Mr. Chairman, the debate has now reached calmer waters after a fair amount of excitement yesterday, and I do not intend to disturb the calm atmosphere that has entered this debate.

Sir, during one’s lifetime one concludes important agreements, and in many cases the State expects that where one has to draw up documents of vital importance, one must comply with certain formalities, and in most cases, registration of such documents is required in the public interest. This is so in the case of a marriage contract. It is also the case when dealing with long-term contracts of rent and several other agreements. Sir, one of the most important documents anyone draws up in his lifetime is his testament. Owing to the way the position both in our country and in other countries has developed historically, a person may execute and conclude his testament with the minimum of formalities. It is in the interests of the State and of the community that the minimum formalities be required of a person drawing up a testament, in order to ensure that his freedom in this regard is not restricted. But several problems arise in this connection, too. Because we do not require of the testator that he comply with specific formalities, apart from the fact that he must have his testament properly drawn up and must have it signed by two witnesses, there is no provision in our law for the proper safe-keeping and preservation of such testaments and there is the problem, owing to the fact that very few requirements have to be complied with, of the possibility of irregularities occurring, because when it is really of importance to determine what is provided in his testament, the testator has already passed away.

I think that it is perhaps desirable for this matter to be investigated by the State, with the intention of ascertaining whether a system could not perhaps be developed according to which the proper safe-keeping of testaments may be ensured. Sir, we know that previously a system did exist according to which testaments could be voluntarily registered at the Master’s Office, but apparently this did not work properly in practice. We realize the problems that a system of compulsory registration would involve, but in my opinion it is nevertheless desirable that this matter be investigated in the public interest. However, the difficulty is foreseen that more problems may be created by a system of compulsory registration than can be solved, but I do think that it is worth the trouble for us to have a look at this.

Another problem is the fact that most of our people are very uninformed, in fact, unsuspecting, as far as the drawing up of their testaments is concerned. As a result we find that during 1973, in which a total of 33 000 estates were reported to the Master’s Offices, only 22 000 testaments were registered, which shows that a large number of our people die without leaving a proper testament. As a result, problems occur. In my opinion it is perhaps time for the department to co-operate with the various Law Societies and our schools to afford future citizens of our country proper guidance in this regard. Since a large number of our people die without leaving a testament, in the minute or two at my disposal I just want to refer to one matter that has been troubling me for a long time.

These are the provisions of the Succession Act, No. 13 of 1934 which, in my opinion, discriminates against the person who has been married in community of property as against the person who has been married by antenuptial contract. The provisions, in a nutshell, are that when a person dies intestate, in the case of a surviving spouse who had been married in community of property, and if the deceased spouse leaves any children, the surviving spouse will receive a child’s share or an amount which, together with his half-share of the joint estate, will amount to at least R10 000. However, where the parties had been married out of community of property, the surviving spouse, man or woman, succeeds in any event to a minimum amount of R10 000 without any reference to the separate assets of the surviving spouse. It has never been clear to me why the half-share of the surviving spouse who had been married in community of property must be taken into account in this case. It is of interest to note that where no children are left, but instead a brother, a parent or a sister, section 1(1)(c) does not discriminate either against the person who had been married in community of property or against the person who had not. It is my standpoint that a person married in community of property does not succeed to his half-share in the joint estate. It belongs to him or her, as the case may be, and I am of the opinion that that provision of section l(l)(a), in regard to the R10 000 including the half-share of the surviving spouse in the joint estate, ought to be abolished, because in my opinion it amounts to discrimination against the person married in community of property.

The hon. member for Barberton will forgive me if I do not follow him in regard to the matter he has raised. Last night I was unable to deal with my final point and I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with it now. I want to refer to the position of magistrates and certain aspects of their position. I will not repeat what I read last night, and which was read also by another hon. member, from the report of the Secretary. It says that magistrates are the senior representatives of the State in their respective districts and in the eyes of the general public they are authority personified. I leave it at that, but I believe that some attention must be given to the question of housing being made available to magistrates. Figures which were given in answer to questions during this session, show that there are 831 magistrates’ posts where official housing is available on the basis of 12½% of salary as rental but this applies to only 357.

The magistrate, as the hon. the Minister knows, is subject to frequent transfers. These transfers militate against their being able to purchase their own properties and taking advantage of the bond facilities which are available to them. I believe the State should consider the possibility of having official residences available for magistrates on transfer. I want to make a special plea to the Minister in regard to what are termed the “special chief magistrates”, the grade I chief magistrates, viz. those magistrates in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Durban and Port Elizabeth. These are men of tremendous standing and they are men who have great responsibilities. However, I do not believe that they are given the status, the recognized status to which they are entitled. I want to plead particularly in their case for official residences. It seems to me that there is no earthly reason why the Department of Community Development together with the Department of Education, which deals with historic buildings, should not see to it that at each of these centres a building of historic nature is purchased and restored and then used as the residence for the chief magistrate in these particular centres.

What do you want to do with all these old buildings?

I do not know why the hon. member for Potchefstroom talks like this. If the hon. member refers to the position in Simonstown, will he tell me that the fact that the magistrate and his family are living in an old historic building is doing any damage to that building? [Interjections.] Well, if that is the attitude of that side of the House, then let it be so.

I believe that the chief magistrates of these centres are entitled to official residences, and I have made a suggestion as to the way in which they can be provided with such residences. I say this because in their office these chief magistrates are expected—and the Minister is aware of this—to attend civic functions and are involved also with the consular and diplomatic corps representatives of foreign countries in South Africa. Not only do they not have an official residence but, what is more, must find houses for themselves. In addition, they do not get one cent as entertainment allowance, to which I believe they are entitled because of their particular status in the community. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for these two things, particularly in regard to the chief grade magistrates, viz. that permanent residences be made available for the chief magistrates in these different centres, and secondly, that he gives some attention to the provision of a modest entertainment allowance to these men so that they can reciprocate the official hospitality which they receive from time to time.

I am not going to comment at any length on the speech by the hon. member for Green Point, except to say that I am in agreement with him as far as my constituency Aliwal, and the town Aliwal North itself, are concerned. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the condition of the magistrate’s residence there leaves much to be desired. He will have noted this from correspondence, too. Now I feel that this point made by the hon. member for Green Point immediately affords me an opportunity to make a plea for a new house to be built for the magistrate at Aliwal North.

Sir, the engagement of their daughter to Matthew Henry, the later well-known English Bible interpreter, did not make the parents very happy. They were of the nobility; they were rich people, while Matthew Henry’s parents were poor and led a very simple life. But the daughter stuck to her guns and told her parents: “You ask where he comes from and therefore you despise him. I ask where he is going and I want to go there with him.” Sir, I mention this because it illustrates to us the importance of a prospect of the future, the hope there is for man that he may be better tomorrow than he was yesterday, that he can rise again after he has stumbled, that he can be faithful again after he has been unfaithful, that he can live again after he has, figuratively speaking, been dead—in the words of our well-known Afrikaans churchman and poet, Totius: “Al lyk ek nou so dubbeldood, en sal weer herontwaak.” (Although I seem to be quite dead now, I shall reawake.) In what I have mentioned, the perspective of the future, I also see the lesson we are given in the Gospel, of the woman of easy virtue who was accused by the Pharisees, the righteous ones, and for whom they had only one sentence, and that was death. She had been on the street and she had to die on the street. However, Christ gave her life after admonishing her severely. What do we find in this? Implicit in this was that there was again hope for the woman, that she had a future once more, without that future having necessarily to be an extension of her past. Her life would therefore be different in the future. I therefore feel that the person who wants to deal with the law only, only looks at the past, but that the person who, besides the law, also knows the Gospel, takes account of the future of man, the future that offers a better life.

I was heartened when I read in the Gazette that the hon. the Minister had appointed a commission of inquiry into our penal system, specifically commissioning them, inter alia, to make recommendations relating to the improvement of our penal system. It will be remembered that the last such commission was appointed about 26 years ago. It was a one-man commission under Mr. Justice Lansdowne. Many changes have occurred over the past 26 years and the view of and ideas about criminology have changed and for that reason, too, it is necessary for us to reconsider the sentences that must be passed on transgressors.

Last night the hon. member for Ermelo provided an interesting sidelight on the past and I, too, in my turn should like to provide a small sidelight on something I discovered in one of our older books. Only about 150 years ago an accused at the Cape was never confronted with his accusers. Everything was done by way of written statements taken from the witnesses. The prosecutor perused those written statements, circulated them among the judges and at the same time the judges sat as a jury. On the day of the trial the prosecutor read these written documents and the accused had no right of cross-examination, because everything was in black and white. The prosecutor added his legal arguments and then the judges had to decide. They decided by ballot and the subsequent majority vote found the accused either innocent or guilty. Only in the case of the death had there to be unanimity. In such a case the death sentence had to be carried out in public. It is of interest to note that the gallows stood in Buitenkant Street, close to the Casle. The death sentence was announced from the balcony of the Castle while the accused stood among a group of members of the garrison. After the sentence of death had been passed, a bell was rung loudly three times to inform the inhabitants of Cape Town that an execution was to take place and that they could come and have a look. After execution of the sentence the corpse was usually taken to a gallows that stood in Green Point at a place known as Gallows Hill. The corpse then hung on the gallows for a few days to deter everyone from committing a crime carrying the death sentence.

Today the head office of the Cape Traffic Department is situated at Gallows Hill.

