean to us. These things will be disclosed step by step once the contracts have been carried out, but even after the contracts have been carried out it would be in very bad taste on my part, if we receive weapons of a certain kind from a particular country, to announce to the world, even after the contract has been carried out, “Look what country A sold to us; look what country B sold to us”. At this moment I have in South Africa a weapon of particularly great value that was sold to us by a certain country, a country which had stated that it would never sell a single weapon to us. Not only did that country sell that weapon to us but it forced us to take 25 per cent more than we had asked for, otherwise we could not get a licence to manufacture it here. What would I gain by revealing the name of that country? Why should I make the position of that country more difficult? It has its own problems. Why should I aggravate its problems by revealing this type of thing? I informed this House last year that there was nothing whatsoever in the sphere of defence that we wished to buy and that we could afford that we could not obtain, and I want to emphasize that again to-day. There is nothing at all that we want to buy and that we can afford that we cannot buy in the sphere of defence. I say again that I am not prepared to disclose the names of these countries which are selling these things to me, and even if the Opposition develops a feeling of mistrust because of this, then I cannot help it. I do not propose to disclose the names of those countries, firstly because it would be unfair to them and secondly because it would be unfair to South Africa.

It would not be in the national interest.

The hon. member wanted to know how we were progressing with this nine-month scheme. Let me say to the hon. member and to the House that if all my efforts in connection with defence were as successful as the nine-month ballotee scheme, then I can give the assurance that within a short space of time South Africa’s defences will be in a very excellent condition. Nothing could be more successful. I have my problems, of course. This scheme was introduced for the first time last year. I too am very concerned over these problems and we are trying to devise plans to expedite the notices or the postings so that ballotees will be able to know earlier, if possible, whether they are going to be posted or not. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that there are many problems connected with it.

The other question is whether we should not increase the strength of our Permanent Force and reduce the strength of our Citizen Force. I want to tell the hon. member that South Africa has never yet been able to afford to build up a Permanent Force which is so strong that the entire defence of South Africa can be entrusted to it.

I did not suggest that.

If the hon. member wants to explain what he meant I shall sit down.

The point I made was that with the expansion that we are getting on the trainee side, plus the new weapons and the new ships and aircraft that we are going to get, it will also be essential to expand the hard core of the Permanent Force in order to be able to take full advantage of the new equipment, new ships, etc., that we are getting. We cannot expect to get along with trainees only.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE; That is so self-evident that I did not think that that was what the hon. member meant, because the hon. member asked whether the money that we were spending on ballotees was being wasted. But I accept the hon. member’s explanation. However, I just want to say that as far as our Permanent Force is concerned the number of approved posts has been increased by approximately 50 per cent. Naturally we cannot build up the Citizen Force and naturally we cannot train so many more ballotees without also increasing the strength of the Permanent Force and, moreover, since we are now expanding our Air Force so tremendously, it goes without saying that the Permanent Force section of the Air Force must also be expanded rapidly, and that is being done. In general I just want to say that since last year we have had additional posts approved to expand our Permanent Force by approximately 50 per cent. I hope the hon. member is not going to ask me how much 50 per cent is.

I think I have now replied more or less to all the points raised by the hon. member, but I just want to say that at this stage I cannot tell the public what we have purchased, but I am prepared to disclose that information to a few members on that side nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and also to a few members on this side. I issue that standing invitation this afternoon.

There being a time limit to this debate the hon. the Minister will understand if I do not respond to his address this afternoon. I want to come back to matters economic. I would like to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever); I am sorry to see that he is not here. I do not intend dealing with that part of his speech which contained the “warning Waring theme” about inaccurate announcements to the Press, but I do want to come back to the remarks he made about an inquiry which has been carried out by a committee appointed by the hon. the Minister. I would like to support his representations and his plea that the report of that committee should be printed and made available to members of this House. I myself think that he would have been wise to have stopped there. He then went on to propound certain views which he held in regard to how the question of deposits between various financial institutions should be regulated. My own feeling about the matter, of course, is that the money market is well left to be regulated by the laws of economics rather than by the laws of Parliament, and I would not like to see further regimentation in regard to currency matters. What is, of course, very essential is that there should be security in different types of financial institutions and that there should be an equitable arrangement by which the investing public have adequate security in all types of financial institutions. I would, however, not like to take the matter as far as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) did, except to support his plea that a report of the committe of inquiry should be printed and made available to members of this House.

Sir, anyone listening to hon. members opposite during the second-reading debate on this Part Appropriation Bill might conclude that the country’s economy is stronger now than it has ever been before. Another word of caution would therefore not be out of place at this stage of the discussion. Admittedly—and let me add mercifully—the wheels of industry are turning faster now than they did in lune 1962 when the last parliamentary session ended. Reference has already been made to that and we have indicated that it is admittedly an advantage. There has also been an impressive building up of funds in the hands of banks and other financial institutions. But I think it would be wise before coming to any such conclusion about the matter to remember that the improvement in trade is essentially a recovery, and again I say a merciful recovery. From an alarming slowing down of trade during the first half of 1962. I naturally welcome the recovery, but I would welcome it very much more if there was any indication on the part of the Government that it itself had trust in that recovery. The hon. the Minister was concerned about imponderables, but I would mention to him two matters which do not fall within the category of the imponderables which are apparently a bogyman to the hon. Minister. I say that if the Government really believes that there has been a return of investor confidence and itself has trust that the rate of recovery which we have been witnessing would continue, then of course the duty of the Government and the hon. the Minister is to remove completely or by progressive steps the arbitrary import and exchange control which are still in operation. Those are the tests of the Government’s own faith and trust in the economic recovery and in what the hon. the Minister speaks of as a return of investor confidence. You see, Sir, so long as those controls remain in operation, they give a wholly artificial slant to the state of our economy, and that is the state of affairs which is not healthy or satisfactory from the investor’s point of view. I have said before in this House and others have said too that those arbitrary control measures are largely self-defeating and must in the long run prove to be more harmful than helpful to the economy and to industrial growth. That is my word of caution to those hon. members opposite who go on trying to imply that the country’s economic health has never been better than it is now and who still delude themselves that boom days are here again. In support of my statement that control measures are more harmful than helpful to the economy, I in turn choose to quote what was said in this House not from these benches but by the Minister’s predecessor in office who said this in July 1958 when introducing the 1958-9 Budget: He was justifying the imposition of certain monetary reforms and then he went on to say this—

That, Sir, was four years ago, and meanwhile artificial distortion has been made the greater by reason of the fact that exchange control has been intensified. Currency control which operates under this Minister’s Department is being applied more rigidly, more restrictively, at present than it was in July 1958. The slamming of the door in June 1961 against the transfer of capital funds of the external investor remains a drastic step, notwithstanding the slight modifications which have been made and in which the Minister found some comfort when he spoke. The remarks to which I have referred are very much the same as those of the hon. member for Constantia during the second reading. There was a statement of emergency which obviously called for emergency measures. But if the situation is as described by the hon. the Minister the time has come to remove these arbitrary restrictions and to allow the economic scene to take its true perspective and to be seen in its true light. Until the hon. the Minister realizes that neither import control nor exchange control is a substitute to investor confidence, the true state of our economy will remain artificially obscure. That is why I feel as I do, namely that there should be a revision of this aspect of the matter. So long as these controls remain, the corner around which boom days are waiting will remain what it is—a make-believe corner.

There is, however, another circumstance which is disturbing to the current economic scene. It is a form of disruption which can only get worse, not better, under this Government’s policies. You see, Sir, upsets in the labour field are not entirely new or of recent origin but they have certainly been getting steadily worse. The position is rapidly developing in which a labour crisis will have to be faced. When the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) spoke during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this Session he said that the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council had warned him that a serious bottleneck to the “round-the-corner-boom” would be the shortage of skilled labour. I understood the hon. the Prime Minister by way of interjection to say in effect that there was a similar shortage of skilled labour in the United Kingdom. Sir, the dilemma which is facing this country cannot be overcome by a remark of that kind. It is no solution to our problem to gloat over another country having the same sort of problem, even if that problem were similar to ours. I myself, however, do not believe that the two problems are in fact similar. According to a United Kingdom Government White Paper issued during December 1962, the difficulty which is being encountered there is largely a technological problem. It is in fact the problem of keeping up with modern technical and technological progress in industry. In the United Kingdom the authorities are faced with a long-term problem: the difficulty of keeping pace in so highly a developed economy with an adequate supply of trained personnel who are skilled in modern technological changes. The shortage there, Sir, is a shortage of quality and not of quantity, and there, of course, the plan of action is to improve and speed up training in technological skills. With us, Sir, the problem is a shortage of quantity as well as of quality, hence the warnings which the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council issued. They issued the first warning in October 1962 when they expressed this view—

In December 1962 the Economic Advisory Council took a more general stand and said this—

Sir, we had even more recent evidence of that. Only last week Mr. J. S. Marais, the managing director of Trust Bank, gave a similar warning. He also pointed out that there was this serious bottle-neck and a serious shortage of labour which would greatly retard development in the country.

The question is, Sir, how did we land in, this parlous position under this regime? Time will not permit me to go into all the various facets as to why we are in this parlous position, but it is mainly due to this Government’s bad handling of the immigration position. Until quite recently the Government turned its back on the immigrants. It is true, belatedly, it has now changed its attitude and it tries to smile at them. But much more than that is needed if we are to succeed in attracting skilled manpower to South Africa. The Minister of Immigration—and I regret he is not here—admittedly went abroad towards the end of last year to make some investigations about the matter. I have no doubt that he must have met some of the same surprises which I did. At The Hague in Holland I was surprised to find that the Australian Government occupied a very large building entirely for that section of its embassy which was concerned with immigration. Inquiries revealed that they employed up to 200 people on their immigration section alone. Admittedly there has been a slowing down during 1962 and there has been a reduction, but the reduction still left a staff complement of well over 100 in the immigration section alone. I believe I am correct in saying—and had the Minister been here he could have corrected me if I were wrong—that our staff at The Hague consist of three persons. I make this remark not to belittle the work of those three persons. I have not the slightest doubt that they are doing an admirable job and that they are doing all and whatever they can. But I do mention it to show what is involved in carrying out in earnest an effective and successful immigration drive on the Continent. I will find it very difficult to try to get a balance between something over 100 people for Australia and only three for South Africa, if we really are earnest in our endeavours to attract immigrants.

As I have indicated before, Sir, most of the problems which are related to this labour crisis which is rapidly developing are associated with the restrictive legislation and controlling legislation on our Statute Book. This is not the time or the place to try to deal with those many arbitrary devices which are enforced by this Government to keep unskilled labour on the run, because that is the effect of much of that legislation. And it is that which is creating these bottle-necks of quantity in the free development of private enterprise. I said last year, and I repeat, that our economy has become entangled in a network of arbitrary control. It is entangled in controls which affect finance, commerce, land and labour. They are all designed, for political purposes. The Minister himself admitted as much in his reply to the second-reading debate. Sir, authoritarian rule and free enterprise have no affinity. Like oil and water they do not and will not mix.

Surely hon. members opposite must be getting tired of listening to these prophets of doom.

I listened to the hon. member who has just sat down and I thought to myself that if there were any American investor in the galleries of this House listening to him talk about the economic position of South Africa, or our future, or our prospects, he would not invest a penny In this country. But fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the people who control investment in South Africa are not hon. members on that side of the House. A statement was made a short while ago by a Mr. Randall, a man who is critical of South Africa. He had some very nasty things to say but this was what he had to say about the economic future of South Africa. I quote from the Argus of 8 February. The heading is—

Will the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) ever attract a penny to South Africa with his kind of remarks? Listen to this. He said—

He goes on to say—

All I want to point out to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is that this Mr. Randall is a critic of South Africa but this is what he had to say that as far as the economic field is concerned. That comes from an American, but do you think we can get anything like that from a member of the Opposition in South Africa? All we have are prophets of doom and Jeremiahs. We are tired of those prophet of doom stories, but what amazes me is that the Opposition members are not sick of it. When I watched the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) just now I thought to myself: “You must also really be getting tired of this

I now want to come to the charges laid by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). I do not want to misquote what he said but I gather that he considers that the Press conference was a fiasco. He used the word “fiasco” and he used it in that sense. He said it would take a long time before the English Press would again believe me. He said I was a complete failure as a Minister. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said I needed a warning from my own side. I was just waiting for him to advise the hon. the Prime Minister to sack me from the Cabinet. Do you know why, Sir? Because it is always the Opposition who want to pick the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to govern this country. They want to nominate the Cabinet every time; only the Cabinet which they pick will be good enough. I also ask myself this question what is eating up the hon. member for Constantia. What is eating up the hon. member for Simonstown. I will answer that question. Whenever the hon. the Minister of Labour is attacked or myself as Minister of Information, I know what is behind it. They are the only people who can ever talk for the English-speaking people of South Africa! Only they can voice any opinion which can be classified as being the opinion of the English-speaking section in this country. [Interjections.] You know, Sir, it amazes me that those people can never take anything. It was the hon. member of Constantia, when he referred to the hon. the Minister of Labour and myself, referred to us as “two minor politicians”. He only is the sort of person that should be speaking for the English-speaking people and who should be in the Cabinet. I feel sorry for him and I feel sorry for the hon. member for Simonstown. I feel sorry for the hon. member for Constantia because, after all, he has reached high places in the Government of this country. He was Minister of Finance; he was Minister of Transport. He is a very disappointed man to-day. The hon. member of Simonstown is the shadow Minister of Defence. He is also a disappointed man because he will always remain a shadow. What it amounts to is this. Sir. When hon. members refer to this particular Bill which has been Gazetted, their attitude is that nothing good must be said about South Africa.

Is there anything good in it?

That’s it, Sir. The moment anything good is said about South Africa, members of the Opposition …

You tell us what good there is about it.