For interest’s sake I should like to mention that the death sentence always ended with the words “cum expenses";other words, the person who had been sentenced to death had to pay all the costs of the trial and execution. He therefore had to pay the hangman’s expenses too. This was always a first claim against his estate. Those expenses had first to be paid before execution of the provisions of his will could be granted.

Fortunately, under the influence of the Church, a number of changes took place over the years. It was decided that a person could not be punished merely because he had committed a crime, but that the motive with which he had committed the crime should be fully taken into account. It therefore had to be determined whether there had been intent and whether there were other circumstances that had to be taken into account. Unfortunately, once a person had been found guilty, the penal system was still uncompromising. It was based on one idea only, viz. retribution. It was simply that the debt had to be paid back in pain. We therefore had the Old Testament idea of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Fortunately, it was decided in 1863 that a commission of inquiry be appointed. This commission found that the penal system should continue to be uncompromising. The person had to do hard labour, he had to sleep on hard floors and live under the most difficult circumstances in the prisons in order that he may reconsider. However, a change took place under Lord Gladstone in 1895. At that time it was provided that punishment should henceforth have more of an element of reform, together with the fact that the person should still be punished in the true sense of the word. From that point, matters have progressed over the years to the point at which we find ourselves now. I believe that the main task of this commission of inquiry will be to see that punishment should be more rehabilitative and more corrective. I want to agree with the hon. member for Jeppe who said yesterday that there were many people who were sentenced for certain offences for which they ought not to have been put in prison. There are many other constructive punishments that could be imposed. I want to tell hon. members how I view punishment. I view it in the light that we should organize our whole community into an organization that should be established for the advancement of the youth, an organization that will eliminate crime among the youth or which will introduce something constructive into their lives instead of their hanging around in the streets where destructive influences are brought to bear on them. However, if a person has to be admitted to prison, where rehabilitation and corrective work will be done, when he leaves the prison he has a major problem. When the prison door closes behind him, he sees sky-scrapers, moving vehicles and traffic lights and he finds himself in the middle of a mass of people among whom he is a speck. As a result that person feels lost and needs help. Here I request that the Department of Justice co-operate closely with the Department of Social Welfare so that the person leaving the prison may be helped to readjust in the community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the arguments which the hon. member for Aliwal raised in his speech, but I do want to tell him that I think he has expressed many good ideas and that they have a lot of merit.

The annual report of the Secretary of Justice mentions, inter alia, certain matters of great importance. I should like to express a few ideas in the House concerning one of them. This is the matter of the use of alcohol in our South African society. The use of alcohol is here to stay, whether we want to recognize and accept it, or not. The use of alcohol has become an inseparable part of the social pattern and the social intercourse of our people in South Africa. Along with the use of alcoholic liquor, however, the really alarming and indisputably tragic fact of the increasing abuse of liquor, also arises. I shall mention only one of the many grave realities facing us in this regard.

The number of convictions caused by drunkenness among all races has risen from 108 000 in 1967-’68 to reach the enormous total of 124 849 in 1971-’72. Other factors, too, are known to us. However, it is logical for these things to occur, particularly if we bear in mind the increasing consumption of liquor that is very clear from consumer expenditure In 1967, more than R318 million was spent on liquor. Five years later, in 1972, the figure was R583,6 million, an increase of R264,8 million or 83%. Since 1967 the consumption of natural wine has risen by 58% to almost 2 000 000 hectolitres. Over the same period the consumption of beer increased by 97,3% to more than 3 000 000 hectolitres. I concede that our population has also increased substantially over this period, but this nevertheless remains a significant increase in the pattern of liquor consumption among our people.

Sir, it is not my aim, in discussing the alarming realities that face us, to join issue with our producers or with the liquor trade. On the contrary, as with any other product, there can definitely be no objection to the cultivation and sale of an agreeable product such as this, as long as it is used judiciously. Here I should very much like to emphasize strongly, and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister also mentioned this yesterday in regard to liquor advertisements, that what is involved is the correct and moderate consumption of liquor.

It is with much gratitude that one takes cognizance of attempts made in our society to educate people to use liquor correctly and in moderation. It is with gratitude, too, that one takes cognizance of the existence of certain organizations which attempt to rehabilitate alcoholics. An honest and objective consideration of these much-appreciated efforts, however, forces one to the conclusion that, owing to lack of the necessary money, we are definitely not doing enough to combat this evil. In my opinion, therefore, the question could rightly be asked whether it is not time for further and drastic measures to be adopted for the prevention of liquor abuse and the curing of alcoholism. The present state of affairs is not going to improve; on the contrary it is steadily growing worse.

As far as prevention is concerned, the major consideration is a process of education among our people concerning the use of liquor. This applies to all population groups in South Africa. Perhaps I am expressing this a little strongly, but broadly spoken, it may be said that every user of liquor is a potential abuser and is, ultimately, a potential alcoholic. Fortunately this does not affect the majority of our people. It is for that very reason that I am of the opinion that it would be unfair and illogical to expect of the general public, of the taxpayers, to provide money for this process of education and rehabilitation. On the contrary, it would appear to be far more logical and correct to expect the person who runs the risk of abusing liquor himself to pay for his education and, where applicable, for his rehabilitation, too, in one way or another. The biggest consumer ought therefore to contribute the most. This can best be done by allowing him to contribute according to his consumption.

Seen from this angle, I therefore want to make a plea that the National Liquor Board be empowered by law to impose a levy of, say, one cent per bottle of liquor sold in South Africa, as a form of insurance against abuse and the possible consequences of such abuse. Based on the volume of liquor per bottle sold during 1972—I emphasize per bottle, because this ought only to apply to outside and home consumption—between R4 million and R5 million per annum could be collected in this way. This amount should be sufficient to pay for continued study and investigation of the causes and consequences of liquor abuse. It should also be sufficient to perform the necessary task of education aimed at the prevention of liquor abuse and to pay for the rehabilitation of alcoholics. This is no new idea—there are already many forms of insurance and assurance today with the very aim of assisting the individual when he gets into difficulties. In my opinion the contribution we should make in this way would be an extremely small price to pay for the obvious benefits which would also be of cardinal importance to our very large non-White population—which is being exposed to these dangers to an ever-increasing extent.

Sir, the problem today is a vast one, and owing to the steadily increasing consumption of liquor, as I have indicated, by White, Brown and Black in this country, it may be expected that if we do nothing about it, in the years that lie ahead it may take on really alarming proportions. I trust, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to giving favourable consideration to this idea.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the debate on the Votes Justice and Prisons, there are a number of questions as yet still unanswered by the hon. Minister. There are a number of matters which one can say if one wants to be kind, the hon. the Minister definitely avoided last night. But I still hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to these matters when he replies to this debate. In the first place. I think the hon. the Minister owes the judiciary of South Africa a repudiation of the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. That hon. member made a ten-minute speech in this debate last night and in the whole of that speech he questioned the judgment of Mr. Justice Hiemstra in the Leeuwkop Prison trial.

Hear, hear!

Not only did he question it, he also said it provided ammunition for the enemies of South Africa overseas. He suggested that there were certain aspects … [Interjection.] Yes, he did. I shall send his Hansard over to you The hon. member also suggested that there were aspects of the judgment which were not based on fact. I wish the hon. the Minister would give me his attention. Towards the end of his speech he went so far, in fact, that the Chair had to ask him to withdraw a statement. The hon. member for East London was, consequently, unable to answer him because of the fact that he withdrew that statement and apologized for making it. I do not think it is good enough that this can happen and go unchallenged and unrepudiated. I hope the hon. the Minister will, in fact, repudiate that member and say that he does not in any way questions the judgment, the findings and the reasons for the findings of the judge. Apart from the impertinence of that hon. member as a practising lawyer saying that, he should know better than anyone else that the only one who can judge what has happened is the person who has read all the evidence. The evidence has not even been transcribed yet.

I can assure you I have read all the evidence.

All the evidence?

You are not a judge.

You mean all the evidence has been transcribed and that you have read it?

Are you better than the judges of the Appelate Division?

I have it in my office.

Mr. Chairman, I am very serious about this. If the hon. the Minister allows this to go unnoticed, it would be a disservice to the …

That is in the hands of the Chair.

I am not talking to the Chair. I am talking to you as the Minister of Justice. [Interjections.] You are the person in whom the control of Justice in this country resides; you are the protector of our system. Justice resides in the hon. the Minister. It is therefore his duty to repudiate that hon. gentleman.

You must bear in mind that my remarks referred only to certain obiter dicta…

The whole tenor of your speech was an impertinence. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister was last night able to avoid answering two questions which we had put to him, by confusing two issues. Two issues were put to him. The first is that when he signs a banning order, a warrant for civil death, he should in fact know that the facts upon which he makes his decision are correct. He knows that if you wish to determine whether a fact is correct or not, and indeed whether something is a fact or not, you test it by examination of the evidence, by hearing the evidence of the other side and by testing that evidence. Then, with an objective mind, you come to a decision. He knows very well that police evidence itself which, on the face of it, is true and which causes a prosecution to take place, is very often rejected not only as being unreliable but very often as being untrue once it has been subjected to that test. We asked the hon. the Minister whether he would not set up a tribunal to sift the facts for him. He said in the debate that he hears the other side. When he was asked whether he ever calls for the other side’s view, he said “of course”. Surely this is not correct, Sir? Does he call for the other side’s view in every case?

Obviously not in every case.

Well, then why does he say “of course”?

The Act says that I have to satisfy myself, and I do so.