I will. They do not even mind if it is untrue or if it is a lie but they will still defend it. I want to give you an example, Sir. The hon. the Minister of Justice referred to certain correspondence he had had with Mrs. Bertha Solomon dealing with articles she had written overseas as a columnist in English newspapers in Canada to discredit the South African Government. She had written articles which were palpably untrue. She had written that the death penalty under the Sabotage Act shall be inflicted. She also said that the onus had been shifted from the Crown to the accused; that there had been a complete change of the rule of law in South Africa. Both statements were completely untrue but what happened? When Minister Vorster raised the matter she said she had been misled. She was misled by hon. members on that side of the House. What did they do? Immediately it became a question of defending South Africa they were more anxious to come to her defence. [Interjections.] You heard the hon. member for Constantia who talks behind his hand all the time. You heard what he said. He had read the Argus and he resented it that the Argus should ever say anything positive about legislation or proposed legislation—not even legislation. Instead of what the Argus had written he would like to see this sort of thing. This comes from Durban: “Bantu Bill reminiscent of

Slavery”. I think this comes from Mr. Leo Boyd who is the leader of the Progressive Party in Natal. Mr. Boyd said it was the “most inhuman piece of legislation made for the people of South Africa”. This was the criticism of the Progressive Party leader Mr. Boyd. He said “It is an utter disregard of the human rights of millions of people”, Dr. Bernard Friedman, another great political friend of the hon. member for Constantia said “The Government’s new measure would lead the country still further on the road to disaster”. That is the type of comment they like to see in the English Press. The hon. member for Constantia wants to divide the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people because that is the only way he can politically exist. He goes further. He is determined that the English Press in South Africa should only play a role which is critical of and negative to the Government of the country. And if a newspaper does not take the line which he wants it to take, then, of course, it is something very bad and I as Minister am responsible for it. The hon. member for Constantia gave me credit of saying that I had not read the Bill and I admitted that to the Press conference. I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Simonstown whether they have read the Bill? I was at least honest to admit it to the Press conference but those hon. members are not honest with themselves. They will not even now admit across the floor of this House that they have not read the Bill. Where do those hon. members get this information from?

Bertha Solomon.

When the hon. member makes interjections like that it is because it hurts. Why does the hon. member for Constantia take the other side of the Bill as far as the Press is concerned. He himself has not read it. Why does he follow the line of the Sunday Times. You see. Sir, the Sunday Times only came out yesterday and said that I as Minister had taken certain newspapers for a ride. What do hon. members do? They say “This is the line to take; this is the line along which we can discredit the Minister and the measure which has been published for the information of the country.” That is the reason why they feel that all the English-language newspapers which support their Government should follow the line of the Sunday Times. And who writes the Sunday Times articles? Guess who? Mr. Stanley Uys, a man who is well known in South Africa and overseas as the man who is anxious to discredit not only the Government but the country particularly overseas. Sir, I am not concerned with the petty attitude of the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.] I feel only sorry for him. What I am concerned with … [Interjections.]

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, when hon. members opposite behave themselves, I will always be prepared to answer questions, but I am not prepared to answer questions in these circumstances. I am concerned about one thing and that is that the hon. member has tried to create in the minds of certain Press people the impression that they have been misled. He wants to create that atmosphere for his own motives, for political motives, and that is to keep the English Press in line with him and his party. I now want to give to the House the true position.

The Bill was not introduced into this House on Thursday or Friday and we are not to-day having the second reading of the Bill. This particular Bill is a Bill that has not even been near this House yet. Even in the statement at the Press conference it was stated that it had not even been before the Cabinet.

How then could you discuss it?

The procedure was adopted that the proposed Bill should be printed in the Gazette for information and a period of 30 days was granted for all interested bodies to make their representations and to submit their criticism. Why then is the Opposition building up all this atmosphere? One would think that it was a matter that we are discussing at the present moment. Sir, the opportunity was given to analyse every clause of that Bill. It is an omnibus Bill; it covers 9 Acts and it totals more than 200 clauses. Every opportunity is given to analyse the Bill, and a period of 30 days is given in which the Bill can be studied. Does that indicate that anybody is trying to put over one on anybody?

Why then the Press statement? *

I remember reading the Cape Times on Saturday morning and on the front page it contained criticism of the Bill, and on an inner page they published the Press statement on the Bill. I saw no fault with that. Anybody is entitled to criticize the Bill and to make representations with regard to this measure. The fact that the criticism was there on the front page did not worry me. That is their right and their privilege.

Did you read their leader this morning?

I realize that there will possibly be many avenues of criticism on this Bill and surely nobody can really imagine that a Press statement was issued to mislead people, or a statement by the Department of Information, when the Press had 30 days to analyse the Bill. [Interjections.] It is evident that hon. members opposite only wanted a statement in the Press that South Africa is reaching a state of slavery, or something of the kind. They resented the fact that there were aspects of this Bill on which something else but negative criticism could be expressed.

What did you tell the Press?

If you give me an opportunity I will tell you. I want to read the first paragraph of this statement by the Department of Information—

It goes on to say that this voluminous piece of legislation affects nine Acts and envisages the following—and then it gives the aims of the Bill. It talks about the revision of legislation, the elimination of obsolete and overlapping provisions, it mentions relief for the bona fide Bantu worker, and refers to the revision and simplification of administration, and then it says this—

Hon. members may not agree that that is right, they may have other ideas—the Progressive Party regards this as leading to slavery, but there it is “to sell their labour”. It goes on to say—

“Stricter action”, Then it says—

And then it mentions relief measures (1) to (9), and then it says this—

Not my statement, or the Press statement of the Department of Information—

I want to know where the misrepresentation comes in?

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister, viz., whether he supplemented that written statement by any comment of his own, and if so, what?

I think I made that clear. I admitted to the Press that I had not read the Bill, and then I referred to the statement of the Department of Information. My only object in meeting the Press was to hand the Press statement over to them and to tell them: This is a matter which is now in your hands, but the Bill itself, which is, I believe, two inches thick, will be gazetted some time on Friday. I never described the clauses of the Bill and made no other comment. That is why I say: I am not concerned with the opinion of the hon. member for Constantia. I am not interested in his opinion, just as I am not interested in the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in this House. The point is that especially these two English-speaking members on the other side of the House go out of their way to try and break any good feelings that exist between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in this House, and they are the ones who are a discredit to this House. I go further and say that in this way they try and direct the newspapers in South Africa, the English-speaking newspapers to follow a particular line, that is a discredit to South Africa. I remember the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) saying in a speech at Pietermaritzburg “If it was not for the United Party there would not be a free Press in South Africa That is the atmosphere they want to create. They want the English Press to toe the line and want them to discredit me as a Minister of Information in that way.

Mr. Speaker …

Oh!

Mr. Speaker, I think that the groans you have just heard from that side of the House will prove to be well justified when hon. members have heard what I have to say on the subject of the remarks just made by the hon. Minister of Information. It reminds me of the story of a very famous commedian by the name of Vic Oliver, who used to start his act by coming out on the stage, and after playing two or three bars on his violin in an excruciatingly bad way, put the violin down, saying “I think I will take my applause now!” We have heard the groaning on that side of the House in advance of what I am going to say in reply to the Minister, and I think that I am in the position of that commedian Vic Oliver, and that the groaning is very well-merited.

The hon. Minister has, I think, sat down with some relief after the speech which he has felt obliged to make as a result of certain strictures laid upon him by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He felt obliged to do so. I do not think he would have welcomed the opportunity, of his own volition, to raise the matter which was raised here by the hon. member for Constantia in regard to the statement which he made to the Press a few days ago. He went out of his way, for example, to say that only when there was a news report in the English language Press, or headlines, or posters, or bill boards, which were critical of South Africa, only then was this Opposition happy. [Hear, hear!] He said that only then were we happy, but whenever an English language newspaper came out with a banner headline or a bill-board which put South Africa or the Government in a good light, then, of course, we were not at all happy. Of course, the Minister felt that then that paper was doing its duty. He said that in referring to the Cape Argus of Friday which, as cited by the hon. member for Constantia, reported on the Press Conference held that afternoon and came out with this headline, according to the Minister: “State plans to ease race friction. Bill to amend laws for Bantu That was the headline. The hon. the Minister was very happy with that, Sir, but is it not an extraordinary thing that in the very first issue of the same newspaper, which satisfies the hon. Minister and all the members opposite, as being a right-minded English-language newspaper, in the very first issue after they had time to look at the situation and to realize what happened at that Press conference, this is what they said—and I hope all the members opposite will in this case also approve of the Cape Argus.—In the leader column under the heading of “Less Friction Indeed!” this afternoon, the Argus said—

Order! The hon. member may not read comment from a newspaper in respect of discussions taking place in the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that Bill is not before the House yet, and has not been tabled.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, in this editorial, after the Cape Argus had thought about the matter, it goes on to say—-

Where are the “hear, hears” from that side of the House now? Then towards the end of this editorial, the Cape Argus says—

Where is the applause for the Cape Argus, that right-thinking English language newspaper applauded by the Minister of Information 20 minutes ago? Do hon. members not want to say “Hoor, hoor!” for the Cape Argus all over again? But this is only one aspect of the matter.

If I had never attended a Press conference— and I have indeed attended, and even helped them—and if I can imagine with any accuracy what happened when this conference took place, the Minister—and this is borne out by at least one Press report—was his most disarming self. He was not so this afternoon. But he said to these gentlemen of the Press:

“You cannot expect me” to discuss with you in detail a Bill which first of all I have not seen; moreover, the time is limited, since there is an *embargo for release’ of this statement at 2 p.m. to-day. Obviously the matter is designed to be featured in the Press this day.”

“You cannot expect me.” says the hon. Minister, “to deal with a Bill * which is more than two inches thick’ ”. He said so at the conference, he said so in the House this afternoon when he was quizzed by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) as to whether he had made any supplementary statement at the Press Conference. He said “Yes, I told them that the Bill was more than two inches thick”, I say with all deference to the Minister: If he can take a slide rule, or the ruler I have in my hand, and make this more than three-twentieths of an inch in thickness, then, Sir, I take back a lot of the things I intend to say before I sit down. Here is a document, and he says it is more than two inches thick; he says, in effect, that it is 35 times the thickness it actually is. How can we be expected to discuss things rationally with the hon. the Minister? If the hon. the Minister is prepared to multiply by 35 in order to establish the thickness of this published Bill, is he also prepared to divide by 35 when it comes to telling the truth about this matter? I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister, if I am critical of him, has brought this on his own head, because instead of standing up here in the House and saying, in effect “Perhaps I was wrong in what I said to the Press conference, perhaps they were misled into believing that what I have said about the contents of this draft Bill in fact related to its text, perhaps I went beyond my duty as an honourable Minister of Information and acted as if I were a propagandist for a commercial company”—if he had said that, I doubt if any attack would have come from this side of the House. But when the hon. member for Constantia raises this matter in all seriousness, in order to point out to the House what actually must have transpired at the Press conference, the hon. the Minister of Information sails into him with everything that he has got, all guns blazing, and into the Opposition, of course, at the same time, because it presents a bigger target! We, Sir, whenever we say anything critical of a Minister, and particularly of the newly-born hon. Minister of Information, we are guilty of an act of high treason. That is his attitude.

I do not want to go into detail as to what the Cape Times said about the Bill on Saturday, because at that stage they were quoting what the Minister had told them, including his statement that in its published form the Bill would be about two inches thick. Nor do I want to deal in any detail with what the Sunday Times said yesterday. I do not hold a brief for the one or the other newspaper, but what is the use of the hon. Minister saying “Do you know who wrote this article for the Sunday Times? Nobody else but Stanley Uys” as if he were saying “Do you know who blew up the House of Parliament? Nobody else but Guy Fawkes!” You know—ipso facto. It is what the lawyers call a non sequitur. The fact that Stanley Uys writes something does not necessarily make it inaccurate, any more than the fact that the hon. the Minister of Information says something to Stanley Uys. necessarily makes it accurate. Here is what the Sunday Times stated, quite categorically—

Nothing wrong with that statement. They then go on to say—

Nothing wrong with that. In fact the hon. Minister said that he had not seen the Bill. He repeated that this afternoon—that he had received it from the other department. Then he said, according to the Sunday Times: “Mr. Waring praised the new Bill”. Nothing wrong with that. He praised the Bill this afternoon, and what is more, on Friday night I was absolutely dumfounded when I turned on the news. I can do that on a Friday night since the House is not in Session then. I turned it on for the news at nine o’clock, the English news transmission, and there was the news in a new guise, “News at Nine”, Now I want to be more careful than the hon. Minister. “News at Nine”, a very novel title for a news service; I have never heard it before; but it was the regular Radio South Africa news service in English, and all of a sudden, in referring to this very Press conference, this very draft legislation, what do you think (The Minister keeps on saying “Who do you think wrote this?” I say “What do you think I heard?”) The voice of the Minister of Information! Now this is a very peculiar situation, because as far as I can remember—and I would like the hon. Minister to correct me, and I would be very happy to be put back on what the hon. Minister of Transport calls “the right track” it has never happened before in the history of the S.A.B.C. that in the course of a regular news transmission, the “live” voice of a Cabinet Minister has cut in.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell you what is wrong with it. I do not know what the hon. member for Vereniging’s regular pastimes or pursuits are. but the hon. member could not have been listening to that same news service on Friday night, because then he would not have said “What is wrong with that”? Because the hon. Minister went beyond the comment that he made, according to the Press reports of both language-group newspapers at the Press conference, and he referred to this legislation as bringing about what he was pleased to call the “liberalization” of the legislation referring to the Bantu. Now the hon. member for Vereeniging seems suddenly to have become tongue-tied.

Nothing wrong with that.

The hon. member must surely remember the number of times in this Session alone, let alone the past session and the one before, when the word “liberal” as used by hon. members opposite took on the very worst meaning in the world: “Communistic, communist.” Now, all of a sudden, when a statement is made about this draft Bill, then according to the hon. Minister of Information it is designed to bring about the “liberalization” of the legislation which governs the Natives of this country. We know that anybody who is interested in the “liberalization” of anything is what the hon. members on that side of the House call a “liberalis”, a very bad word from the point of view of any ordinary understanding of grammar or language, but they say “Jy is ’n liberalis”—and then you are supposed to drop dead after that! Now we have the hon. Minister of Information suddenly as a “liberalis”, on the radio, in a news broadcast, telling the public of South Africa about the way he and his colleagues in the Government are setting out to become the great “liberalists” by the “liberalization” of the legislation that governs three-quarters of the people of South Africa, the Bantu. This is an extraordinary thing which calls, in due course, for some comment from the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the first place, and I hope also for an explanation from the hon. Minister of Information himself; because one of the things we have heard from the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when we have queried certain things that have been heard over the S.A.B.C., in regard to certain matters of policy of the Board of Governors, was that its news services are designed to be completely factual, accurate and objective. How then does one man’s opinion about the “liberalization” process of certain legislation come into a news transmission which is designed to be factual, accurate and objective? His opinion as Minister, or mine—I have no more right to go on to the radio in a news transmission and say that this legislation …

If you were a more important person, you would also be heard over the radio.

I was about to say that the hon. Minister of Information, or any Minister for that, has no more right to intrude or to obtrude himself in a radio news service, an objective, factual news transmission, and to give his opinion about legislation, than I would have to obtrude myself in that same objective news service, with my opinion about legislation or proposed legislation.

But furthermore, if we are examining the motivation, as the Americans call it, of the hon. Minister of Information, then let us see what he says in his Press statement “to be released at 2 p.m.” that he gave to the Press, and which resulted in the discussion this afternoon. He has quoted it himself—

Is not this an extraordinary portrayal of legislation which is undertaken, in all seriousness, to ease the lot of three-quarters of the population of South Africa, and apparently to amend difficult legislation? Is it not an extraordinary portrayal to say “the same spirit motivates this legislation as the liberalization of the supply of White liquor and beer”? Mr. Speaker, whether one is a teetotaller or not (I am not prepared to ask you the question), I think it makes an extremely bad impression in South Africa and out of it, to tell the world that when we are going to the trouble that the Minister says we have gone to, and when officials of the Bantu Administration Department have been working on this Bill, three-fifths of an inch thick—not two inches—to tell South Africa and the world that it arose in the same spirit (the word, of course, is used in another context here) as that which motivated us, the governing race and the Government of South Africa, to liberalize (I use the word this time) the supply of White liquor and Bantu beer… In other words, Mr. Speaker, we think no more of this, and all the amendments in this enormous document, as an ethical concept, than we did of our legislation to make whisky available to the Bantu and to make Bantu beer available to the Whites, because that is what it means. (And this cross-over between the races is designed, of course, to show how broadminded we are!) I sincerely hope, however, that as far as the majority of the people of South Africa are concerned, they will realize that if we in this House ever discuss amending legislation of this sort, at least those on this side of the House—and I hope members on the other side of the House, and even members on the cross-benches—will discuss this legislation in a so-called “spirit” other than the one that motivated the Government in making whisky available to the Bantu. I sincerely hope so, Sir, because if we do that, then we undo some of the damage which I believe, in all sincerity, has already been done to the good name of the White community in this country. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister, instead of resenting what I have said—and I have only said what I said because of the fact that he deliberately attacked someone who tried to bring to his notice a rather serious matter which emanated from his Department—that instead of resenting me and what I have said, will have the grace to regard me as someone who has spoken up, perhaps not in the personal interest of the Minister of Information, but in the interest of South Africa and in the good name of this House of Assembly. I hope he will say so. I hear the hon. member for Cradock groaning again. I wish I had a collection of Press cuttings to equal that of the Minister of Information or of the Minister of External Affairs, but I do have one which he seems to have forgotten. He quoted this afternoon from Mr. Clarence B. Randall’s report on South Africa. Well, we have heard Mr. Randall on the subject before and some of us have even met him, and I am not here to criticize him. But there was a gentleman who came out here and the hon. the Minister will remember him. He represented the Nieman Foundation of Harvard University. Remember him?

Yes.

So far we are on common ground—for the first time. I have a cutting here from a newspaper, of an interview which this gentleman gave to Sapa prior to his departure. Do you know what that gentleman said about the Minister’s Department? He said the officials of the Department of Information were “glib and aggressive”. Do you remember that?

And I suppose you enjoyed it.

Do not put words into my mouth. What I am trying to say to the Minister is that this attitude which is reflected in the way this Press conference was called last week, where the Minister, to put it mildly, springs on a collection of representatives of newspapers a Bill which he says is more than two inches thick and says: “Boys, this is what it is going to do; it will *liberalize’ the laws and do wonders for our race relations,” and these fellows grab their notes and rush off—that is what is meant by “glib”—because he should have told them that there are certain things in this Bill upon which a very different construction could have been placed; at least, there was room for another opinion. Secondly, in regard to the Minister himself, I am sorry to say that the way he has sailed into the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), and the way no doubt he or someone on that side, will sail into me, as if what I have said is a personal matter, will only serve once again to show that there is some truth in the statement about the “aggressive” attitude of the officials of the Department of Information. Because if this is the attitude of the Minister himself, one should not be surprised if in some cases it is said that the officials of the Department are “aggressive”; that whenever there is a comment on the radio or in the Press which is not obviously to the advantage of South Africa, instead of dealing with the matter courteously and objectively, the Minister resorts to this aggressive bull-at-the-gate method, as when he is hammering the Opposition into the ground as traitors to the cause of South Africa. I think that if we are going to have a Department of Information, let it at least be one which will, firstly, confer some benefit on the country by being as useful as possible, and secondly, let it confer some dignity on the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

The great pity of all this, from my personal point of view, is that I set out to use my time to discuss the questions of social welfare and pensions and the dying mines of the Rand. But unfortunately this is typical of what happens. A diversion is created by a member of the Cabinet, and instead of discussing what is germane to the motion and relevant to the business of the House, and what is important to the country, we are side-tracked into answering things of the sort we heard this afternoon.

Who side-tracked you?

I say it is a matter for regret, therefore, that at this stage, I have to leave what I really intended to say unsaid.

It is a long time since I have listened to such a frustrated and jealous speaker as the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to give you one example, Sir. The hon. member cannot refer to one occasion where he had quoted anything good in this House which somebody had said about South Africa, but when he has an opportunity of using anything which besmirches South Africa or which besmirches a Department he grasps at it and delights in repeating it here, as for example, when he said that this professor had said that the Department of Information was aggressive and elusive. He grasps at that but when anybody says anything good about South Africa he remains silent. I want to give another example. The hon. member makes a jack-in-the-box speech and brings a ruler to measure a printed Government Gazette. He ought to know that when the Minister held this Press conference he only had the renewed copy of the Bill in his hands. As an advocate he knows that when the Minister tells a Press conference that he has not as yet read the Bill he says that because he cannot read that Bill by itself; he has to read it in conjunction with all the other laws which have a bearing on it in order to get a proper insight into the position, and then it is not two inches thick but four inches. Thus, by making a wrong statement and by using a ruler he tries to make a speech for one reason only and that is because he is jealous of the fact that he is not so important that his voice is also heard over the radio. That is the only reason.

Time unfortunately does not permit me to talk about Stanley Uys and what he said namely that if they criticize the Minister it is regarded as high treason. That has never been the position but when they besmirch South Africa and give the wrong information to Mrs. Bertha Solomon so that she can publish the wrong information overseas we regard that as high treason.

But I want to talk about something else. The South African Agricultural Union has repeatedly asked for the creation of a new Department, a Department of Agricultural Financing to do certain work. As a result of those representations by the Agricultural Union and other bodies there have been some confusion and speculation and guessing which do not see our Departments, the way they are linked together and the services they render, in their true perspective. I believe that it is urgently necessary that this Department of Agricultural Financing for which the Agricultural Union has asked be created because the idea of the Agricultural Union is that the present State Advances Recoveries Office, which performs such a gigantic task, should become a continuous Department to render all that assistance. But when you talk about that Department, Sir, I want to state very clearly that because people do not see the composition of the various Departments in its true perspective, I do not believe that the Agricultural Union or this House or anybody who sees the true facts in the right light will ever for one moment expect this Department of Agricultural Financing which they desire, to take over the Department of Lands or the Land Bank because each one performs a separate task. I believe it will create coordinated agricultural financing, something which is so essential. Time does not permit me to talk about the Land Bank or about the State Advances Recoveries Office and to point out the services which they have rendered but because you read about it in the newspapers and because you hear that representations have been made that the Department of Lands is an heirloom which has served its purpose, it is essential that we place on record what this Department has already done and to what extent it has assisted our White population who have craved for land and who have wished to become independent farmers over the past years. I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that the Whites of South Africa, this Parliament and all right-thinking people will agree with me that when I have given this data it will be realized that the Department of Lands is one of the Departments which has done most to serve agriculture in South Africa and which has given the farmer an opportunity of living as an independent person, so much so that our previous Prime Minister, when he was still leader in the Transvaal and when he entered the Cabinet, actually asked whether he could not be in charge of this Department because, he said, “This is a Department which will enable me to look after my sons and daughters and my people in the future”.

Let us go into the history of this Department. It was created on 31 May 1910 and its functions were to have been the following: the administration of all matters affecting State land, irrigation, land settlement and surveys. But when the Land Settlement Act came into operation on 16 October 1912 the main object of this Department was to place suitable people on State land so that they would become independent citizens. When we think what happened from 1912 to 31 March 1960 we find that this Department had assisted farmers under various sections and that during this period it had placed 21,105 persons on land as farmers under Section 20 and Section 23 alone—Section 20 is the section under which the farmer has to pay one-tenth of the purchase price and the State lends him the remaining nine-tenths to be repaid over a long period and Section 23 is the section under which the Department gives land to probationer tenant farmers with the option ultimately of purchasing it from the Department. They allotted 17,047,000 morgen of land to farmers in South Africa—and I pointed out some time ago in this House how little agricultural land we really had—on which they could farm productively and become independent. During that period it had made R68,254,000 available to farmers to enable them to acquire land in that way. It was under these two sections of the Department alone that that was done. When we look at the other section, the closer settlement section, we find—and I am only dealing with the period from 1948-61—that an amount of R6,216,000 was spent by this Department to place farmers on land as probationer tenant farmers.

The norm which you must apply to ascertain whether this Department has succeeded in doing its work is the average income of the farmers in South Africa. On investigation I found that the average income of those people who were assisted like that by the Department to become independent farmers, was R3,600 per annum and those were only test checks. I think it will be higher if you take all the closer settlements under irrigation into account but that is not all which this Department is doing. I want to refer to a few schemes which have been undertaken as developmental works. Take the Orange River Land Settlement scheme which was started in 1925 and where 23,000 morgen of land have been placed under irrigation and on which 1,675 families are living. When we look at the products we find that they provide us with lucerne, cotton, peas, sultanas and fruit, particularly dried peaches and that one settlement has an average income of R3,438 per annum and the average income per person is R1,939 per annum. When we look at the Hartebeespoort Dam scheme which was also started in 1925, we find that 14,817 morgen of land divided into 663 plots were placed under irrigation. Thanks to the action of the Department the income per lessee is R4,628 per annum. My time has nearly expired, Sir, so I cannot tell you everything that has been done at Loskop, Vaalharts, Pongola, Riet River and Levubu and then you still have Sterk River and Olifants River. I just want to say that 134,155 morgen of land has already been prepared for irrigation under this one section of this Department alone. Three thousand seven hundred and ninety tenant farmers have been placed and their globular income from irrigation just on this one closer settlement amounts to R18,900,000 per annum. How can any agricultural union say that this Department has served its purpose and that it must be abolished? No, it has an important task to fulfil. The average income of our farmers throughout South Africa is between R4,200 and R4,500 per annum and the average income of all the settlers together is R4,600 per annum. In other words, 20 per cent of the total number of farmers are on these settlements and they were placed there by this Department which has done excellent work and which has seen to it that they become independent farmers. I do not want to deal with all the schemes which have been announced and which are being developed. We know there is a whole series of them. I merely want to analyse the figures briefly and place them on record. When you take the period 1912-29 you find that there were 3,076 under Section 20 and 5,258 under Section 23, a total of 8,334 and 20.4 per cent were cancelled. For the following period, 1929-39 a total of 3,973 were allocated under Section 20 and Section 23. That was during the depression and 33.4 per cent were cancelled. During the period 1939-48 3,441 were allocated and 12.3 per cent were cancelled. Over the last period, 1948-60 a total number of 5,357 agreements of leases were concluded under the two sections and only 4.1 per cent were cancelled. In other words, the position under this Department is steadily improving; it is looking well after our farmers. When I summarize the position for the period 1912 to 1960 I find that 21,105 farmers were placed on land in terms of Sections 20 and 23 where they farmed as independent farmers and I have already said that they constitute over 20 per cent of our total number of farmers. Time does not permit me to point out the other assistance which has been given under Section 42 for example, in terms of which farmers were assisted to effect permanent improvements, or to Section 53 under which farmers were assisted with stock, seed, fertilizer and implements. But during the past five years R424,000 and R1,056,000 were granted under these two sections to assist those farmers. Now I believe, as I said at the beginning, that such a continuous department to assist Category No. 3 farmers is indispensable and that it will probably be able to take over a great amount of work from lands, for example, the work done under the last two sections which I have mentioned, particularly Section 53 under which assistance can be given in respect of stock, seed and implements. But whereas the State is the mortgagee of that settler until he has paid for his land and whereas the State has done the preliminary work in connection with those closer settlements, the same department which is the mortgagee will probably continue to administer the funds for permanent improvements such as buildings, and fencing, and I believe it will have to remain under that Department because that Department fulfils a very useful function. I believe we should have such a new department but that it should not encroach on the terrain of the existing Department of Lands or on the terrain of the Land Bank, except for this that it may possibly take over the hypothecation loans of the Land Bank because they also constitute casual assistance. But I do believe that this Department will coordinate the subsidies in the various directions so that it will not be necessary for the farmer to run to the Railways or to other bodies for a fertilizer subsidy or for the transportation of his stock in drought stricken areas or for the transportation of stock feed or that it will not be necessary for him to approach the Department of Water Affairs for assistance in connection with a borehole or to Agricultural Technical Services to subsidize soil erosion works, but that it will all come under the same umbrella of this Department, but that the other two big departments, one of which is the Land Bank will continue to give financial assistance to Category No. 2 farmers and the other, the Department of Lands which has done so much good work in the past will also remain in existence. I think we can have nothing but gratitude for Lands for what it has done to the farmers.

On the conclusion of the period of three hours allotted for the third reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 116.

Mr.

Speaker, the last two speeches to which we listened formed an interesting contrast. The last speaker obviously had something to say and he stated his case positively and his speech was really a contribution to this debate. But the speaker who preceded him obviously had nothing to say, and he spoke with a great and sometimes funny verbosity. The hon. member evidently eagerly grasped at the occasion to embarrass the Minister of Information, and he devoted 25 minutes to that. As a contribution to this debate, it was, in the picturesque language of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) an absolute failure. The hon. member sowed macaroni but all that came up were the holes. [Laughter.]

I owe the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) an explanation. He is evidently under a misapprehension. Because the words which brought him under a misapprehension were in English, I shall repeat them in Afrikaans in the hope that he will be able to understand them better. I made an attack on the political philosophy of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and said that I did not agree with that materialistic philosophy and that we on this side totally rejected it. I summarized that political philosophy in the sense that nothing is politically correct which is not economically sound. I say that is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Jeppes and his friends. I said that on the other hand we on this side realize that there are things which cannot be weighed or measured, but which are sometimes more important than pure economic factors. I called that the “imponderabilia”. I want to tell the hon. member that economics is not one of the “imponderabilia”—or perhaps it is in his case, but this is not what I had in mind. But I say that there are “imponderabilia” in the face of which economics must step down. I said that there were times in the history of a country or a people when these “imponderabilia” are more weighty and serious and then economics, or what is sound economically, must give way to what under those circumstances is politically correct. I want to mention the obvious example that when a country finds that the integrity of its borders is being threatened, or when its independence is in danger, that is one of those things which cannot be weighed or measured, and economic factors must be subservient to such considerations. But there are also other circumstances which I can imagine in which the welfare of the State as a whole weighs more heavily than the immediate economic advantages. I am thinking, for example, of the time when there was a suggestion that Chinese labourers should be imported to work in our gold mines. Probably a very strong economic case could have been made out for that, but the economic factors—and South Africa can thank God for that—became subservient to what I call considerations of statesmanship affecting the country as a whole. It is not that what is politically correct is never economically sound, but it is only that circumstances may arise in a country when it has to consider those things which are correct irrespective of whether they are perhaps not economically sound. That is what I said and I do not know what his difficulty is in that regard. I think I owe it to him to explain it to him in Afrikaans, seeing that he did not understand it very clearly in English.