Sir, I am suggesting that the hon. the Minister cannot satisfy himself with a one-sided view. That is my point.

Read the Act, and you will see what my job is.

That is not the point. I am making a suggestion to you, which you can reject. If you do so, you must give reasons for that rejection.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister then confuses the issue again. He was also asked, in so far as detention and interrogation are concerned, why he does not use section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1966, which provides that the police may detain a person for interrogation, but that after 14 days they have to go to a judge and satisfy him that there are reasons for that person’s further detention for interrogation. The judge can then decide whether there are or are not such good reasons. If there are not, he can order the release of the person. If there are good reasons, he orders that the person may be further detained, and he determines the conditions under which he will be detained. Under section 6 of the Terrorism Act you take a man in, you can hold him indefinitely and you do not ever have to go near a court. The question the hon. the Minister is asked, is: Why is section 22 not used? Why is section 6 always used, in circumstances where judges are freely available? What is his answer to that? He confuses the issue and pretends that what we are asking for is an inquiry before that power is exercised. The issue is very simple. It is not a question of whether or not detention for the purpose of interrogation should take place. The law provides for that. The question is: Why does he not use section 22, a provision passed by this Government in 1966? We want an answer on that.

You will get your answer.

Well, I hope we shall get a better answer than we got last night. Sir, there are two implications in this connection. Either the hon. the Minister feels that he cannot trust a judge to make such a decision, or he feels that after 14 days he will not in fact have enough evidence to justify holding anyone any longer. Those are the implications that flow from a decision to use section 6 only and not to use section 22. I want the hon. the Minister to answer this in his capacity as Minister of Justice, because he is also the Minister of Police.

I am not going to “ping-pong”, but in which capacity are you addressing me?

I am addressing you now, under this Vote, in your capacity as the Minister of Justice.

Then my job is to look at the position every month, to look at the papers and establish the reasons …

It is not a case of looking at something every month. What one wants here is a policy decision. That is the hon. gentleman who makes the policy and the policy decision we suggest should be that section 22 be used whenever it can be used, instead of section 6. The argument that we have heard in the past in this regard is that there are circumstances when you cannot use section 22, for instance if you are up in the bush somewhere. Obviously in such a case you cannot use section 22, and you then use section 6. But all the arrests and detentions that have taken place recently have taken place in the urban areas, and in these cases section 22 could have been used.

Finally, let me say that we reject the hon. the Minister’s reasons for saying that a judicial commission of inquiry should not be held into the prisons system as a result of the Leeuwkop judgment. To say that it will take six years is absolute poppycock, and the hon. the Minister knows it. He read out several reports here, all saying that conditions in various goals were all right. These reports were by judges who had gone there recently. This can therefore be done, and the hon. the Minister knows it can be done.

You are disagreeing with the judge now.

I am not disagreeing with the judge’s judgment in court on the facts. No, Sir, the hon. the Minister must not try to get away with a silly little remark like that. The fact of the matter is that as long as you have this iron curtain around your prisons you have a double duty to ensure that you take even greater care that nothing untoward happens behind that iron curtain. I am talking now about section 44. You have a special duty then to see that it does not happen. When it does happen, it should cause such concern that there should be a general inquiry. This is even more important because, firstly, the prisoners are helpless and, secondly, the public is unaware of what is happening. I believe that it is unfair to the overwhelming majority of the warders in South Africa, the prison officials, that a stain of this nature, as the judge called it, should besmirch their future and that a shadow should be cast upon their legitimate and proper activities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by replying to the last speaker, since he raised matters of importance in regard to policy. He asked me to repudiate the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that it is not my task as Minister of Justice to read members moral lectures on how to make their speeches. If he is in any way an advocate, that hon. member will know that a judge is quite capable—they are far more robust than he thinks—to defend himself. The judge gives his judgment in writing with a purpose, which is that people can go to the evidence to see what he said. On how many occasions has that hon. member stood before an Appeal Court and criticized the judgments given by judges? Why should the judge be so oversensitive? I have no doubt at all that the hon. judge will find what happened here very amusing. Why should it then be taken as seriously as the hon. member for Durban North wanted it to be? Let me tell the hon. member that I did not make that speech.

Do you agree with it?

No. I made it clear in my speech that I was not levelling criticism at the hon. judge. I accepted his judgment. In the course of his address he made certain obiter dicta, and if other members wish to examine the evidence and do not agree with the judge, why should I quarrel with them now? The hon. member is making himself appear quite ridiculous with such a statement. Does he expect me to examine the speech of every member to see what he wrote in his speech? Should I ask every member what he is going to say in this House, to make certain that he does not tread on any corns? The hon. member for Durban North must not act in a ridiculous manner in this House. He must not expect me to be the ombudsman for everyone in regard to Justice. These people are not afraid to defend themselves. If the hon. member prejudiced the hon. judge in any way, really offended him in his dignity, then it was the task of the Chair to call him to order. I am not here in that capacity. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban North again that I do not agree with the way in which the hon. member for Pretoria Central made certain statements. However, he has the right to do so in this House. The Chair is there to determine how far he should and should not go. I stated from my bench that I accepted the decision of the judge. I am arguing as if it were 100% correct. However, I want to reiterate that if I were an advocate in a court and had had to take the case on appeal, I would also, legitimately, have asked in court where this or that was stated in the evidence. After all, it is one’s right to examine the evidence, the written judgment. What worries me in regard to the hon. member for Durban North is that when he uses the word “judge”, he is always posing. When he speaks in that fashion, one gets the impression that these people came down from heaven. A judge, however, is just such a person as the hon. member and I. Of course he has a very high status, for which I respect him, but does the hon. member want to tell me that a judge cannot make a mistake? Does he want to tell me that a judge cannot draw an incorrect conclusion from the facts?

That is not the point.

Yes, it is the point. The hon. member wants me to criticize a junior member of the House of Assembly here as Minister of Justice, and I say to him that every member is acting on his own responsibility when he makes speeches. I cannot vouch for other members. The hon. member may castigate me for what I said and did, but he must not ask me to censure other members; that I cannot do.

He said we were helping the enemies of South Africa.

Take another look at Hansard; then the hon. member will see what he said.

That is what he said.

I am asking the hon. member to read it out, or to give it to me so that I can read it out.

Read it yourself.

I was also sitting here listening to him speaking …

Order! I want to ask the hon. the Minister to leave the matter at that, for according to the rules of this House the judgment made by a judge may not be discussed, whether favourably or critically. This can only be done by way of a substantive motion. I think that there has now been sufficient discussion on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but I want to say to you with all due respect that this hon. member should consequently also have been called to order before, but he was allowed to say these things, and I am simply replying to what he said. He asked me to reply to what he said, but I abide by your ruling.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban North put the question: “When he signs a banning order, should he know that the facts are correct?” I have a certain task to perform in terms of the Act when I sign a banning order, and if the hon. member has read the Act at all, which I doubt, then he will know that the Act provides that I shall satisfy myself. That is the full extent of my task, and I told him that I do in fact satisfy myself before I sign a restriction order. I am quite prepared to debate in this House precisely what I do when such an order is submitted to me. I can give the hon. member the assurance again—more than that I cannot do, and more than that I am not going to do—that I am extremely careful when facts are submitted to me in support of a restriction order. I satisfy myself, as the Act requires of me, that those facts are correct, and if it is in the interests of the country, then I sign that restriction order. The hon. member said: “It is a living death”, but surely that is absolute nonsense. That restriction order sometimes prohibits the person concerned from holding meetings. There is an entire spectrum of possibilities which may be covered under a restriction order, and I do want to say this to the hon. member—and he may regard it as a policy statement—that since the introduction of restriction orders, it has become possible for us in South Africa to adopt a course of peace and decency. If we had not had these restrictions, chaos would have been unleashed in South Africa many years ago already. As far as national security is concerned, I can say to the hon. member that the system of restriction is a very satisfactory system; I am stating this categorically.

You have still not go the point.

Sir, that hon. member did not put his point. The hon. member is now asking me why we are using section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act, in terms of which the accused must be brought before a judge within 14 days, and why we are using section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Sir, the people who are trying to track down the underminers of South Africa are police officers. I am not the person who decides in which cases they should detain a person under section 6, and in which cases they should arrest a person under section 22. I am not prepared to debate all over again the principles of these two Acts in the debate on this Vote every year. We placed section 22 on the Statute Book in 1966. Subsequently, in 1969, we placed section 6 on the Statue Book. In both those cases there was a full debate, and on each occasion the principle was supported by that side of the House. Now the hon. member comes here and wants to rehash the question of why section 6 is necessary, why section 22 is necessary, when we should use section 6 and when section 22. Now he wants to place on my shoulders the burden of deciding, and telling the Police that they should detain the person under section 22 or under section 6. But the Act states that a policeman may decide for himself whether he wants to detain a person under section 6 or under section 22. Is the hon. member aware of this? The Act also states that a magistrate, when a police officer has brought in such a person, shall visit such a person periodically, and once a month the policeman who is detaining a person under section 6 shall submit to the Minister of Justice the reasons for his wanting to detain such person for a longer period. That is my task, Sir, as Minister of Justice, and I am performing that task. I regularly receive full reports. Frequently I return a report with further inquiries. I want to know, for example, why certain things have been done; whether this or that is the case, and when will the matter have been finalized. To those I then obtain full replies. This is furnished to me in proper written form, and I then satisfy myself whether that person should be detained for a little while longer, or whatever. But I can assure the hon. member that I have absolute control over all those cases. But I am most certainly not going to do all the administrative work in the departments. In all fairness, I really do not think that the hon. member can expect that of me.