The hon. member said that we had not replied to the two main matters he mentioned. The first is the question of the marginal mines on the Witwatersrand. I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister of Mines had given a very detailed reply on that matter. I do know that he issued a warning, and rightly so, against the psychological effect of talking about dying mines. I also know that he said that we should not exaggerate the problem, but it is quite clear from what he said in his previous statements—and I can almost say it is obvious—that the Government is continually devoting attention to the problem of the marginal mines. The hon. the Minister, and I think also other Ministers, have already shown on many occasions that this is really a matter which enjoys their attention.

In regard to the other matter, the question of border industries, the hon. the Minister also explained the position as clearly as possible, and it is a matter which has already been discussed so often that I did not think it possible for the hon. member for Constantia still to be dissatisfied with the “insufficiency” of the reply he received. Personally I thought that the reply was too detailed unless one was prepared to under-estimate the intelligence of the Opposition. My personal feeling was that to any person who was au fait with what had been said by members of the Government on this subject, the reply of the Minister was rather too detailed than otherwise.

Then I just want to refer to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who referred here to the problem of the banks and the building societies. He said inter alia that the Bill and the report should be made available to members of Parliament. I want to tell him immediately that as yet there is no report. The Technical Committee has drafted a preliminary report which has been referred to the parties concerned for their comment, and as soon as their comment has been received they will frame a final report which will be submitted to me. It will be a departmental report, and it is not customary for departmental reports to be made available. But I will then judge whether it is of sufficient general interest to make it available either generally or to those persons who are interested in this problem, but what has been drafted so far is simply a working copy, a basis on which they want to invite comment in order then to be able to express their final opinion.

They said there was a draft Bill.

They drafted the Bill to give effect to what they felt, but it is purely a draft. I can tell the hon. member that I have not even considered it yet. It is not a final document and it has been distributed for comment only. Therefore it is a little difficult to say at this stage whether any legislation we may draft will be ready for introduction before the end of this Session. We are now awaiting the next step and I think it is very essential for us to devote as much time as possible to such an important matter as this, which has to determine the relations inter se between the Financial institutions, so that we can arrive at a firm basis on which these relations should rest in future. These relations should be as sound as possible.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) also raised the matter of pensions. I may say that he adopted a much more reasonable attitude than the Opposition speakers who spoke on this subject during the second reading debate. He, for example, admitted that much has been done for all groups of pensioners in recent years, but he says that not enough has been done and that much more should be done. Well, a Minister of Finance continually receives the request from various sources that still more should be done in regard to expenditure and tax concessions. Requests are continually received for more money to be devoted to welfare services, but as soon as the Minister talks about an increase in taxation to cover the additional expenditure the same persons who pleaded so much for increased expenditure are the first to say that taxes should not be increased.

I just want to remind the hon. member of a few things. We should remember that South Africa is not a welfare state and I hope it will never become one. There is an adage to the effect that a state which begins as a welfare state ends up having no welfare at all. We are not a welfare state and I hope we never become one. I hope that our policy in regard to welfare work will always be never to do away completely with family responsibility and the responsibility of society.

In the second place, we should also remember that this is not a country where there is a compulsory contributory scheme to which the person who will eventually receive the benefits makes half the contributions during the time he works, whilst the State contributes the other half. Under those circumstances, the person receiving the benefit has to a large extent contributed himself towards the benefits paid out to him on his retirement. Thirdly I want to say that if I look at the figures submitted to me it is quite clear that the increased pensions granted to pensioners from time to time have more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. I just want to mention a few figures to prove that. The maximum pension, including the bonus, was R120 per annum in 1947. Last year it was R294, an increase therefore of 145 per cent. In the corresponding period the cost of living increased by only 65 per cent. The same applies to the veterans. There the increase is even greater. In 1947 the veteran’s pension was also R120 per annum; it is now R390, an increase of 225 per cent, whilst in the corresponding period the increase in the cost of living was only 65 per cent. The increase in pensions and bonuses has therefore more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. But I want to tell the hon. member that the suggestion he made, which has not been made before and has not received our attention yet, will be taken into consideration when we deal with the matter again. The position has always been that the pensioner has had a very sympathetic friend in the Government, and when the general position of the country allows of it we will readily devote attention to what additional benefits we can grant the pensioner, proper consideration being given to the other priorities.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to consider the question of an increase in the basic pension?

I am not prepared to reply to that now. The hon. member knows that in any case that is a very unreasonable question, but it is one of the matters which will be considered in general. Any suggestion of this nature continually enjoys the attention of the Department of Pensions which discusses these matters and co-operates with the Treasury. If the hon. member’s question is whether I am prepared to consider the question of an increase with a view to the Budget, my reply is that it is always being considered, and if the hon. member thought that in this way he could perhaps discover something then he has been wasting his time. It is not a fair question. But these matters continually enjoy the attention of the Department concerned and of the Treasury.

There is just one other point which was raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). He asked whether the time had not arrived for us to abolish all control measures like currency control. He says that we say that the position is so sound to-day, and he almost pretended that the test of confidence was to abolish all control. I want to point out to the hon. member that in Britain there is still control of currency leaving the country. That control has been applied for years; it has almost become the usual thing. My information is that last year there was still control in Holland in the same form that we have it here. If a Briton, for example, sells Philips’ shares in Holland he cannot freely transfer the proceeds to Britain; he must first receive permission. We should therefore not think that the measure of control applied is the only yardstick of confidence in a country. We should remember that South Africa is in a very peculiar position. Our balance of payments is relatively more vulnerable than that of other countries because we have such a large portfolio investment abroad. It has in the past happened that large sums of money have been invested here in shares, particularly gold mining shares, and it is those portfolio investments which can so easily be withdrawn and which can so easily tempt our citizens to buy shares at bargain prices overseas and to bring them here. In spite of the fact that shares to the value of almost R120,000,000 were repatriated in 1961-2, it is estimated that there are perhaps still investments of that nature in South Africa amounting to anything from R600,000,000 to R900,000,000 and hon. members will understand that if our total reserves amount to only R440,000,000 what an effect that can have if the foreign holders of our shares are prepared to sell them to our people at bargain prices, and how money will flow out of this country with the result that our reserves will fall. The position at the moment is that there is no non-resident who is not allowed to take his money out of the country if he can make out a reasonable case for it. If he has shares here he can sell them on the London Stock Exchange; he is quite free to do so. He can sell them here if he wants to and get an extra 10 per cent discount, but then he cannot get the money immediately; he can then, if he wants to, invest in other shares here or he can invest in the blocked rand loan, and over a period of five years he can take out one-fight of the amount every year. We try as far as possible to discourage possible speculation, and that is why I have said on occasion that it is much sounder to have our reserves on a higher level than in the past, because we discovered during the balance of payments crisis in 1961 that these portfolio investments are our Achilles’ heel, and because that makes us so vulnerable we are not able to abandon all controls now. We shall probably have to carry on in this way for a long while to come, but it is not our policy to have control permanently, As long as our position is as I have stated, these controls will have to remain. If our reserves rise very much and if the portfolio investments perhaps decrease, it is perhaps something which one can reconsider seriously. At the moment we try to grant concessions wherever necessary. There is not any absolute prohibition placed on any foreign investor selling shares here from taking the proceeds of the shares out of the country. He can do so.

What I have said here was perhaps somewhat superfluous, but I at least had to say something in reply to what has been said here. I just want to conclude by saying that the reserve team which batted to-day almost did better than the second team which batted in the second reading debate.

Bill read a third time.

Motion put and agreed to.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member and I do hope the hon. Minister will be prepared to accept it. I think there is no term which is more likely to do harm to South Africa in the outside world than the term Publications Control Board. I believe that the term suggested by the hon. member, namely “Board of Censors” will much more accurately describe the functions of the board, and certainly it is not open to the obvious criticism which can be levelled at a term such as “Publications Control Board”. I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the hon. member’s amendment; it will in no way weaken the legislation, but certainly the term “Board of Control” is a most unfortunate term to use in any legislation. It is a term which I hope we will not see on the Statute Book of this country.

Sir, I would like at the same time to move in an amended form the amendment standing in my name on page 104—

My reason for moving this is that the word “objectionable” is a tremendously wide term. I believe that it goes far beyond what the Minister intends to convey by this clause. Sir, many things are objectionable, although they cannot by any means be regarded as something which should be the subject of censorship. For example some hon. members on the other side find United Party policy objectionable in certain respects. The term “objectionable” is far too wide and it should definitely be limited, and the best way I have found of limiting it is to insert the word “morally” before “objectionable”. This is not a new point; I also raised it in the Select Committee. I believe that if the Minister agreed to this it would eliminate the possibility of a wide misconception as to what is meant. I believe that the courts would have the greatest difficulty in interpreting the term “objectionable” standing alone. I believe it would be far better if it is qualified by the word “morally”. I would not object to some other way of limiting the meaning of the term to what it is supposed to mean, and if the hon. Minister can produce some other amendment I would be very happy to support him. But in the absence of some better suggestion I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will limit the meaning of the word “objectionable” by agreeing to insert “morally” before it. Then at least the courts would not have very great difficulty in determining what Parliament meant.

What does “morally” mean?

I am sure that the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) as a lawyer will appreciate that there is a world of difference between a publication which is objectionable and a publication which is morally objectionable.

What is the difference?

The objection may be something which has absolutely nothing to do with morals. There may be all sorts of expressions which are objectionable on various grounds but nevertheless they need not necessarily be terms which ought to be the subject of censorship in any form, but if you say that they must be objectionable on moral grounds, then you limit it to what I believe the hon. the Minister intends to cover in this clause. In its present form that term has far too wide a meaning. I should like to see it defined even more accurately; I have not been able to think of something more accurate than the insertion of the word “morally”, but standing alone the word “objectionable” is tremendously wide and could cover a great deal of what cannot possibly be intended by the hon. the Minister to be regarded as expressions in printed matter which would be actionable under the provision of this Bill.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and say a word about what can be objectionable and not morally objectionable. When one imports cheap literature—and there is much in this Bill about cheap literature—many people find objectionable the excessive use of slang. They say that, especially in the use of the English language, it is necessary to preserve a certain purity of language, and many people say that the excessive use of slang in English must be regarded as objectionable while it may not be morally objectionable. It may not have any moral bearing whatsoever but in the use of the language it can be objectionable. I can understand that people sitting on this board may say, “this type of book is objectionable; we do not like the kind of language used in it; the author uses the language of the lowest class cinema, of the East end of New York or the slums of London and we think that is objectionable; it is not suitable for our young people”. But that is not a moral objection, nothing that will affect their morals; it is simply the use of the language. And I think for that reason we shall have to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I want to talk about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) which is to the effect that it should be a Board of Censors instead of a Board of Control. As I understand the contents of this Bill the idea is that our activities are now really being converted into control measures because in numerous places in the Bill it is implied that an opinion will be given, that advice will be given, so much so that it will not be necessary for many publishers to ask for advice. It is left to their own discretion. But I have always understood “censorship” to be something absolute. When anything is censored it is absolute and that was why no provision was made in the Entertainment (Censorship) Act of 1931 for an appeal to the courts. But control is being exercised here and when a person is not satisfied with that control he has the right to appeal to the highest court in the land to fight for his rights there. He can say: “The control which you have exercised over me here is unreasonable; it is not correct.” I do not know why the hon. member insists upon giving it this name. He must admit that where the Minister had absolute control in the past, where he was the last person to whom could be appealed, you could have talked about censorship; there something was censored; there was disapproval. Censorship implies all that. That is why, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely impossible for me, according to the whole spirit of the Bill, to give the publisher or whoever it may be, the opportunity of appealing to the highest court.

In terms of the second amendment the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) wishes to add the word “morally”—that which is “morally” offensive. The hon. member has made an honest attempt to narrow the wide concept of “indecent, obscene or objectionable”. These words were from the Customs Act of 1950. The concept is broad, I admit that. But the hon. member must not forget that if we add this word we shall be saddled with another difficulty. Most of the imported material which falls under that category is not really offensive to the morals. It can bring a totally foreign culture to our country; it may introduce completely foreign concepts. Not only can it do harm morally but it may contain such foreign offensive concepts, it may introduce a culture which differs so much from our concepts that it cannot be assimilated. How are you going to eliminate that if you limit it to that extent? Hon. members know that under this legislation the control over imported publications is very much more strict than the control over our local publications. That is essential. I do not want to venture on the field of giving examples but we are all aware of it that it is not only the moral side of life which can be shocked; that is a section. The idea which the hon. member has that it is shocking to the morals is incorporated in the idea of “indecent, obscene and objectionable”. We maintain that by formulating it as widely as this it will only require a few court judgments to give direction in South Africa. Only a few court judgments and everyone will know exactly where he stands in South Africa. We need not worry about the board. The final say does not lie with the board. That is why I say I am sorry but I think that by limiting that which is indecent, obscene and objectionable by applying it to morals only, we will be creating a regrettable defect in the Bill. The hon. member asked me whether I could think of another word. I am afraid I do not have another word. I am afraid that if we were to try to limit the meaning of these words we shall fail dismally and that we shall be making a farce of the whole idea of control. There have been many complaints but they were at least not so serious that we in the Republic have suffered in consequence to such an extent as far as our cultural wealth is concerned, that we have to be sorry about it to-day. With the passage of time these words will assume their true meaning because we must always bear in mind that the actual judge of these concepts will be the reading, the seeing and the listening public. The public will determine. Our way of life is different from that in other countries. What is good for A may not be good for B. The public itself will give direction. I really want to plead for it that we should not make this legislation narrow. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

I cannot support the Minister’s objection to the amendment. If the Minister looks at Clause 5 (2) (a), he will see that there, and also further on in the Bill, the word “obnoxious” is qualified and preceded by the words “to the public morals”. In Clause 6 we have the same thing. I think it is essential to have uniformity of definition. The Minister is full of fears about “foreign culture and foreign conceptions” which may enter the country. That is a very dangerous attitude for the country to adopt. Surely we should become acquainted with other cultures.