I come now to the third point which is the request of the hon. member for a judicial inquiry. This morning he is once again asking for a judicial inquiry. The hon. member is one of those people to whom one can explain as much as one likes, and who, after having explained something to him, he simply says: “You do not get the point.” On the other hand, if you have in fact made something clear to him, he said it is “poppycock”, and then, to crown it all, he laughs about it. But yesterday he also felt a little ashamed of himself. But why does he say it is “poppycock” when I tell him that it will take six years? He did not tell me that. He simply said: “It is poppycock to tell us it will take six years”. Why does he say that? I said why. I said one should be reasonable. These people will work for approximately 40 weeks in a year, i.e. for 10 months. I said there were 282 prisons which would have to be examined in detail by such a commission of inquiry, and I divided the one figure into the other. This works out at six years’ work. Now, in what way is this “poppycock”? How long does the hon. member think a judicial inquiry will take to go through 282 prisons and establish what had happened there and what the practices are, what the customs are, what the officers there are doing and what other people there are doing? Let the hon. member tell me this. After all, he tells me it is “poppycock”, and I say it is not. In this way he simply wants to dismiss my entire argument, by saying that it is “poppycock”, but I say to him that he proved nothing. I challenged the hon. member to give me an estimate of how long such a commission of inquiry would sit. I want to hear, and I want him to give me his substantiated reasons for that. What do you say, how long would it take?

It depends entirely on how the commission goes about it.

Of course, it depends entirely on that, but surely the commission must go from one gaol to the other. They simply cannot take just Leeuwkop as the prototype of all gaols.

Why should they have to go from one gaol to another?

Of course they must go. You have to go and find out what the practice is at each one and you want to be able to correlate these findings.

*Sir, you see, we are arguing in circles, but the hon. member will run from this House to make another statement to the Press on a matter which he was not able to debate in the House. That is what will happen now. With that, I hope, I have dealt with the hon. member.

I come now to the hon. member for Green Point. There is one reply I forgot to give to the hon. member yesterday, but I gladly do so now. The hon. member asked me whether the central deeds register had been completed yet. No, it has not yet been completed, for we are still feeding the local deeds registries facts into the computer, and this will take a considerable time. We are also ascertaining, as I said in the House yesterday evening, precisely what areas of work the various deeds registries cover. When we have all these things ready, and we have computerized all those statistics properly, we will be able to feed it into the central register. But I am afraid it will still take a very long time. It does not seem to me as though it will be possible to do this soon.

The hon. member asked whether we could not place official dwellings at the disposal of magistrates. As far as I am concerned, I am personally in favour of providing senior officials with official dwellings. I agree with the hon. member that a chief magistrate in particular, but also ordinary magistrates, hold, and have to maintain, positions of status. In a major city such as Cape Town the problem is that there may perhaps be 20, 30 and even more magistrates. If official residences were now to be made available to junior magistrates as well, it would immediately be asked what the position of the Attorney-General and his staff in this regard is. Other officials as well, who are on a par with magistrates, will be entitled to official residences. I must point out that in rural towns with fewer than 10 000 inhabitants, we make official residences available to magistrates. Usually a chief magistrate has an official residence at his disposal. I shall certainly investigate the full implications of the hon. member’s suggestion, for I am sympathetically disposed to his suggestion. I am in full agreement with the hon. member, and as far as I personally am concerned, I can give him the assurance that I should like to provide as many of the senior and even junior officials as possible with official residences. This applies in particular to officials who are subject to frequent transfers. A person who remains in a certain town permanently, can buy himself a house there, but a magistrate is from time to time transferred to other towns. I have frequently told magistrates that it will not pay them to buy houses since they will subsequently have to let their houses. They will only be able to live permanently in their houses after they have retired from the service. Those staff members who are subject to transfers ought, in my opinion, to be provided with official residences. This is, however, a matter which has many implications, and I shall have to go into it. I think that is what the hon. member wanted to convey to me this morning.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Jeppe quoted very interesting particulars when he discussed legal aid. The hon. member knows that I am very sympathetically disposed to legal aid. I shall investigate the implications and try to make more legal aid available, if that is possible. Usually there are adequate funds available, and up to now we have made as much money available as the Legal Aid Board requested. They are at liberty to budget for increased expenditure, and we shall expand legal aid as far as we possibly can.

The hon. member quoted very interesting figures in regard to a certain court which requires only 90 seconds to hear an accused person. I do not mind how rapidly a hearing is disposed of, as long as the hearing is fair. The hon. member is aware of a former Transvaal judge who was able to dispose of a murder case very easily within the space of an hour, and I have never heard of anyone complaint about his judgments. That judge not only considered the facts; he also had a feeling for the law, and consequently he was able to penetrate to the heart of the case immediately. He ensured that justice was done, and as long as justice is done, the speed with which a case is disposed of does not worry me at all.

I merely mentioned the figures for the sake of interest.

I realize that. I found the figures very interesting, and I thank the hon. member for them.

The hon. member for Barberton asked whether it would not be possible to make provision for the maintenance of wills. I think this is not only a positive suggestion, but also a substantial one. I shall pursue the matter in the department and see whether anything of this nature may be devised. As far as the provisions of the Succession Act are concerned, I also want to thank the hon. member for Barberton very sincerely for the interesting point which he raised. I agree with him. This is a point which I shall convey to the law commission for further investigation. I think that he stated his two points very well.

The hon. member for Aliwal made a speech of a more general nature, but a speech which I nevertheless found very interesting. He also requested that we should erect a new building at Residensie. I cannot promise out of hand that this request will be acceded to, but I shall definitely go into it. As far as the historical facts which the hon. member furnished are concerned, I found them very interesting. I think that it was a fine and constructive speech, which was enjoyed by everyone in the House.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg, very fittingly, concluded the debate on this side of the House by advocating countermeasures against alcoholism. We are all concerned about that. I agree with the hon. member that wherever liquor is distributed, an attempt should be made to meet the reasonable needs—as it is consequently defined in the Act—of our people, but not to meet the needs of those who are alcoholics. Where liquor is abused, the National Liquor Board gives serious attention to the withdrawal of the licence, the amendment thereof, or warnings to the firms concerned. The hon. member furnished an example of how an amount of money can be obtained by imposing a levy on each bottle. He said that we should use that money for the rehabilitation of people who have become alcoholics. This interesting and sound proposal was previously in 1970 advocated in the department itself. A submission was made to the Ministry of the time, and the Cabinet considered it. However, there were so many related aspects that the Cabinet decided not to proceed with the matter at that stage. This is really a matter which should be the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, which could of course request more money from the Treasury if more money should be required for those services. Nevertheless I think this is a point which the liquor trade can pursue itself. Instead of passing the costs onto the consumer, the liquor trade can see whether they cannot make a contribution to the rehabilitation of alcoholics out of their profits. They can see whether they cannot collect larger sums of money among themselves, since they are making a great deal of money from liquor. This money can then be paid over to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for utilization in those services. In any case I want to thank the hon. member very much for his very interesting contribution.

Before I finally conclude, Sir, you must permit me to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate, including the hon. member for Durban North, for the contributions they made. This debate was very illuminative.

Including the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member behind me says I should include the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton declines and says that I need not thank her.

I really do not care.

I shall thank the hon. member in any case, even though I am wasting my time since she does not want my thanks.

Thank you; it is very nice of you.

I want to thank all the hon. members; I want to thank them for the contributions they made in this House. I found all these things very instructive. Hon. members will also permit me to thank my department for another year’s hard work. The same applies to the Secretary for Justice and to other officials whose names I have written down here.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider the restructuring of the Prisons’ Regulations in so far as they concern educational privileges and the visits of persons other than first-degree relatives of the prisoners.

At present we are going into all the points in detail which the hon. member was so kind as to bring to my attention at the time when she requested an interview. We shall make matters as easy as possible for people. We are, after all, not there to oppress people, but to try to rehabilitate them. As regards those who are being detained, that is what we are there to do. However, this question is not under consideration at the moment. But what the result is going to be, I cannot say at this stage. In addition, I can also say to the hon. member that I intend giving a little more attention to the prisons position when Parliament is in recess. I shall avail myself of the opportunity of paying a personal visit to most of the prisons I can get to. I shall personally convey these things we have debated here to the persons in charge of those prisons.

I was engaged in conveying a few words of well-deserved thanks to my officials when the hon. member for Houghton asked her question. I have in mind the Secretary for Justice, who has to contend daily with a difficult Minister. I want to thank him for his patience, his willingness to work hard, and for the hard work he has done during the past year. The same applies to the Commissioner of Prisons, the judges who are overloaded with work, as well as the magistrates, law advisers, attorneys-general, clerks of the court, deeds registries and estate divisions. If there is anyone I have omitted, I apologize immediately, for I have not done so deliberately. I can very honestly state that the quantity of work which is being done by this department has really been of great support to me, and I want to thank them for it.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 45.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to ask for your permission, and the patience of hon. members, to make a few more announcements in connection with the Police Force before the start of this debate.