Provided it is not obnoxious.

It is not as the Minister put it. But what is culturally obnoxious obviously falls within the concept of “obnoxious to the public morals”. I cannot imagine anything which is culturally obnoxious which is not obnoxious to the public morals. The Minister has definitely not succeeded in raising any convincing objection to this amendment.

In regard to the name of the proposed Board, I think it is very unfortunate that he chose the words “Board of Control over Publications”. The question of an appeal to the court is no longer relevant. With a “Board of Censors” there can also be an appeal to the court. We have become accustomed to boards of control over things like potatoes and maize, but here we are dealing with something more fundamental. We are dealing here with the circulation of ideas, a fundamental freedom. The English equivalent is “control”, which according to English dictionaries has the meaning “to dominate; to regulate One does not get the same feeling from the name of “Board of Censors”. The feeling one gets when one talks about a Board of Control is that of control in advance, but the name “Censor Board” presupposes in the mind of the ordinary man the elimination of that which is morally obnoxious and indecent. We are already faced with the position in our country of far-reaching control over the everyday matters in the life of every citizen, more so than in any other country in the world. That already creates a very bad impression of South Africa in the outside world. Now we are getting a further board of control, over the circulation of ideas! Most comparable countries have a form of censorship against indecency, and nobody objects to the existence of the Board of Censors as we have it. (The objections which exist are to the way in which it carries out its duties.) But to come along now with a new and more comprehensive Board of Control over the circulation of ideas is just adding fuel to the fire of the criticism we experience abroad!

Let me come to the assistance of the hon. member. Clauses 5 and 6 refer to the control of domestic publications. There is reference to domestic publications and then it is qualified. The control of foreign publications is provided for in Clause 20 and there is no reference to morals; there is no qualification that it is simply morally obnoxious. There is therefore nothing wrong with the Bill. Its logic is 100 per cent correct. The definition is quite in order. The hon. member paints a picture as if it is logically wrong. In Clauses 5 and 6 provision is made for what is morally obnoxious, but that is in regard to foreign publications; the domestic publications are covered by Clause 20. That is the difference.

I do hope the Minister will reconsider his statement just now on the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). Throughout the world the word “control” in the English language has, since the dictatorships, acquired a bad odour. It has got into disrepute. It means that the Government will take charge. The people outside will say that the Government is going to take charge of all publications; the publishers will be told exactly what they will be allowed to publish. Whereas the word “censorship” in my opinion suggests that the Government will not dictate to people; it will merely say “You shall not publish certain things which are offensive, obscene or immoral”. In other words: You can publish what you like provided you do not break the law laid down in this Bill. We are not going to tell you what you must do, but we will see to it that you do not publish anything offensive or harmful to public morals. The word “control”, as I have said, got into bad odour particularly during the dictatorships in Germany where they tried to control the lives of everybody. Art which was in no way offensive was not allowed because it was modern art, surrealist art and nobody was allowed to paint like that. Jazz music, you may not like it, but the fact is that there is nothing immoral about it, was not allowed. Because it was not traditional music nobody was allowed to compose that type of music and nobody was allowed to play it. They said to the women: Your place is in the kitchen; your place is to look after the family; you must not go into public life. You shall not wear lipstick. In other words, controlling the person’s life from birth to death. Whereas what we are trying to do here is to prevent the public being able to get immoral books and literature, things which are likely to break down the family life. It is merely to censor what is made public and not to dictate to the individual what he shall do. He is free to do what he likes except that he must not break the law. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider the matter. All I am thinking about is that this will create a bad impression of South Africa.

The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) really surprises one. He alleges that it will sound better and will be more acceptable to foreign countries if we use the word “censorship” instead of the word “control”. The newspapers which support the United Party and which have attacked this Bill have made a point of one thing and that is to give the Bill the worst possible name because they want to tell the outside world that it is a censorship Bill; that periodicals are now going to be censored in South Africa! To argue that the word “control” has a stronger or less acceptable connotation than the word “censorship” is something that I cannot understand. I would almost go as far as to say that no matter how good the intentions of some of them are, the newspapers are behind this movement which hon. members have set in motion, a movement which was started by hon. members in the Select Committee. Behind it all there is the idea of a campaign against South Africa abroad because they want to give the Bill the worst possible name.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said that we must go back to the derivation of the word. But before I do so I would like to indicate to him in which other countries legislation exists to exercise control and even censorship, but where the bodies exercising such powers are not called censorship boards. In the State of Georgia the body which exercises control and even censorship over publications is not called a censorship board. It is called “The State Literature Commission”. In Queensland this legislation is called “objectionable Literature Act”. They also use the wide term “Objectionable”. They do not have a board of censors but they have “A Literature Board of Review ”.

That is better.

Very well, why do hon. members not suggest that? Why do hon. members suggest the worst possible thing imaginable? Why do they not suggest that we call it “A Literature Board of Review”? Why do they suggest the name which the English-language newspapers have selected in order to slander this legislation?

If I do move it will you accept it?

It is for the Minister to decide whether to accept it or not; I am not the Minister. I made my suggestion on the Select Committee. Hon. members did not suggest that it should be called “Literature Board of Review”. They intimated that it must be censorship board and their idea was to make this legislation suspect abroad. In Western Germany they have a Federal Board of Review which has the same powers. In Tasmania they have the “Publications Board of Review” under the “Objectionable Publications Act ”.

And no mention of the word “control ”.

Nor of “censorship!” I contend that the word “censorship” is much stronger and will do far more harm abroad, because this not a board of censorship. We emphasized that fact during the second reading debate. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said that we must consider the derivation of the word; we must look at the Latin word; the person who had to watch over the morals of the people was called a censor. Mr. Chairman, if in all cases, we have to go back to the derivation of a word, then no White Englishman ought to have the name “Black” and no White Afrikaner ought to have the name “Malan” because “Malan” also means black, nor should he have the name “Brown”. It is stupid to say that because a censor existed in Roman Law this control board must also be called a censorship board. That is absolute nonsense.

Finally, I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He referred to Clauses 5 and 6. In pursuance of what the hon. the Minister said I want to add that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) should read Clauses 5 and 6 where in certain paragraphs he will find the expression “offensive to public morals”. In those two clauses he will find a long list of things which can be regarded as being indecent and amongst them there is one provision which reads “if it offends public morals”. There is a long list but there the relevant provision reads “offensive to public morals”. That covers the whole series enumerated in Clauses 5 and 6, and it also covers imported matter; there one cannot insert this restriction. Because what does it really mean? What do the terms “morally offensive” which the hon. member proposed on the Select Committee—and “offensive to public morals” actually mean? If it means anything it does not restrict the meaning. If it restricts the meaning then it does not cover the field that has to be covered, the field which we want to cover in this Bill.

Before I deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) I would just in passing like to say to the hon. member for Middellan de (Mr. van der Merwe) that the difference between objectionable and morally objectionable can be put in the following few words: His views on Graaff’s Pool are objectionable— but they are not necessarily morally objectionable.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that the word “censor” is stricter than “control” or “control board”. He seems to find the word “censorship” objectionable. I wonder whether the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has forgotten that he was at one time a member of the Censor Board? Yet I never heard him object to the word “censor board” while he was a member of it.

You must have been asleep then, because I often wrote about it at the time.

We had another Bill before this House; as a matter of fact we have had four different Bills dealing with this subject before this House. The one which was introduced in 1961 specifically provided for a Censor Board. That Bill was introduced by the Minister himself, and he made no objection then to the words “Censor Board”. It maintained the existing Censor Board under the 1931 Act. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort was chairman of the Select Committee on that Bill yet he made no objection to that particular part of the Bill which accepted the old Censor Board. It is another board of control that this Bill is now creating, and I do say that the words “control board” have a bad connotation, a bad odour amongst the people of South Africa. As a matter of fact. Sir. the hon. the Minister in coming with the words “control board”, is going back in this particular Bill to that very obnoxious first Bill which he presented to the House. That particular one had a board of control in it and he knows the furore there was in the country amongst all sections of the population about that board. Now the Minister tells us that a board of control is much milder than a censor board, because under this particular board of control there is an appeal to the courts, whereas under a censorship board there would not be such an appeal. Mr. Chairman, under that Bill of 1960 which he presented to this House there was no appeal to the courts either and that, too, was a Bill which aimed at instituting a board of control. As a matter of fact, in this particular Bill which we have before us there is still no appeal to the courts from decision of the control board when it comes to film censorship.

You know that they asked for it.

I do not represent the film industry; I represent public opinion.

I have several other points that I should like to raise under this first clause. The first one is this: It is stated in Clause 1 (viii) that “publication or object” includes “(a) any newspaper published by a publisher who is not a member of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa” I believe that that particular section draws an invidious distinction between those newspapers who are members of the NPU and all those publications, and there are many of them, who are not. There are weekly papers, trade journals, religious weeklies and religious monthlies who are not members of the NPU.

Business suspended at 6.30 and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I think the debate which has been held here this afternoon on the question of whether this board should be called a board of censorship or a board of control has really been a very small storm in a very small teacup and I want to come back now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and tell him how completely wrong he is in regard to this matter. He wants to call it a board of censorship and he quoted to us from a dictionary what the definition of “censor” actually is. I looked it up in Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary and, just as he said, I found this—

That is quite true, but there is another definition of “censors” which provides fundamental proof why one cannot call this Bill a Censorship Bill and why one cannot call this board a censorship board, and that is—

The only section of the work of this board which can possibly fall under the definition of “censorship board” is the section which deals with films. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) asked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) why he did not object to the term “censorship board” when he was serving on the Censorship Board. The reason is very simple. He did not object to it because it was a censorship board. A censorship board is a board which has to censor anything, whether it be a film …

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Van Eeden) may not cross in front of the hon. member speaking.

This incident helps me a great deal. If we had a board to prevent the hon. member for Swellendam in advance from walking across in front of me. it would be a censorship board, but once he has walked across in front of me you, Mr. Chairman, instruct him to go back and in this way you, Mr. Chairman, are not a censor but a controller, a chairman. Nothing can better illustrate what I now want to say. The reason why the Film Censorship Board was called a censorship board was because before a film was shown to the public, the Board viewed the film and could cut out what it wanted to and laid down certain rules; or it could say that the film should not be shown at all. Therefore in this respect I agree with the hon. member for Porth Elizabeth (South) in so far as this board has to deal with films. It is a censorship board in a restrictive sense of the word. But when it comes to publications, this board cannot take a publication and cut certain things out of it. That it cannot do. The law makes no provision for it and so it is not a censorship board.

What about imported publications?

Those costing less than 50 cents? The censorship board has nothing to do with those because there is a total ban on them.

It may ban them.

It is not the censorship board which may ban them. If this Bill is adopted it will not be the censorship board which will ban them but it will be Parliament which will ban them; it will then be the hon. member who will ban them; it will then have nothing to do with the censorship board. Therefore to call it a censorship board is the greatest misnomer imaginable. As I said, one can only call it a censorship board in so far as it has to do with films.

And who asked for it?

Yes, it was not we who asked for it but it was the unanimous request of the film industry that the position should remain as it is at the moment and they said that they were all completely satisfied with it. Now the hon. member wants us to call it a censorship board because it will have a nicer sound in the ears of the world. But how does the word “censor” sound in the ears of the outside world? Censorship means only one thing and that is what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) apparently cannot understand, namely, that before something is published, before something is distributed, before anything is delivered, it goes to a person, to a censor, and he decides whether that thing can be published or whether it can be delivered. The only portion of the Bill where this applies is in connection with films, and the film industry asked for it themselves. But there is not one single item in a publication in regard to which the censorship board can decide in advance: “Very well; we will cut this out or that out or allow this or that”, because this board does not have the power. That is why one cannot call this a censorship board and may not call it that in all fairness because a censorship board is an “officer who examines books, papers, telegrams, plays, etc., before they are published, acted and delivered ”. Therefore, I do think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) must leave this matter be. But I am a terribly suspicious person and the hon. member of all people must forgive me for being so suspicious. I am afraid that if the hon. the Minister dares to accept this amendment to have this body called a board of censors, and a report appears to-morrow in the newspapers of the world that this Government has appointed a board of censors, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) will then incite the whole world by saying: “Do you see; that is just what we warned against; this Government is introducing political censorship in South Africa; they are not going to allow any newspaper, any periodical, any written document to be released to the world and they are going to allow no criticism of the Government until it has first of all been approved by the censorship board”, The hon. member must not blame me if I have that suspicion because he is the man who said that the main purpose of this Bill was political censorship, is that not true? Why does he want it to be called a censorship board? He knows that ordinary publications cannot be censored by this board.

Yes.

That poor hon. member! He served on the Select Committe and he tried to study the Bill but I am not at all surprised that he still cannot understand it, although that fact probably does surprise some people. This board simply cannot do that. It is not a censorship board which has any authority over publications and can say: “You may not publish this until we have approved of it”. All that this board can say is that a film may not be shown if the board has not approved of it or expunged what it has wanted to expunge. That is the position. For the rest the control board does not have the right to say this and so it is not a censorship board.

May I put a question to the hon. member? What about the suggestion which was made to call it a “board of review ”?

I do not think that there will be very much objection to that and if the hon. member wishes to move that amendment, we can consider it. But what does a board of review have to review? It is not a board of review because this board may not review anything. [Time limit.]

I want to move—

The definition in sub-section (8) gives exemption to any newspaper from the provisions of this proposed measure. In his second reading speech, the hon. the Minister was at pains to explain why he was granting this exemption to newspapers. He stated that the Newspaper Press Union had for itself accepted a code of conduct in the publication of newspapers, which, the hon. the Minister attempted to indicate, was similar to the definition of what may constitute “undesirability” in publications in the Bill before us. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that if he accepts the code as laid down by the Newspaper Press Union, then the Minister can accept this amendment. I have before me the constitution of the Board of Reference which was approved by the Newspaper Press Union. The Minister has a fair knowledge of the code that was accepted because he approved of it himself. I am going to read to the House the first-stated object of this Board of Reference—

But, Sir, it would seem ridiculous that we should be prepared to grant an exemption to the newspapers only when the majority of the magazine and periodical Press of our country is published by members of the Newspaper Press Union. It would seem on the face of it ridiculous to think that a newspaper proprietor would be prepared to maintain in the publication of his newspaper this code to which he has voluntarily subscribed, but in respect of his magazine or a periodical published by him, he would not apply the same code. I would ask the hon. Minister therefore to consider acceptance of this amendment on the basis that it will free from any form of control by the Publications Board the magazine and periodical Press of our country.