The first announcement is connected with Gen. Crous and Lt.-Gen. Prinsloo. The traditional mode of promotion in the corps of officers of the S.A. Police is mainly according to seniority in rank. As hon. members know, it has in fact happened in recent years that the next most senior officer from the corps of officers was appointed to the post of Commissioner of the S.A. Police. Owing to a combination of circumstances it often happens that such appointments are made at a stage when the officer in question has almost reached the retirement age of 60 years. In order to promote efficiency and with a view to continuity it was necessary, therefore, to extend the period of service of such an officer by one or two years. For the above reasons I have decided to extend the period of service of the present Commissioner, Gen. T. J. Crous, who reached the retirement age of 60 years on 30 April 1974 and whose period of service has already been extended to 30 November 1974, by a further period of 12 months with effect from 1 December 1974. However, I want to make it clear that future appointments to the post of Commissioner, as well as to other senior posts in the control structure if the S.A. Police, will be made in accordance with ability and merit, with due regard to but not necessarily on the basis of seniority. This may result in those officers who are best equipped for the task being appointed to certain posts, even though they may still be relatively young men. For the same reasons I have decided to extend the period of service of the present chief of the detective branch, Lt.-Gen. G. L. Prinsloo, who will be reaching the retirement age of 60 years on 31 May 1975, by a further period of 12 months with effect from 1 June 1975.

The second announcement I want to make is in connection with national servicemen in the Police Force. In the light of the ever-expanding duties, including counter-insurgence duties, resting on the S.A. Police, the manpower shortage and the annual losses of manpower in the Force, the Government has decided to allot annually 500 national servicemen to the S.A. Police for training and subsequent integration as full and equal members of the Force for periods of one or two years. Allotments will be made by way of two intakes of 250 each in July and December every year. National servicemen in the police will, during a training period of six months, receive basically the same remuneration as do the ordinary national servicemen, plus free accommodation, training, uniforms and other conditions of service. However, for the rest of their period of service they will be entitled to the same conditions of service as are permanent members of the Force. After the expiry of a period of service of two years, such members are exempted from national service and their names are placed on a reserve list. Then their services may only be employed further in the case of an emergency in terms of section 34(1)(7) of the Police Act of 1958. National servicemen performing one year’s service only are, on the other hand, subject to four annual call-ups of 30 days per year. Of course, such persons are free to apply at any time, whether during training or afterwards, for permanent appointments in the South African police, in which case their position will be the same as that of any other member of the Force. Any national serviceman who, prior to his period of service expiring, is dismissed from the South African Police or is for any reason found to be unfit for service in the Force, will be referred back to the South African Defence Force for being dealt with further by them. Apart from the success the police may achieve through their recruitment campaign from the ranks of these national servicemen and apart from the valuable services which members of this unit may render in emergencies, the establishment of the above scheme will, over the years, contribute to turning numerous young men into well-disciplined citizens and to creating on the part of the public at large a spirit of goodwill towards the Force, of law-abidingness and of crime-consciousness. Amendments to the Police Act with a view to launching the proposed scheme will be introduced as soon as during the next session of Parliament, and the first intake will take place during June 1975.

I should like to give the assurance—and this is very important—that no such national serviceman in the Police Force, irrespective of his period of service, will perform form any border duty unless, of course, he joins the Force permanently; in other words, this means that parents who allow their children to join the South African Police as national servicemen need not think that their children will be sent to the border. That will not happen. These national servicemen will spend their normal period of national service in the South African Police Force, and will then be released to go to whatever place they want to go to. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Defence for his willingness to make this concession in order to promote a common objective.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to make known, by way of a statement, information which has already appeared in the Press by way of questions and replies. In order to eliminate the disruption of activities at police stations in the Republic owing to border duty, it has been decided to establish as soon as is practicable a corps of volunteers and to train them intensively so that they may gradually take over the task of guarding the border from the existing Police Force. This corps is being constituted mainly from the ranks of unmarried members, or even married members volunteering for continuous periods of border duty lasting six or 12 months. Periodical exemption from duty for two weeks every three months will be granted so as to enable members of the corps to look after their affairs here. Members of this corps will be replaced at their stations by other members so that there will not be a continual fluctuation in numerical strength at the various stations. This will bring about a calmer atmosphere at the stations. As the fight against terrorism in Rhodesia is, owing to the use of war weapons, increasingly showing a tendency towards a kind of conventional warfare, the duties of members of the South African Police being performed there under extremely dangerous and unfavourable circumstances are by no means comparable any more with the ordinary police duties in the Republic. For that reason it has been decided to pay members of the corps additional remuneration in the form of allowances and bonuses. For the information of hon. members, I furnish more particulars of these allowances. A married White person receives R7-50 per day plus a bonus of R480 and R1 200 upon completion of six months’ and 12 months’ uninterrupted service, respectively. Non-Whites, married and unmarried, receive R4-80 per day plus a bonus of R360 and R900 upon completion of six months’ and 12 months’ uninterrupted service, respectively.

Apart from the benefits I have already mentioned, I have every confidence that the implementation of this scheme will counter the high rate of discharge as well as the stream of representations and complaints from members of the Force, their families and the public. I may just mention what a great deal of progress has already been made with constituting this corps, and that it will in general meet with a great deal of approval in the Police Service itself.

Mr. Chairman, once again we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has made these announcements to the House. I shall deal briefly with these three announcements. In the first place we are pleased that the Commissioner, Gen. Crous, has had his period of service extended for a year. This matter has been raised by us before, that by and large commissioners attain this post at a time when they have perhaps only two years or so in which to occupy that position before they retire. They therefore seldom have time to complete any projects that they have. We have come to know the Commissioner as a person who is very helpful and who is very forthright, and we are delighted that he will continue for another year. The same obviously applies to Gen. Prinsloo as well, as far as this side of the House is concerned. The hon. member for Umlazi will deal with senior staff matters when he takes part in this debate.

We are also pleased with the scheme which the hon. the Minister has announced, in terms of which 500 national servicemen will be allotted to the Police Force every year. Indeed, as the hon. the Minister knows, there have been negotiations in this regard between his predecessor, the Minister of Defence and the official Opposition before. We are therefore pleased that he has been able to implement this scheme. One assumes—and I should like the hon. the Minister to assure us on this—that the system of balloting will, so far as it is possible only those who express a preference and who in fact volunteer to do this, will be so allotted. Apart from the fact that there is a shortage in respect of the Police Force, this scheme will also build up a reserve, in the field of our national security, which is as important as any other field, of people who are trained as fully-fledged policemen with all the responsibility they will acquire as the result of their training.

The Special Police Unit for service in Rhodesia is obviously something that has to be welcomed as well. The situation that obtains at the moment is of course somewhat unfair to a number of policemen inasmuch as those who have experience and the training are called upon more often than others. One has not been able to get a general spread right through, so that everybody in the Force in fact does equal service. By the same token I do hope that the hon. the Minister is going to be able to get enough volunteers for this scheme in order to make it work. The inducements certainly are such that I have no doubt that he will. But if he does not, he will be obliged to fill these places in the way in which they are being filled at the moment. In this regard a period at the border of three months for a married man is, I think, generally considered to be too long, so far as the present system is concerned. One hopes that this scheme will work sufficiently well for policemen who are doing normal duties not to be imposed upon as they have been in the past.

The South African Police Force has over the past year operated in more fields than one would ever have expected any police force to operate in. Quite apart from their job of keeping law and order, the S.A. Police Force, I suppose more than any other police force in the world, is called upon to do more things and come to the aid of more people in more circumstances than one could possibly imagine. If there are floods the police are called. No matter what happens, the police are called in to assist.

I think that what the past year has taught us as well is that our South African Police Force has become, and will become even more so in the future, a major factor in the field of race relations in South Africa. I think that the strikes which took place last year in Durban were evidence of this fact. There is no doubt that the way that the South African Police handled those strikers, the people involved, earned them the respect and gratitude of the whole country. Handled differently, the whole thing could have gone awry and resulted in a major catastrophe for South Africa. But the way in which they handled these strikers, the manner in which they handled the people concerned, and the sympathy that they had for them, as well as their knowledge of the people concerned, are worthy of the highest praise and merit the thanks of everyone.

In view, therefore, of this situation we have, because of the growing importance of the South African Police in all these things, I think it has become a matter of urgency that something be done about the emoluments paid to members of the Police Force. At the moment the emoluments paid to members of the Police Force are determined by the Public Service Commission. When the hon. the Minister of the Interior was asked whether the Public Service Commission in making recommendations in regard to salaries, treated the army Permanent Force personnel, the members of the South African Police and the officials of other Government departments on the same basis, his answer was in the affirmative. They are all treated on the same basis. Then he set out the various criteria which were applied, such as working conditions, particular requirements, minimum age, the possibility of being competitive on the labour market and so on. We have raised this matter before but I believe that the situation has now become urgent.

We cannot compare the work of a policeman with that of any other member of the public service. It cannot be compared with the work of anyone else at all. What has to happen here is that the payment of members of the South African Police Force must be divorced from the Public Service Commission. To begin with, the training that a policeman is given, the experience that he gains, is absolutely priceless and irreplaceable. What is alarming is the number of trained policemen who leave the Force. The figures over the past few years in this regard are alarming. There is one main reason why they leave the Force and that is simply because the salaries and conditions of service are just not good enough. When a man gets married and starts raising family, the sort of remuneration paid to a policeman is not sufficiently adequate to enable him to continue in the competitive world of our time.

Sir, over the last few years, between 1966 and 1972—to give you some idea how serious this is—11 489 men left the Force. There were a few dismissals, of course, but in the main the men who left the Force purchased their discharge. In the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 4 464 men purchased their discharge from the South African Police Force. Sir, this is an alarming state of affairs, and the only way in which there is going to be any basis for altering the situation is going to be a completely new approach in respect of the remuneration of members of the Police Force. There is no reason whatever—and I hope that the hon. the Minister will react to this—why the Public Service Commission should even attempt to compare the police and their duties with those of other public servants in fixing their scales of pay.

I know that this is not the Minister’s fault. I know that the Public Service Commission does now come within the ambit of his administration or duty, but the hon. the Minister should persuade his Cabinet colleagues that the police must be divorced from the Public Service. When you compare the pay of policemen in the South African Railways and Harbours Service with the pay of policemen in the South African Police Force, you find that there is still a tremendous disparity between the two. The railway policeman, who has fixed hours and who enjoys all sorts of other advantages which members of the Force do not have, are paid more in almost every instance than the members of the South African Police Force who have no such thing as fixed hours. They are on call 24 hours a day. [Time expired.]

Sir, the Vote we are discussing here today is an important one, and I should just like to refer to the important announcements made by the hon. the Minister. They are extremely important announcements and personally I am indeed sorry that the hon. the Minister did not provide us with more information at this stage for debating purposes. I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister—perhaps he could react to this in his reply—that the assurance given that these 500 national servicemen will not serve on the border, gives rise to concern, since other national servicemen in the country can be obliged to do border service in terms of the provisions of the Defence Act. I am just a little worried that this assurance could open certain doors to people, doors that should really remain closed as far as national service and the performance of national service are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the annual report and to certain matters arising therefrom, and to begin with, I want to convey my hearty thanks to the Commissioner of Police and his staff for the illuminating, interesting and pleasant visit arranged last year for members of Parliament on both sides of the House. They were two very interesting days; a great deal of trouble was taken with the visit, and subsequently the Commissioner made the friendly gesture of obtaining for us a fine photo album which we greatly appreciated. There are a few aspects of the report to which I should like to make direct reference. They are perhaps of lesser importance, but one would nevertheless like to have clarity in these matters. Reference is made on page 2 to the Women’s Police Force and its composition as regards officers and students. The question that occurs to me is whether it is not perhaps time for a more desirable ratio of officers to students to be effected. There are two senior officers, three sergeants and over 66 students, and in my opinion this is a matter deserving of attention. Sir, it is also very gratifying to note the number of women that apply to join the Police Force. Here I refer to page 3 in particular. It is extremely interesting, Sir, to note that the women who are appointed all have either a diploma or a matriculation certificate and one is grateful that we are able to maintain that high standard in the Women’s Police Force in our country.

Sir, it is also gratifying to note in the report that the staff position, in relation to the number of posts available, is reasonably healthy. The police have to perform their task under very difficult circumstances, and the obligation to do border service, in particular, as well as other obligations placed on the police, have an influence on recruitment and on the number of police in service, and I think that the fact that there is still such a relatively sound ratio of staff, as is apparent from the report, does the Commissioner and his staff credit. I should like to refer in greater detail to a matter that also appears in the report concerning the student riots. I do not want to refer to the conduct of the police in this regard, but in discussing this Vote I should like to refer to the work done by the Security Police with regard to the security of our country, and to matters arising out of some of these things to which reference is made.

We are dealing with men who have to do their work unobtrusively, behind the scenes most of the time, and in a tactful way, sometimes under extremely dangerous circumstances. I think that I can testify, after three years of experience on the commission concerned, of which I was a member, that this branch of our police does an extremely thorough job.

What dangerous work is that?

Oh, really, the hon. member need only use his common sense. If the hon. member does not know that yet he should not ask such silly questions. I shall give him a lecture outside the House on what the work embraces.

He is sitting on his intelligence.

Yes, that is the whole problem. Sometimes a true word is spoken in this House. I want to say that the task of these members of our Police Force concerns leftists and underminers in South Africa, and the hon. member does not regard any of those people as dangerous. That I can see from the expression on his face. What one finds gratifying—and this has been my experience—is that these leftists and these underminers have a holy respect for our Security Police. And do you know why they have a holy respect for the Security Police? Not because our Security Police may perhaps, on occasion, carry weapons, but because our Security Police are the intellectual equals and superiors of those people. We have been seeing this repeatedly over the past three years, and the hon. the Minister and the senior members of the department have had even more experience of this. This is the important factor which, to me, is such a fine quality of our Security Police, that hallmark they bear, and I think that as the years go by, hon. members will become aware of the importance of this aspect.

I should just like to refer to another aspect, one concerning border service. The difficult circumstances in which border service is performed, and the dangers it involves, are well known. I only ask the question whether our service organizations, our cultural organizations and the city councils in South Africa should not consider giving more attention, in their various communities, to the policemen who have to do border service, more attention in the sense that once a year a function could be held in such a community and they and their good ladies could attend as guests. In the past day or two I have heard that the city council of, I believe, Nylstroom, introduced a fine custom by presenting to members of the Police Force from the community of Nylstroom who had performed border duty in that year, a beautiful illuminated address from the city council, which could be retained as a memento. I think that this is a very good thing and I think that it would be a good idea for all city councils in South Africa to make an effort in this regard, because these are certainly people who deserve more recognition. These men go to the border and serve for a period of three months, and then for another period of three months, and some serve a fifth and sixth time, and those of us who have been there, know what the situation is there. We know that those members are in the greatest danger every day. Their camps are not hundreds of miles from the borders, but are in the area of immediate danger. They are there every day and they then return to the communities and we pass them in the street, greet them and walk on, but the recognition is lacking. I trust that we in South Africa will consider giving these people, including all the members of the Police Force in South Africa, but particularly those who have done border service, that recognition which I think we owe them.

Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Potchefstroom has said. The hon. member will realize, if he casts his mind back to the previous session, that I then already asked the then Minister of Police to have a medal struck for those men who have done border duties. At a later stage the Minister then replied that they were considering the matter. I hope that the present Minister of Police, whom we congratulate on his appointment, will see to it that it is done pretty soon. It is no good issuing a medal years after it has served its purpose.

We are also very pleased to learn that Gen. Crous is staying on for another year. This is also in line with a plea I made some years ago. The hon. member for Durban North also referred to this aspect this morning. Commissioners of Police should be appointed on a contract basis so that they will know definitely how long they will serve.

As the hon. member for Potchefstroom has pointed out, the Police Force has a responsible duty. The preservation of internal security I can vouch is a dangerous job because these men have to go into all sorts of holes. Not only members of the Security Branch, but members of the ordinary Police Force as well, carry their lives in their hands virtually every time they book on duty.

Tell that to the little boy sitting on your side.

What dangers are attached to service on our university campuses?

They are also concerned with the maintenance of law and order and the investigation of crime. Most people are inclined to forget that another function of the police is to prevent crime. All the duties which the Police Force have to perform require men who are well disciplined, smart in appearance, smart in mind and smart in the execution of their duties. They must be knowledgeable men, they must have a strict sense of duty and loyalty and they must be responsible and discreet. In order to attain this, the Force must be attractive and loyal to its members, both senior and junior, thereby engendering high morale and a sense of service to the Government and to all members of the South African society irrespective of colour, race or creed.

One of the ways in which the department shows its high regard of a man is promotion and particularly promotion within the commissioned ranks. The more senior a member becomes in the Force, the higher the qualifications he must attain. To my knowledge there have been developments in this regard which are causing a sense of bitterness and extreme dissatisfaction and frustration in the senior ranks. I am not going to mention names, but the hon. the Minister will know to whom I am referring. This has been brought about by the appointment of a member to the rank of Deputy Commissioner, over the heads of many of the seniors who have served the Force faithfully, loyally and with credit. This Deputy Commissioner will fill the post of Head of the Security Police. What are the facts? This officer was commissioned on 1 July 1958. He was not first on the list; he was somewhere in the twenties, but I cannot remember exactly what number and I have not been able to check on the figures. However, I know that he was amongst the top average and not amongst the first twenty. He served in the police and even in the division of Port Natal where I was. At a later stage he was transferred to the Security Police and thereafter we learned, as one does in the service, through the grape vine, that at his own free will and of his own volition he was transferred to the Bureau for State Security. When he was transferred to the Bureau for State Security he surrendered his rank and was treated as a civilian. But he had other perks such as increased nay. However, when he came back to the S.A. Police, he was appointed a Deputy Commissioner—in other words, a senior brigadier—on 1 July this year whereas his contemporaries who were his seniors on the cadet course are now Assistant Commissioners and cannot in the ordinary course of events expect promotion to Deputy Commissioner until about 1977. He has now made a three years’ jump over them. The hon. the Minister must be fair to the men who are serving in his department, and not only to the juniors, but also to the senior men. The promotion of this person has caused a lot of heartburning. To rub salt into the wounds, it is anticipated that his appointment as major-general will take effect now, if it is not already so, whereas the vacancy for major-general has existed since February this year. There are other senior men who could have been major-general in the interim period. This is not fair play to the men whom we expect to serve the country loyally. The appointment today of Gen. Crous was not unexpected to me. The fact that there was a deathly hush from the time that Parliament was prorogued after the last session up to now, indicated to me that something was cooking. I still have a nose for police maters and I knew that something was cooking. I have spoken to no police officer or policeman in the other ranks but I have made some deductions. I have picked up my information here and there, so there is no question of one person giving me all the information. The fact that Gen. Crous’s appointment was only made now, at the last minute, just a year before he is to go on pension, and the fact that he had not been visiting stations as they usually do before they go off indicated to me that he was going to be kept in the service for another year. I congratulate the hon. the Minister …

You can get promotion on that. It was very clever of you.