Now I know that the hon. the Minister will reply that there are certain exemptions, that there are magazines and periodicals published in our country whose proprietors are not members of the Newspaper Press Union. That is correct. He may also say that there are periodicals and magazines published of an undesirable nature in our country. I have a specimen here, a publication which I do not think is entirely desirable, and which, as far as I am aware is not a member of the Newspaper Press Union, a publication called “Fyn Goud”, a well-known publication. I went to the trouble to examine one particular issue of this publication. I cannot say in this House that the contents make an entirely desirable form of publication, where for example you have provocative pictures in the nude of no less than seven in one issue, of the female form in a very provocative form of no less than 12, and five short stories with descriptions of lovemaking which one can hardly describe as desirable. No respectable member of the Newspaper Press Union will maintain or subscribe to a publication of this nature. I should like to put this very pertinent point to the hon. the Minister: Would the Minister say that a publication such as for example “Rooi Rose” or “Die Huisgenoot” (which is owned by the Nasionale Pers), or for instance “Personality” must first, before they see the light of day, receive the stamp of approval of a control board before any readers or the public of South Africa enjoy the contents? Is there any single example that the Minister can produce before the House to-night to indicate that any issue of these well-known national publications have at any time published material and contents equivalent to what for instance is published in this issue of “Fyn Goud” that I have here? Because if the Minister can show that, then I would say that his rejection of the amendment that we have moved is justified. But I do not think that the Minister or any member on the Government side can produce any example of any one of the reputable national weeklies or periodicals of our country that has at any time over-stepped the mark and published matter of an undesirable and pornographic nature. We have the evidence of the Cronje Commission that in certain fields of Afrikaans publishing there were certain degrees of undesirability. In all the concerns that publish Afrikaans literature of a periodical and magazine nature only two examples were found which published matter of an undesirable nature. Perhaps the hon. member for Vereeniging can give us more information in that regard and of those particular firms. Maybe he has got more information on the subject. But the Minister says that he is prepared to exempt any newspaper from the provisions of this Bill. But then the Minister must also accept the amendment I move here, to exempt the magazine and periodical Press, because if the Government and the Minister are prepared to trust newspaper proprietors and editors in respect of one medium that they publish, then why not in respect of the other media that they publish? Mr. Chairman the position can arise where a newspaper editor can publish matter, pornographic, in an advertisement form, or of film stars which to any member of the Board, or any three members of the Board that the Minister is appointing, may appear if published in a magazine or periodical form as being objectionable or offensive to public morals in our country. You would then have the obviously ridiculous position that a newspaper can with impunity publish matter of this kind, but the magazine owned by the same proprietor, the same company, cannot do so for fear of the censure of a board of control. If the hon. Minister does not wish to make this legislation absolutely ridiculous, and if he wants to give it at least an appearance of sincerity, in an attempt to combat the publication of pornographic matter, then he should accept the amendment that I have moved.

It will be difficult for me to sink to the level of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and it is not my intention to do so but I want to remind him of a few things. I want to remind him that I severed my connections with those things some years ago and that in the years when I still maintained contact with them I was a member for the United Party. And moreover, they thought so much of me then that the first time that I walked into the Transvaal Provincial Council, they put me on the Executive Committee of that Provincial Council! That is not all. At that time the hon. member for Turffontein was always on my doorstep and always in my office to ask for a directorship in that company.

That is untrue!

What can you expect from such a member? When he experienced that trouble at the time, it was more or less at the same time that he came to ask me for a directorship. He came to ask me for it and at the same time when he asked me for a directorship he asked Teikamdas.

I can tell him many more things, like how he wanted to sell United Party caucus secrets to us! No, he must not try and tackle me. If he wants to fight, let him fight with his equals but not with his master. I want to address myself to the hon. member on whose behalf he is actually speaking to-night. He knows why it was that the newspapers belonging to the National Press Union were excluded. They asked to be excluded and this request was granted for a very good reason, namely, because of the absolutely false propaganda which was made against this Bill to the effect that this Bill was intended for political censorship.

That is true.

I am really beginning to lose my patience with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He now says that that is so; he says that this Bill has been introduced to establish political censorship.

Yes.

I want to ask him whether he knows of the negotiations between the National Press Union and the Select Committee and the Government? Does he know that they asked to be excluded in order to eliminate any suggestion of that nature? The Government did not ask for it but the chairman of the National Press Union asked for it in order to eliminate any suggestion that this Bill had the slightest political motive. They said that to avoid that suspicion, all the newspapers belonging to the National Press Union should be excluded because they print 99 per cent of all the criticism of the Government. Does he know that? I want to ask him now as a sensible person, or rather as a person who considers himself to be sensible, to answer me honestly. Of course, if he goes on as he is going on now, he will be the only man who considers himself to be a sensible person. I want to ask him: If this Government is willing to exclude 99.9 per cent of the criticism passed on it, what possible right does the hon. member have to say that this Bill makes for political censorship? I say that it is political dishonesty of the worst nature to insinuate something of that kind. But I do not want to take so much notice of him. He has been boring me now for some time. I want to return to a matter which has also been boring me for some time and I want to put this question to the hon. member for Turffontein: Who asked him to move here that periodicals should be excluded? Did the National Press Union direct that request to him? They asked that the newspapers should be excluded but they never asked that their periodicals should be excluded. Who came to see the hon. member to ask that periodicals should be excluded? Nobody did, but he is so brash, so big for his boots and he makes such a fuss that one would swear that he was an important man and one would think that he represented the National Press Union himself.

Order! The hon. member must be less personal.

Is it being personal, Mr. Chairman, if I say that he thinks that he is an important man? He is the only man who thinks so but nevertheless he does think so. Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter and I do not want to be personal but nobody asked him to raise this matter here. The National Press Union was very clear in its request, which was that the newspapers should be excluded. It should therefore be obvious that this Bill is not intended to impose any political censorship or Press censorship at all. And so they were all excluded and nobody asked that periodicals should also be excluded. Why should the periodicals not be subject to the norms of decency laid down in this Bill? Sir, an effort is being made here by the Opposition, led by an hon. member for whom I have great respect but from whom I did not expect this, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), to try to tell the world—this forms part of his amendment—that this Bill seeks to impose political censorship, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. One simply cannot read that into this Bill and the National Press Union did not read it into this Bill either. They said that the only possibility of its being read into the Bill was when their newspapers which were responsible for 99 per cent of the criticism of the Government were included. That was when they saw the danger. Then the Government said: We will exclude all newspapers from the provisions of this Bill, and yet the hon. member for Bezuidenhout still comes along and says that political censorship is being imposed in this way.

What did you do to them?

I say that that is maliciousness of the worst nature and if they want to continue in that way they can have no other aim but to cast suspicion upon this completely innocent Bill which is a great improvement over any law which we have as yet had. Hon. members know that this Bill is providing for the first time that after a year or two—this is the logical consequence—the code which will be laid down will be the code laid down by the Supreme Court of South Africa. Notwithstanding this fact, they sow all this suspicion against the Bill and I think that from now on we will take their criticism for what it is worth.

I want to make my position quite clear on this definition clause. I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Turffontein, but I do not think it makes any difference whatsoever whether this board is called a board of censors or whether it is called a publication control board, or whether it is called a literature board, or a board of review. It does not make the slightest difference. So far as I am concerned a board, whatever it is called, a board that is going to determine what is undesirable literature in terms of the definition of this Act is in fact objectionable, and therefore I do not intend to vote for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman’s) amendment. I shall abstain from voting because I do not want a board at all. My point is that we should have no censorship board or a board of review.

Let them publish what they like.

I do not say that they should publish what they like. I say that the criteria as to whether an object, that is something that is published, distributed, manufactured, made or printed, is desirable or not, should be left to the courts. I do not want any board of censors or any board of review to lay down what it believes to be undesirable. I want the normal practice that is followed in the Western world, especially in the English-speaking world—and I am not including the State of Georgia, Sir, which is probably one of the most backward states of the United States …

What about Israel?

I am talking about the English-speaking world, and whether Israel has a board or not, still does not make the slightest difference to me. I do not mind the hon. member putting a question to me in regard to Israel. If I knew what the position was, I would tell him, but unfortunately I do not know. But I know what the position is in the rest of the English-speaking world. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not continually interrupt the hon. member.

21-A.H. Vol. 1

The point is this that there are no boards in England, there are no boards in America, with the exception of the State of Georgia.

Order! The hon. member should raise that on Clause 2.

May I point out with respect that everybody else has been making the point as to whether there should be a board, and if it should be called a censor board or a board of control. In any case I am going to vote against any board, and I am going to abstain from voting in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

And who is going to support you?

This is one of the happy occasions when I do not need a seconder and it does not matter one iota to me whether anybody supports me or not. I am going to put my own point of view. As far as the other two amendments to this clause are concerned, I am going to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), mainly because of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister which I think was so absurd. He said that the word “moral” should be left out because he is against any sort of literature coming into the country which might have “a foreign attitude”. As far as I am concerned cultures have developed by the interchange of ideas, from one country to the other, from one race to the other, from one nation to the other, and to me there is nothing that could depict better the closed mind of this Government than to feel that anything which has “a foreign attitude” and which comes to this country should be harmful to this country. If our values are intrinsically good, if our attitudes are intrinsically good, then they can withstand surely the onslaught of so-called “foreign attitudes”, and I believe in the exchange and interchange of ideas between the different peoples of this world. Therefore I shall certainly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District).

There is another amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein and I intend to support that as well. I believe that as much as can possibly be exempted from the purview of this Bill should be exempted. I do not take the same attitude as the hon. member for Vereeniging about the National Press Union, as he knows—he heard me during the second-reading debate, when I expressed my views about the exclusion of the newspapers belonging to the National Press Union. Here, Sir. the magazines and other publications belonging to the National Press Union are included within the purview of this Bill. Now it may very well be true that 90 per cent or 99 per cent of the criticism against this Government appear in newspapers belonging to the National Press Union, but that is by no means as far as I am concerned, the reason why other newspapers should be included in this Bill, and why magazines should be included and why any publication for that matter which can be critical of this Government should be included. In other words, as long as the definition clause of what is undesirable remains what it is, I shall vote for anything which excludes or exempts magazines, newspapers, objects or anything else that you wish to describe as falling with the terms of this Bill, from the purview of the Bill.

May I ask the hon. member whether those other newspapers that are not excluded are included for the purpose of political censorship? Does the hon. member honestly believe that?

I do not believe that they specifically are included. But I do think that this Bill not only has as its object the limitation of the normal so-called obscene or pornographic literature, but also that it has a very much wider function.

The hon. member is now discussing the Bill in general, and she should confine herself to a discussion of the clause.

Unfortunately therefore I cannot reply to the hon. member for Vereeniging now, but if he will put the question to me on the relevant clause, I will be glad to answer him.

I want to come back to the hon. Minister’s reply on my amendment as regards the title to be given to this board. The hon. the Minister completely overlooked the argument that was made that the legislative usage in this country has given a specific significance to the words “control board”. That it has a significance, as other hon. members on this side have indicated is certainly true so far as the external situation is concerned, but also internally. Because there was a time when the words “control board” had such bad odour in South Africa that an effort was made to change them to “regulatory boards”. There was an effort to change from “beheerraad” to “regulatory board”, to get away from this sort of stigma of “control” which was implied in the name itself. Also the hon. Minister overlooks entirely that existing legislation uses the words “board of censorship”. So there is no reason for departure from it because what this Board is going to do is merely an enlargement, an extension of what the existing board does. So much for that aspect of the matter. I come then to the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). As has already been pointed out. Clauses 5 and 6 include a provision which makes it quite clear that what is aimed at is what is indecent, obscene or morally objectionable. The Minister’s retort to that is that we are here dealing with what comes in from outside. But surely the purpose of the legislation when we started, at any rate, was to bring about a parallel situation, that whatever supervision was exercised over the external material should also be exercised over the internal material. So the argument that the hon. the Minister has used is completely invalid, in my opinion. It is perfectly true that the appeal to the court is a desirable feature of this Bill, but we must not make too much of it, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) are making. A right of appeal is being regarded by the Minister and by that hon. member as a concession granted by Parliament. Surely a right of appeal to a court is a right which Parliament should recognize at all times.

But it has not been a concession for 30 years.

The right should be recognized and Parliament is the place where the right should be recognized. The point why it is necessary to insert the word “moral” is that Parliament’s legislation should be so clear and specific as to reduce the need to go to appeal. This question of appeal is being used here as if it were some god sent sort of remedy which can be used with great ease. Anyone who knows the situation knows that it is difficult and costly to appeal, and I say it is the duty of Parliament not to add to the need for appeal to a court but to reduce it. That is why you want to be specific in your legislation and that is why it is necessary to insert the words suggested by the hon. member for Germiston (District). Now I have no doubt myself that when the courts come to interpret the matter they will use the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation and will apply the general word in the context of the specific words, but I do not think we should allow that situation to develop. I think it is the duty of this House to make its legislation clear and specific.

That brings me to the hon. member for Vereeniging. Instead of ranting as he did, now and during the second-reading debate here is a matter where he can establish his sincerity in saying that political censorship is to have no part in this Bill by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District). He will then demonstrate his sincerity and I challenge and invite him therefore to do so.

I want to deal first of all with the last argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). To invite the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to support this amendment and to think that in that way he was going to prove that we were honest when we said that there was no political censorship embodied in this Bill, was just so much bluff. Hon. members on that side are anxious to be able to say that there will be political censorship in South Africa once this Bill has been passed. This hon. member proved repeatedly that they would like to find something to be able to make propaganda which will be detrimental to South Africa and the thing that they want to use is censorship, political censorship. They found that thing, firstly, because it was suggested to them by the Press …

The hon. member is now repeating arguments which have already been used.

The hon. member for Vereeniging was invited to support this argument and so to prove that there was no political censorship, that there will be no Press censorship, and because he is not a political hitch-hiker, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) ought to know better than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, of whom we take no notice. He ought to know better and realize that this Bill has no intention of improving Press censorship. Nowhere is censorship intended against the Press if it publishes political reports. But hon. members have moved this amendment to call this body a censorship board for that one reason only. Now the hon. member says that the expression “control board” has already left a bad taste in South Africa. When we read our statutes, we see that we have numbers of control boards, not only the Egg Control Board and the Maize Control Board and the Meat Control Board, and there is no question of the expression “control board” having left a bad taste. This is not a censorship board; it is exclusively a control board because a censorship board can expunge sections as it does in regard to films. In that respect it does act as a censorship board and it does so at the specific request of the film industry, but not as far as entertainments or publications are concerned. In this respect it acts exclusively as a control board. Now the hon. member wants us to insert the word “morally” in line 52. The Minister has already pointed out that we have made provision for this in Clauses 5 and 6. But I want to point out that one does not only have undesirable publications in connection with morals; one has them in connection with religion and national relationships and that is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to accept that amendment.