I congratulate the hon. the Minister on that but he must not monkey around with the promotion of other men who are as fit if not fitter for these posts. I have already spoken about the fact that when a senior man is appointed as Commissioner he should be appointed for five years so that there has to be no need for juggling with the posts immediately below him. Had this been done in the first place, I maintain there would not be this bitterness and sense of frustration which is at the moment reigning over these other machinations to which I have referred. Why single this man out when there are so many who are just as suited, if not more, to hold the post of chief of the Security Branch? They have been doing the work all the time whilst he was in the Bureau for State Security. I look upon this as a slap in the face for those who rendered loyal and efficient service whilst he was enjoying the parks of the Bureau, viz. higher salaries and the other benefits which go with it. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this man has come back from the Bureau is in line for the Commissionership over the heads of his most senior and most suitable colleagues. The hon. the Minister must tell the Committee today what he has in mind.

On what basis do you pass a judgment like that?

I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do. This is for the sake of discipline and morale in the Force and nothing else. We do not want a repetition of what happened when one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors, who had been the Minister of Defence before, fiddled around with the Defence Force and then became the Minister of Justice in which capacity he fiddled around with the promotions as well. It is to the credit of our present Prime Minister … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I think the announcement of the reappointment of Gen. Crous and Lt.-Gen. Prinsloo is something we all find gratifying this morning. I have known these gentlemen for quite some time, and we can assure hon. members that their friendliness and zest for work are not only an incentive to the Police Force, but also to all coming into contact with them. I think the hon. member for Umlazi would be well advised to leave the appointments and the promotions in the Police Force to the Force itself. They are the people who work with those persons every day and know who are deserving of those promotions on merit. I know the hon. member for Umlazi left the Police Force quite a number of years ago, and I do not think that he can compare the promotions of those years with the promotions of today, especially in these special times in which we are living. I think he may safely leave it to the chiefs of the Police Force, who will indeed make the best of it.

I should very much like to say a few words about the system of police traps in our Police Force. To begin with, I want to read from the report of the Commissioner, in which, inter alia, the following is said:

We also read that as far as drugs are concerned, 235 persons were arrested. As far as dagga is concerned, there were more than 28 000 cases which were referred for trial. This admittedly represents a decrease of more than 5 000 in comparison with the previous financial year, but one should give some thought to these things. One asks oneself whether these figures would not have been astronomically higher had it not been for the system of police traps in South Africa. The system of police traps serves as a major deterrent. One can imagine oneself being in such a position. One does not know when one is dealing with a police trap, and one will think twice before indulging in those unlawful practices. I think that this is an absolutely warranted system in our Police Force and that without it the taxpayer and the State would have suffered a great deal of damage and loss over the years.

In this connection I just want do draw attention to a few attacks constantly being made on this system. In the first place, people say they have it against the methods used by the police. In the second place, they also maintain that people are lured and tempted into indulging in committing some offence or other while they are not in the habit of committing that type of offence. In the third place, people always talk about the next-of-kin of the accused or the persons arrested. However, I feel that I just want to put this matter of police traps in its correct perspective as far as our Police are concerned. Our policemen are usually the people who are attacked and presented in the wrong light. I think they deserve our very highest praise for this outstanding work they are doing. What are the real facts? The State, and through it the taxpayer, has an intense interest in industries such as the gold-mining industry and the diamond industry. They have an interest in them because they have shares in them, because they derive taxes from them and, perhaps, because they derive royalties from them. What is to my mind of paramount importance is the fact that our population in the Republic should at all times be on its guard against the terrorism of drugs. We must extirpate this evil root and all and employ every possible method to safeguard our people against those pernicious influences of drugs. There are, what is more, numerous misapprehensions in respect of police traps. Many people think that the common informers, co-smugglers and other well-intentioned persons are police traps. However, this is not always the case. These people come forward of their own accord and give tips to the police. The tips given to the police are most carefully considered and evaluated by senior police officers and not by the ordinary policeman who has no experience of these matters. Therefore the tips received by the police are handled very carefully and the best use is made of them. You can imagine for yourself that it is very difficult to catch a smuggler under ordinary circumstances. You know a diamond is a very small object, and as far as concealment is concerned, the possibilities are legion. The ingenuity of these smugglers is such that they find it very easy, for instance, to conceal a small diamond, a piece of gold or a match-box full of dagga or drugs without anyone being able to locate it. There are misconceptions about police traps, because many people think the police try to offer drugs or diamonds for sale to just anyone, right and left. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, the police try not to arrest these people in the sense that they might sell a small diamond or whatever to these people beforehand, i.e. before they proceed to catching or trying to catch the offender. The police want to ascertain whether these people who indulge in these malpractices really are crooks.

Then there is also the misconception that police traps derive tremendous benefits from their work. However, this is anything but the truth. You must realize that in practically 99% of cases these police traps are police officials doing that work in the normal course of their activities. They receive no additional remuneration for that work. What is true, however, is that many of the voluntary informers do perhaps receive remuneration, but this does not take place in terms of the Police Act. It is regulated by the Finance Adjustment Law of 1931, and this shows how far back in the past this matter has its origin. However, the misconception also prevails that non-Whites are used to catch Whites. In this case, too, the police can give you the assurance that they only use non-Whites to catch Whites if they know that these Whites usually buy the articles concerned from a Bantu or another non-White person. Apart from this Bantu are not used for catching Whites. Police traps are also used as a last resort for catching smugglers, otherwise these smugglers will never be caught. Many judges and magistrates have already described the system of police traps as being a “necessary evil” in our police system. You must realize that a smuggler knows that the diamond or piece of gold was stolen somewhere, and that he goes about with that mens rea, with that state of mind. He knows it is a stolen article, in other words, he is already a criminal if he lends himself to obtaining that article. In passing I just want to point to what Mr. Justice Beyers said a few years ago in respect of the system of police traps. He said that illicit diamonds buying was a very serious offence in his opinion, and went on to say (translation):

Through the mouth of Mr. Justice Botha, who had to inquire into criminal procedure and evidence, the Botha Commission said (translation).

This commission found that the system of police traps was necessary for South Africa, because if it were to be abrogated these illegal actions and malpractices would show a marked increase in future. In the past many people were given serious warning before being caught by a police trap, but in the last few years … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there are three matters I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Since I am now going to be critical. I want to make it very clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding on this score, that we are thoroughly aware of the importance of the work done by the Police Force, and the difficulties they have to contend with. We are, of course, thankful for that. Yet it is strange that one has to make such a statement in the year 1974, but we are thankful and I want to emphasize this, so that there may be no misunderstanding. Our criticism in respect of certain aspects of police action is, therefore, aimed at facilitating their task and most certainly not at complicating it.

The first matter I want to raise is the question of Press photographers and the police. Of course. I am aware that in some quarters the Press in general and Press photographers in particular are not really the elect of the world; they are perhaps the outcasts. Nevertheless, they have rights just as other citizens and other instances do, and today I want to object most strongly to the action taken by a few members—I emphasize “a few members”—of the police against Press photographers during the past few months. In this connection I want to quote a passage, and I am not going to quote from a communistic mouthpiece or a liberalistic, humanistic mouthpiece. I am going to quote from Die Vaderland of 12 June of this year. This is a leading article and not just the writing of a minor reporter giving vent to his feelings. I quote (translation):

It is Die Vaderland that wrote in this way. A few days ago, on 18 October, an article on this appeared in the Rand Daily Mail—now we shall hear some nagging again. I am quoting from that newspaper’s leading article:

Sir. I repeat that this is the action of a few policemen. I am convinced that the Minister and the Commissioner of Police disapprove of this as strongly as I do. These people are only doing their duty. Sometimes the duty they have is anything but a pleasant one but they have a duty towards their employers and towards the public, and they ought to be afforded the type of protection any peace-loving citizen receives. I hope the hon. the Minister will react to this in the right spirit. To my mind it is outrageous that these people cannot be treated in the way in which any patriotic citizen feels he ought to be treated. I hope the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner are going to take a very firm line in this regard. As I have said, I am sure that they disapprove of it, but the public should see and the public should hear that they simply will not tolerate such behaviour, behaviour which amounts to an attack on the rights of people in everyday life, and also on the rights of those members of the public who are entitled to the information contained in Press photographs. That is the first matter.

The second matter I want to raise is that I am very pleased to learn, and I think many people are pleased to learn, that the hon. the Minister is not keen on proceeding with legislation which will prohibit reporting in connection with certain police matters. As an ex-newspaperman I want to say that such legislation is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous. It is unnecessary because the Press can be trusted where the safety and security of South Africa are at stake and where people’s lives are in danger. All they want is to be kept informed. They know where their duty lies in this connection. This type of legislation is dangerous because the maintenance of secrecy about facts in this connection usually give rise to rumours and all sorts of unwarranted and wild stories being spread. This is much more dangerous than the truth. Legislation curbing the rights of the Press in this connection will constitute an unwarranted and indefensible restriction of the freedom of the Press as well as an attack on the rights of the public. I am sure the hon. the Minister realizes this, and I repeat that we welcome the fact that he is hesitant about doing this. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us today that he will not introduce such legislation.