I want to ask hon. members not to repeat arguments which have already been advanced and to confine themselves to the clause.

I wish I could get it into the mind of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that we have no intention of substituting the words “censor board” for “control board”, because we in any way wish to harm South Africa overseas. Can he not realize that the name “censor board” is the existing name to-day and has been the name since 1931, and that there was nothing wrong with that name in the past? Can he not realize that his own Government came with a Bill in the beginning of last year in which they wanted a censor board? Can he not realize that the great objection to the name “control board” arose from that first obnoxious Bill which was introduced originally?

I wish to support the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in inserting the words “magazine or periodical” in this particular sub-section. This is the only clause under which it can be done and therefore I should like to say something on behalf of all those newspapers and periodicals which do not fall under the Newspaper Press Union. I believe that this clause does not go far enough. It excludes newspapers which are members of the Press Union, but it does not offer any hope or consolation to the vast number of small weekly papers or monthly publications which are not members of the Press Union. There are papers of a political nature. I am associated with one. There are also papers of a political nature published by the Government. These papers are not being excluded from the provisions of this Bill. You can imagine the difficulty in which a trade journal or a small religious journal would be through not being excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Imagine the difficulties they would have if they had to decide, e.g., whether a certain article was bringing any section of the inhabitants into contempt or was harming the relations between different sections of the inhabitants, or was prejudicial to the safety or the welfare of the State. What about a cartoon in a weekly which to-day can be regarded as bringing a section of the population into contempt? What about an article on the lack of preparedness in the Defence Force which could be interpreted as being harmful to the State or the general welfare, although there was no such real intention?

We must realize that the small weeklies and the trade publications are already subject to a vast number of laws and regulations and that if they were to be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, as I plead, the Minister could find some other measure to apply to them, and word this clause differently. Even if they are excluded, such weeklies and newspapers would still under existing laws be subject to the following: They still could not offend against the security of the State, public confidence in the institutions of the State, the dignity of the State, the reputation and good name of citizens, the public peace, the security of personal property, the dignity of the courts and of Parliament, public and private morals, the safe custody of State secrets, harmonious relations between the White and non-White races. All these are in the existing laws. In other words, these weeklies will not be given free rein to do as they wish. I therefore plead with the Minister that something should be done about those other publications. This Bill will make the life of people who write in such papers extremely difficult, and I am one of them. The idea behind excluding newspapers published by members of the Press Union is of course that there is a Press Board with a code of conduct for members of the Newspaper Press Union. The hon. member for Vereeniging seemed to be quite satisfied with the idea of this Press Board and its code of conduct, although I remember hearing him say during the second reading …

I think it is a stupid idea.

Oh! I was under the impression that the hon. member was not at all satisfied with this Press Board. But why then does he come here and try to defend the proposal that newspapers of the Press Union should be excluded from these provisions? After all, this was put in at the request of the newspapers and because the Select Committee was satisfied that newspapers would be subject to their own code of conduct. But now the hon. member says the whole thing is a stupid idea. I think we need an explanation from the hon. member.

I wish to raise another matter. I want to refer to Clause 1 (1) (viii) (g), which says that a publication or object includes “any record or other contrivance or device in or on which sound has been recorded for reproduction”. I should like to know from the Minister to what extent broadcasts fall under the provisions of this Bill. As the Minister knows, 95 per cent of what we hear over the radio to-day are transcriptions on tape recordings or records. Will those recordings also fall under this provision? We were told on the Select Committee that there would be great problems in regard to broadcasting should they be included under this Bill. No less a person that the Director-General of the S.A.B.C. informed the Select Committee that if television were to be introduced in South Africa the S.A.B.C. would have to ask to be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. What is the Minister’s attitude to that?

There is another point I should like to make. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister what was said by the S.A. Association of Arts, the S.A. Kunsvereniging, in connection with sub-sections (d), (e) and (f). They are of opinion that the plastic arts should be excluded, in other words, that these particular sub-sections should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Now when one finds a prominent man such as Mr. Justice Marais and men like Senator D. H. van Zijl and Professor A. L. Meiring asking for the exclusion of these particular plastic arts, it is indeed a matter to which the Minister should give his attention. In its memorandum the Association of Arts said—

It is stated even more strongly in the Afrikaans part of the memorandum. Now I know that the Minister will tell me that Mr. Justice Marais is in general satisfied with the Bill as it is now, and I accept that, but I do believe that his criticisms and those of his association are still valid. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E.

G. Malan) is now dealing with definitions and really he wants provision to be made in the Bill for the sort of decisions this Board will have to take in regard to different types of works of art. Can I not make the hon. member understand that Clause 1 (viii) from (a) to (g) gives a summary of any type of publication or subject which may exist, but that it does not give a definition of when it is indecent or obnoxious? That is what the hon. member should realize. If the Bill does not include every possible gramophone record or any sort of picture which can be produced in the various types of art, whether it be a woodcut, or whether it be plastic art, it cannot be adjudged whether those things are indecent or obnoxious, and if they are not, why is the hon. member afraid of it? Are these now arguments to use in regard to definitions?

I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), which the hon. member also supports. If we exclude the newspapers belonging to the Press Union on account of the code they have drawn up themselves, why not also exclude periodicals and books? Why cannot everything be excluded? But the hon. member who is or was a newspaper reporter himself surely knows that a newspaper serves a totally different purpose from a periodical. A newspaper has the right to criticize and to publish news. It renders a service to the public, and because the newspapers themselves felt that their own house was not in order they drew up a code and decided amongst themselves, without any pressure from the side of the Government, that they would apply this code of behaviour to themselves. But periodicals serve a totally different purpose, just like stories and books and poems and other works of art. They are quite different from newspapers. But it is not we who say so. What did the Cronje Commission say, which is accepted by the hon. member for Turffontein as being a very thorough investigation? In regard to monthly periodicals they say in paragraph 3172 that first of all attention must be drawn to the fact that an extraordinary number of undesirable illustrations was found in articles, and then they continued to say that this should be regarded as a matter for concern. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee but I want to refer further to paragraphs 3172,3173, 3174 and 3186. which say—

We are dealing here with a report and this Bill is based on the Cronje Report—not on the legislation it proposed, but on this thorough investigation which was made, and if it were not for the fact that the Press Union framed a voluntary code and offered to discipline themselves, the newspapers would not have been excluded. But what the Government was prepared to do when this legislation was submitted, and before the Select Committee had yet completed its work, was to say: We will give you a chance.

Does the hon. the Minister agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging that the Press Code is a stupidity?

I say the Government’s standpoint was to give the Press Union an opportunity to show that they themselves could apply this discipline, and they are busy doing it. There have been test cases. I cannot say what the result will be. I wish them all success. But the hon. member for Orange Grove should remember that all the other little publications he mentioned here which will fall under the control of this Board need have no fears if they do not commit the sins laid down in the Bill; and if they commit those sins in the opinion of the Board they can still go to court to prove that it is not so. They have nothing to fear. Many of these small news sheets and periodicals are very decent and they can continue as before. There is no witch-hunt in progress and there is no threat to the continued existence of these publications. The hon. member became hot under the collar when he should not even have felt a cool breeze.

I cannot add anything to what was said by the other hon. members. I regret that I cannot under any circumstances accept these two amendments to the first clause, because by doing so I would be stigmatizing myself and my party as being inconsistent, in the first place in regard to the name. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also made a second attempt, but I think he was then even more at sea than he was the first time. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) fortunately spoke only once and I have an idea that he is convinced now as the result of the fact that in Clauses 5 and 6 there is reference to morals and that in so far as domestic control is concerned it is a totally different story from what is contained in Clause 20 which deals with the control of foreign matter. I think the hon. member is convinced that he should not continue with it further.

Can the Minister explain why a distinction is made between domestic and foreign publications?

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) of course misunderstood me completely when I spoke about cultures. There is much to be learnt from other cultures and we are still learning from them every day. I think we in this country are more keen to learn than anybody else in the world in so far as this is concerned. We are not as stupid as the hon. member wishes to pretend we are. But we get foreign things, unusual relations, e.g. the relation between White and non-White, which are not obnoxious in a country with a predominating number of Whites and only a small handful of non-Whites but which in this country are detrimental to peace and good order, and one will have to measure with two yardsticks. We would never dream of producing something like that in our own country. But when we come to foreign literature and objects we very definitely have our own mode of life here, and when we come into conflict with one another, and there is a conservative as well as a more liberal point of view in regard to the same matter, the court is there to lay down the yardstick, and whoever is in the minority will gradually have to adapt themselves so that we can build up the necessary criteria. Of course that will always vary; it will never remain static. As times change, so people change. But we must take care not to land in the position where we also will have to cry out “O tempora! O mores!” Because we are now trying to expedite what should really be left to evolution, and we want to create a revolution here because we think that these matters will be judged too conservatively. We want to set up beacons here and be revolutionary, whereas we could leave the matter safely to evolution in the course of time. Those standards will be built up. We have ensured that these will not be political people, although the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it was a political board appointed by a political Minister. But we can elevate ourselves beyond that, to a greater extent than we could under the Censorship Act of 1931, and we can obtain court decisions which will build up those standards for us.

Mr. Chairman …

Oh!

I am very happy to hear those groans. I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) something. A little earlier on you, Sir, called him to order, whereupon he said that he was not trying to be personal. He is exactly like the central character in a play which has recently been very successful in America, called “How to Succeed in Business without Trying”. He was not trying to be personal, but instead of devoting his time to clarifying the clauses which this side of the House seeks to amend, he made a personal attack on two hon. members.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

The name of this Board, which according to the Minister should rightly be called a Publications Control Board, has been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) to be something which is in the interest of South Africa because he sought to prove …

That argument has been used before.

I am merely drawing attention to an argument in order to refute it, and therefore I must first state it. If the point at issue is whether we should find a title for this Board under any name merely to make it look better to the outside world, then I do not believe the Minister himself would suggest that that is what he tries to do. He has said in effect that this is not a board which will censor, and therefore it should not be called a Censor Board, but a Board of Control. But in the first place the word “publication” surely cannot be held in the mind of the Minister to infer films, because you never publish a film; you produce it and distribute it, and exhibit it, but you do not “publish” it. Therefore, particularly because this Board is to take the place of the original Board of Censors which dealt with films, I think it is right to argue that this is the correct name for the Board. The Minister likes to use the word “control” in terms of what he said in the second reading. I must remind the Minister that he said that the controlled man is a free man, whilst the uncontrolled man is a barbarian. He has therefore now ushered in a new era for South Africa, not the era of the Comman Man but of the Controlled Man.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

The fact is that essentially the object of the Bill is to control the people and their thinking, and every form of creative work in this country. However, I will not press that point any further.

As regards sub-sec. (2) (b), where the hon. member for Germiston (District) moved that the word “morally” be inserted before the word “objectionable”, I would like to examine the Minister’s suggestion that the inclusion of the word “morally”, when, therefore, “morally objectionable” would be the criterion, would not make it possible to exclude from South Africa what he called a foreign culture or an alien culture. I think he should have amplified that, because to say that merely because a culture is not indigenous to this country it is therefore an alien culture, and then to come to the next conclusion, which is that you must have some sort of legislation in this clause to exclude it, is surely not the Minister’s intention! I want to point out to him that in his other role of Minister of Education, Arts and Science, he is doing a great deal to establish in South Africa what is essentially a foreign or alien culture, and that is, the culture of the Italians in regard to grand opera. So how can anybody say that we must have the right type of legislation to keep out any foreign culture? [Interjections.] Nobody said so, but the Minister in advancing his argument in defence of this clause said it was designed to exclude a foreign culture. I must rest on this submission, that when Van Riebeeck came to the Cape 300 years ago, he did not bring “Madame Butterfly” with him, (or, if he did so, he kept it very quiet); the point being that what we know in this country about grand opera is in fact due to a foreign culture. I must say, with great respect to the Minister, that to rely on that argument in order to object to the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District), lays him wide open to the accusation that this clause is intended to be used in another way, and beyond the scope of the underlying intent of the legislation, which is: to exclude what is morally objectionable, and not to give him the power to exclude anything that is “foreign” merely because it says here that if it is objectionable for whatsoever reason the Board may exclude it. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that we should come forward with amendments in order to improve the Bill—if that is the true position, then I think the Minister must, to some extent, make some concession in regard to this entire Clause 1. and at least agree to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District).

I assure you that I will confine myself strictly to the clause. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has got lost amongst the negatives. If one looks at his amendment and at the clause as amended, one finds that in this clause the importer is put on the same footing as a printer or publisher. But now the clause continues to say that in regard to certain objects, certain publications, the importer is not considered to be the printer. In those cases the publisher will be the person who published those books overseas. These publications are those books imported under permit issued in terms of sub-sec. (a), as well as those objects imported under a certificate issued by the Board. Now the hon. member wants to add to that the words, “which are not morally obnoxious”—in other words, those which are obnoxious on other grounds, and in respect of those the importer will still be considered to be the publisher. What he therefore wants to attain by means of his amendment is that those persons who have a testimonial from the Board to the effect that their publications are not morally obnoxious will be exempted, but not the others. But that is precisely what stands here. I therefore think that if we accept his amendment we will probably be even stricter than he would like us to be.

I should now like to come back to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He says that there is a difference in the emotional content of the words “censor” and “control”. According to him, the word “censor” is less deplorable than the word “control”. Well, I do not pretend to be an expert in English, but I am able to consult the various dictionaries and encyclopaedia. I did so particularly in the light of the allegations of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that man of great principle! He said that we should use the word “censor” rather than the word “control”, because otherwise we would create the impression that we want to apply political control or censorship, and we should not create that impression.

According to the dictionaries I consulted, it appears, however, that it is when one uses the words “censor” or “censorship” that one gets the opprobrium for which he blames us. In other words he knows that his allegation is wrong, but because he knows that the world will know he is wrong he wants us to use the word which will lend truth to his allegations. I want to prove this to the hon. member.

You are being ridiculous.

Well, if I am ridiculous I am in good company. I am in the company of the people who drafted the Oxford Dictionary. If the hon. member thinks he knows more English than they do, he should compile that dictionary. Here are the meanings—

The word “officious” means “bemoeisiek”, or something to that effect. In any case it is a word expressing disapproval. The second meaning of “censor” is—

Of course the hon. member now wants it here also—

In other words, he really wants to use this word to give the semblance of truth to his allegation, namely that we want to make use of this Bill to keep out everything that is detrimental to the Government.

But surely we have a Censor Board now.

You want to delete the word “control” and substitute “censor”.

But that is what we have now.

No, what we have is a board to control publications. That is what is to be deleted.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I am sorry, but my time is limited. Let me point out further that the third meaning of the word “censor” in the Oxford Dictionary is—

That is the meaning, and therefore it is the meaning of the words he wants us to use. The same applies to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). Contrast that with the word “control”. It is a much more neutral word. It is used in that way in our own country. We have a board of control over the mealie industry, a board of control over the wheat industry, etc. All these are boards of “control Now what is the meaning of the word control ”?—

It is therefore a neutral word, a word without any unfavourable connotation. A second meaning is—

A third meaning, the derivative meaning and the one we are making use of, is—

But that does not mean to say that the connotation is that one blames those people, or rebukes or calls to account those who do not agree with the Government or with whom the Government does not agree. That is inherent in the concept “censorship”, but not in the word “control ”. Another meaning is—

That is the wider meaning of the word “control”, but that is a word which hon. members do not like. What they want is that we should use a word which will give the allegations they make against the Government a semblance of truth.

I am not one who ascribes ulterior motives to my opponents, but I cannot get away from the idea that the Opposition want the Government to use words so that their scandalmongering and vilification of the Government can have a greater semblance of truth than is the case at the moment. We will not allow ourselves to be assisted from the frying pan into the fire.

The hon. the Minister of Information indicated in this House to-day that we should not do anything in this House or the country which would blacken the name of South Africa. But I venture to suggest that if this Bill is passed with this present definition, the Press of the world will be entitled to say “South African Government to control newspapers in South Africa”; “South African Government to control publications.”

You say “newspapers ”?

Some are for the present excluded, but the point is that the Minister of Information will again have to try and convince the world outside that the control will only be in respect of certain newspapers; he will have to convince the world that the control of this, that or the other, is not intended. There will then be again the necessity for us to insert a large advertisement in the New York Times or in the Times of London to the effect that we do not control the Press, or this or that….

That is if we use the word “censor”?

Objection is taken to the word “censor”. The Government feels that censorship is much stronger than control. I disagree. I believe that control in the sense that it is being used in the world to-day, is much stronger than censorship, because if we read in the Press that Khrushchey is controlling the Press in Russia; when we read that Hitler controlled the Press of Germany; when we read that Tito controls the Press in Yugoslavia, it conjures up in our minds a dictatorship which we think is unworthy.

Now. “censureship” is not accepted by the Minister because he feels that censorship can be construed in the same way and that it, therefore, creates a false image. He says that this Bill is not proposed in the sense of true censorship; it does not impose censorship in its accepted form. Now, I should like to refer to a suggestion by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort—out of the mouths of babes and sucklings! He has played a most prominent part by suggesting that we should call it a “board of review”,

That is not true. I did not!

The hon. member said that in certain countries—in Georgia, and a few others …

And Israel!

Israel if you like … they do not like either the word “control” or the word “censorship” but that they prefer to say that there is a board of review of publications. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the hon. member for Vereeniging said he would accept that …

I will be happy …

I have got one convert, Mr. Chairman! The hon. member is easy to be converted …

I still prefer what is proposed in the Bill!

Let us, therefore, compromise. The word “control”, to my mind, sug gests to people outside our country that there is a sort of dictatorship about our publications. “Censorship” on the other hand is not acceptable and I, therefore, move—

The hon. the Minister gave two reasons, I think, for rejecting my amendment. The first one was the moral code, or the code of reference, which was established by the N.P.U. The major reason he gave for the rejection of my amendment was, however, that exemption from the provisions of this Bill should not be given to magazines and periodicals. He said that in the light of the evidence of undesirability which we have before us in the Cronje Commission’s Report would be sufficient justification for including all magazines and periodicals published under the aegis of this board of control. To that end the Minister quoted some extracts from the Report of the Cronje Commission, but I should like to submit that the Minister did not in this respect give the House a true picture. I am sorry to say that. I for my part should like to indicate to the House that the Cronje Commission had a great deal to say about this question of undesirability in magazines and periodicals published within the Union. In fact, if hon. members look at the Report of that Commission, they will find that it deals over several pages with different aspects of undesirability of magazines. The Commission, in fact, carried out a very extensive investigation over a period of some 20 years.

Not satisfied with the general findings, however, the Commission thought it advisable to publish an appendix to its Report indicating how it arrived at their conclusions. I should like, therefore, to ask the Minister why he did not quote some other passages from the findings of this Commission? You see, Sir, the point is a pertinent one that the findings of the Commission in relation to certain magazines—weekly magazines and periodicals—are precisely the same as its findings in relation to newspapers. Let me quote the relevant paragraphs to the House, Sir, and not the paragraphs which the hon. the Minister quoted but those paragraphs dealing with the question of the undesirability of magazines and periodicals! Let me add this at this point, namely that the Commission on this point did not stop at the bounds of its terms of reference, but went further in that it did not only consider undesirability as such in the fact that material might be pornographic or immoral, but it also considered the question of inferiority of the type of magazine published. Let me now quote to the House what the Commission had to say about weekly magazines, namely paragraph 3,121, p. 44—

In paragraph 3,127 the Commission reported—

That is in regard to stories and articles published in so-called weekly magazines. Now, the Minister says that an exemption can be granted to newspapers although not to magazines and periodicals, because of the fact that newspapers have no undesirability at all.

That was not the only reason I gave.

I am coming to the other reason. At present I am trying to dispose of the first and major reason the Minister gave for rejecting my amendment, and I am asking why the Minister did not quote these facts to the House. Why did he only quote certain facts from the Commission’s Report in respect of monthly magazines which is entirely different and has nothing to do with this amendment. The Minister quoted only one aspect whereas the Report deals with various aspects of undesirability. The paragraphs I have quoted represent the total findings of the Commission in respect of all aspects of undesirability in magazines—whether of the written word, illustrated, or with advertisements. Why did the Minister not quote these facts to the House? Why pick out only a portion of the Report, thereby creating an erroneous impression. What I have quoted are the facts. The Minister, on the other hand, picks out one portion of the Report and therewith he tried to bolster up his argument for not accepting this amendment. For that there is very little justification.

The other reason the Minister advanced was that the code of conduct adopted by the N.P.U., was adopted by that body because the newspapers belonging to it realized that their house was not in order. Now, I should like to ask the Minister where any representative of the Press of South Africa made an admission of the fact that they were establishing such a board of reference because they recognized that their house was not in order. The Commission’s evidence is very clear in this regard. In this connection I like to quote paragraph 3,223—

The Minister stated that the newspapers recognized that their house was not in order. I challenge the Minister on that issue. Some of the prominent newspapers take quite another approach. I believe that the newspapers resorted to this measure in order to protect themselves against any possible action by the Government under legislation of this nature. What they did was an attempt to forestall the Government if it wanted to apply the provisions of the Bill of 1960 to the newspapers of this country, and this was, in fact, the intention. Newspapers were not exempted from the provisions of that Bill and the Minister knows that. The steps taken by the newspapers—and not the English language newspapers, but also the Afrikaans language newspapers associated in the same organization—were resorted to with the object of protecting themselves. That is very clear from the constitution of this board of reference of which I have here a copy. One of the objects of this board of reference was—

Would you mind reading the preamble and paragraph 1 (a)?

The preamble is clear ..!

No, read it ..!

The preamble contains three “whereas” paragraphs. The first one states the belief in a free and unfettered Press in this way—

With this all of us concur.

Where is there any admission in this, Mr. Chairman, that they realize that their house is not in order?

They did it voluntary; there was no compulsion.

Of course, it was done voluntarily but it did so in order to forestall the Government including the definition of a newspaper in this Bill thereby making them subject to the provisions of the Bill. That is why. Why then does the hon. the Minister refuse to accept my amendment when the same proprietors whom he is prepared to trust with a code of reference, cannot be trusted in regard to magazines which they themselves own? Why? Where is the logic of the actions of the Minister? Based on the evidence before us, it is clear that there is no undesirability in this class of literature. Of course, the reason is obvious. Quite contrary to the views of the hon. the Minister, a large number of periodicals and magazines to-day offer comment on national affairs, comment on the social sphere and on religious matters as well as on political matters. It is also clear that the Minister seeks with this board which he seeks to appoint in terms of this clause, a measure of political control, of political intimidation against this particular section of the Press which has a far-reaching and widespread influence amongst the public of South Africa. How, by any measure of logic, can the Minister stand up in this House and say “I will trust the newspaper proprietor with this code of conduct in regard to a daily paper, but I will not trust him in regard to magazines which he owns and publishes … [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein has made himself guilty of the very thing he accused me of, namely that he read only paragraphs 3,122 and 3,121 of the Cronje Report which give a picture of only a few of the undesirable things. But he does not read paragraph 3,123. which reads as follows—

But I said so.

No, Sir. the hon. member did not say so. He only quoted from paragraphs 3,121 and 3.122, but omitted to read 3,123—

There is something else the hon. member did not read either. When he read from the code of behaviour he referred to only 1 (c) of the objects, but not to 1 (a) and 1 (b). Now (a) and (b) read as follows—

These are the two most important objectives and an important admission by the Press Union, and the reason why the Government exempted it from the provisions of this Bill is because they voluntarily admitted that all these things which they mentioned did not redound to the credit of the Press in South Africa. That is what I said, and I repeat that they themselves saw that the Press was going downhill and that what was happening in the Press certainly did not redound to the credit of that Press itself. That is why they came along with this voluntary code.

The hon. member wants to hurl reproaches in every possible way. He wants to cast doubt and he makes use of arguments which sound hollow and which are not able to prove anything. The hon. member should get out of the habit of quoting only those things which suit his arguments.

The hon. the Minister is losing sight of the most important point. The amendment under discussion asks for exemption only for periodicals issued by publishers who are members of the Press Union. Now the position is that the Cronje Commission was of opinion that the articles contain more undesirable material than newspapers. But the Cronje Commission in this respect did not mean the type of periodicals published by publishers who are members of the Press Union. And it is only for such periodicals that the amendment seeks exemption. The periodicals referred to by the Cronje Report are the type of periodical which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) published. The Cronje Commission would not have made the same comment about the type of periodicals published by established publishers who are members of the Press Union.

But then they have nothing to fear in any case.

But then there is also no reason why the Minister cannot accept the amendment! He deals with periodicals of the quality of the Huisgenoot.

If they are of such a high quality, surely they have nothing to fear.

Then why not exempt them also? I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister that there is such a sharp difference between periodicals—I am not referring to yellow literature now—of the type published by members of the Press Union and the newspapers published by the same publishers. Let us again take the Huisgenoot as an example. This periodical deals with contemporary news just as much as the newspapers do. As against that, newspapers have the tendency increasingly to become periodicals—just look at the weekend newspapers with their magazines and supplements. The periodical and the newspaper cover the same field.

Nor do I feel satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister as to why there evidently has to be a distinction between imported material and locally-produced material, but I think I understand the position. As the Bill reads, the right of political censorship is contained in the clause which deals with control over local printed matter, and in no fewer than three subsections. We will still get to that; we cannot discuss it now. But in respect of the clause referring to the Customs Act, the Minister does not want to accept this amendment because the definition in that clause is not as detailed as the one dealing with domestic printed matter where there is in fact recognizable provision for political censorship.

The hon. member should read the Bill.

The word “obnoxious” is qualified in the case of local material, because there are other sub-sections which cover political censorship. But here it is not included and the Minister wants to leave the whole definition wide. My conclusion therefore is that the Minister refuses to accept the amendment because he wants to keep the word “obnoxious” in respect of imported material wide enough to cover political matters and therefore does not want to limit it to what is “morally obnoxious We will still get to Clauses 5,6 and 20 and discuss the matter further then. At this stage I just want to say that I can see no other reason than the one I mentioned why the Minister does not want to accept this amendment, namely that he does not want to limit the definition of “obnoxious” in Clause 1 so that it will exclude political censorship. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not like making personal attacks on hon. members and I do not do so in debates. It is, however, time that the hon. member for Vereeniging should be warned. He can be thankful for the fact that hon. members on this side do not wish to debate on his level. [Interjections.] He is continually making personal attacks. If I were in his shoes I would have paired myself off and I would not have said a single word in the debate on this Bill, because there he sits as the greatest seller of yellow literature that South Africa has ever had. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

I will content myself by saying that and furthermore just say this to the hon. member, that if in future he does not behave himself properly towards hon. members on this side and continues to be so personal, I will begin quoting from what a judge said in the case in which his Good Hope Publishers were concerned in 1953.

I am not begging for mercy from you.

I am just warning the hon. member that if he does not stop being personal, this side of the House will have to flay him at some time or other….

The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

You little whipper-snapper (snip)!

On a point of order, Sir, is a personal remark like that in order?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

He is not a whipper-snapper, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw.

We want to give the hon. member a fair chance, but if he continues making mean, personal attacks in every speech …

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

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to say that I make mean, personal attacks?

Order! The hon. member should withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir. Let us differ sharply on this Bill, but let us keep the discussions on a businesslike level. [Interjections.]

Pious Japie!

It is not fair to waste the time of the House on personalities. The whole of the recent discussion has been a play on words. Hon. members opposite pretend that we want to smear the Government with something; we want to smear them with the words “Censorship Board”, with an ulterior motive.

Of course.

But surely we already have a Censor Board, and everybody knows it. All we are proposing is that the name should be retained as it is, for the simple reason that we already have it. The public and the world have already become reconciled to the fact that we have a Censor Board which confines itself mainly to keeping out undesirable literature. That is nothing new. How can they use the argument that we now want to accuse the Government of wanting a Censor Board? It is already there. We are satisfied with the censorship of undesirable material. The world is satisfied with it and most countries have it, but we believe that the new thing being created here now, viz. a more comprehensive Board of Control over spiritual matters and the circulation of ideas, will do South Africa infinite harm because it institutes control over the traditional freedoms of the citizen.

Did you have the same feelings in regard to the Potato Board and the Mealie Board?

Surely we cannot put the fundamental freedoms of democracy on the same level as mealies. It seems to me that the Minister is being too clever. The Government thought it would give a nice name to a dangerous thing. If it had wanted to be clever, it should simply have retained the old name. That would have avoided the impression that it is introducing a new form of control. [Time limit.]

I move—

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the words “Publications Control Board” in line 5, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Plewman and Mr. Barnett dropped.

Amendment in line 25, proposed by Mr. Durrant, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Noes—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. L; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché. Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment in line 52, proposed by Mr. Tucker, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Noes—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. L.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.: Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.