There is a last matter I want to touch on here. It is a very thorny matter. I am referring to the use of police dogs in circumstances which seem to me to be totally unwarranted. I have only two minutes left, and therefore I just want to point this out to the hon. the Minister. I do not have the time to read the whole report to him, but in the Rapport of 28 April of this year a detailed report appeared under the heading “Police pups receive training on Bantu”. The introductory paragraph of the article reads as follows.

That matter was broached before and was put right long ago.

Mr. Chairman, if it has already been put right, I apologize. I did not see it. If I did not see it, then many others did not see it either. I think we nevertheless need a very strong statement from the hon. the Minister to the effect that he disapproves of this type of action most strongly. Three days later it was repeated in another newspaper. It might have been an exceptional case, but I nevertheless hope that the hon. the Minister will inform the Committee whether he has already taken any action in this case, whether steps have been taken in respect of the people who are guilty of this, and whether he will give us the assurance that he most strongly disapproves of this impermissible use of police dogs. I think the public ought to know this. Once again, as was the position in the other case, I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police and senior police officials feel very strongly about this matter, as I and hundreds of other people do. However, it is absolutely essential for the public to know what is being done to prevent this sort of thing happening. I am sure the hon. the Minister realizes how high feelings are running in regard to these matters. That is why it is so imperative that nothing of this nature should happen again.

Sir, it was quite remarkable that we had another member of the Progressive Party speaking on the police today, and not the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that it is not necessary, when he rises in this House to quote certain passages from certain writings, for him to tell us every time what source he is quoting from. The hon. member sounded almost apologetic because on this occasion at least he was quoting from a South African source. I want to tell the hon. member that he can use any source he likes; we shall in fact establish which source he used. It is not necessary for him to tell us that it was not a non-communist source.

Do you accept it?

Yes, I accept that it was a non-communist source.

Then why are you making covert references?

What covert references was that hon. member making? The hon. member must not be over-sensitived in regard to this matter now. The hon. member rose here and he told the Committee that the source from which he was going to quote was definitely not a communist source, and that it was not a liberal-humanistic source. Was it necessary to say that to us?

Very necessary.

For what reason does the hon. member think that it was necessary to say that to this Committee? Surely it was not necessary.

In addition, Sir, I want to spend a little time on that hon. member who felt concern for these Press photographers. What we had here today, is in reality only another method of attacking the police. I am saying that it is merely another method of attack, because the hon. member added that he realized that it was only a few individuals in the Police Force who were guilty of this type of thing. This merely amounts to a textual change in the general pattern which we had here in the past, where attacks were made on the police by that party. I just want to inform that hon. member that we on this side have no misgivings in regard to the freedom of any Press photographer to take any photographs which are not harmful to the country. According to the report which the hon. member quoted from the Rand Daily Mail, the camera of a photographer was confiscated, and he and his camera were released again within 20 minutes. Sir, that proves in fact that the police did the right thing. The police arrested that person; they ascertained what the position was, and then they released the person and returned his camera to him. Sir, that is in fact what we expect of our police. That is in fact how they ought to behave. But, Sir, the problem was that not one of those Press photographers took the trouble of identifying themselves to the police as Press photographers. If a Press photographer identifies himself to the police and says “I work for the Rand Daily Mail or Die Transvaler and I am here to take photographs for my newspaper”, it would greatly facilitate the task of the police. But how are the police to know for whom all those photographers work who turn up at a rugby match at which there is a mass of demonstrating students? Sir, this reminds me of a person bý the name of Koos Meyer here in Stellenbosch who could not get a ticket for a rugby match at Ellis Park. He then asked Dr. Craven for a ticket. Dr. Craven’s reply was: “Man, you will just have to find some way of getting into Ellis Park yourself.” Koos Meyer slung a large camera around his neck and walked through, and when the people wanted to stop him, he said “Kerkbode”. Sir, that hon. member must tell us how the police are to identify these people. It is not all that easy. Sir, the hon. member has the right to level criticism at the police in regard to these few isolated incidents, but I want to tell him that, in fairness to the police, he should also bring the few incidents which are mentioned in this report and which show the other side of the picture, to the attention of the public as well.

What report?

The report of the Commissioner of Police.

Oh, yes.

Yes, there is such a report; or was the hon. member unaware of it?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in regard to the Bantu in the South African Police. I think it is a good thing that we in South Africa take cognizance of the position of the Bantu in the South African Police. It is common knowledge that provision is made on the establishment for 15 222 non-Whites in the Police Force; at least that was the position when this report was being compiled. Of these 15 222, 13 128 are Bantu. The number of Whites in the Police Force, women included, is approximately 16 000. We therefore have a position here in which we have almost as many Bantu as Whites in the Police Force. If we take a look at this report of the Commissioner, then we note with appreciation that this report also makes mention of those who gave their lives in police service, not only on the borders, but also under other circumstances. We must know that these non-Whites in the South African Police are doing their work under circumstances which cannot, of necessity, always be classified as favourable. These people are also doing their work in an atmosphere which, under certain circumstances, is of such a nature that they may be regarded as being part of the “establishment”, to put it in that way, which is not welcome.

They are part of the establishment.

Yes, there is no question about that. Now it is essential that we should also point out that in the S.A. Police the relationship between the Whites and the non-Whites is of a special nature. There is a specific relationship between the White policeman and his Bantu or Coloured constable, or whatever his rank may be, when they go out to investigate a crime. It is with great appreciation that we should take cognizance in this House of the specific relationship which is being fostered between Whites and non-Whites through the activities of the S.A. Police. We can see this if we consider what awards were made. In regard to the awards for faithful service, on page 2 of the report, we see that awards were made to 74 Whites and 74 non-Whites, for faithful service and exemplary conduct, and to people who have completed at least 30 years’ service. We also see that the S.A. Police Medal for Faithful Service was awarded to 467 Whites and 591 non-White members of the Force. This is an exceptional situation which I think could probably give us in South Africa and particularly the outside world an idea of how Whites and non-Whites are able to cooperate with one another, and can establish mutual relations with one another which are absolutely commendable. I therefore want to put it to you that wherever we see this relationship, and know that our Police Force are also making use of White women, as one of the previous speakers mentioned here today, I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that we should consider whether there is room for non-White women in the work of the police as well. I think it would be a good thing if we could give selective attention to this matter, particularly if we consider that at this stage we already have 45 police stations which are manned almost entirely by non-Whites. Of these 45 police stations, 37 are manned by Bantu, seven by Coloureds and one by Indians. I foresee that as matters develop in future and it becomes necessary to maintain the right relationships there as well, it will be essential for non-White police women to be used in those police stations as well, particularly those under non-White control. It is not a question of merely paying lip-service, but there are certain activities of the police where non-White women could be used. Just as we recognize that there are certain functions where White women could be utilized to better effect, so we have to admit that with regard to a non-White policeman it would probably be easier to find women to do a certain specific type of work. For that reason I am putting forward this idea. I am saying again that this is something which could be applied selectively.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter now into the dispute between the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member for Park-town, but what I do want to say is that the hon. member made a very positive contribution in the second half of his speech, i.e. on the non-Whites in the Police Force. We welcome his attitude. I just find it a pity that he did not plead for the narrowing of the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites. But we welcome his words.

†In the few minutes available to me I want to pay tribute to the work of the members of the Police Reserve in South Africa. This force has a complement of some 11 000 active members spread all over South Africa. There are in addition some 9 000 inactive reservists, people who in a time of emergency will be available to render service when required. This branch of the Police Force, like all other branches of the Police Force, is not confined to one race or group. It is supplied and filled by members of all colours and races. Its staff are Black, Brown and White people. These people who join as police reservists do not do it for any remuneration; they join on a voluntary basis. They do not join for the purpose of sitting behind some desk doing some safe job. The members of the Police Reserve in fact perform all the duties that are performed by the regular members of the Police Force in South Africa.

The task which the police reservists are called upon to fulfil are in fact very far-reaching. They, as is defined in the Police Act, play a very real role in the preservation of internal security in South Africa. They play a role in the maintenance of law and order. They play their part in the investigation of offences and in the presenting of evidence. They play as full a role as any policeman in the prevention generally of crime. Many of the tasks which the reservists perform involve considerable dangers. Much of the work which is done by police reservists, perhaps more than that, of the regular force, is done at night. This is because the police reservists during the day are office workers, white-collar workers, factory workers, builders, people in all sorts of trades and professions. During the day they do their ordinary job of work and when they leave their work they are prepared, in the interests of their community, to literally work double and treble shifts several times per week. I have been out with some of these people on their rounds in my particular area and I know, and have seen for myself the extent to which many of these people risk their lives in the duties which they perform in the interests of the communities which they serve. Over the past years a few reservists have been killed in the line of their duty and many reservists have been injured while protecting the lives and the property of citizens. I think only a few days ago we read of three police reservists who were shot and injured in the Cape while they were performing the task of keeping law and order and protecting the lives of other people. The Police Reserve has grown from very small and I think somewhat sceptical beginnings to be an integral and essential part of our law enforcement system in South Africa. There are probably very few police stations throughout South Africa which do not have a complement of reservists available to them—people whom they call upon, some of whom come in regularly and others of whom do not come in regularly but who are available to be called upon whenever the pressure is heavy or whenever there is an emergency. The availability of such people in these days is even more valuable when one considers the tremendous staff shortages which are being experienced by the Public Service in general and the Police Force in particular. When one considers the duties which are performed by many of our policemen who have to leave South Africa to go across into Rhodesia or to the borders to perform duties there, it becomes apparent that these reservists fill a very important gap. The duties of a police reservist do not end once he signs off and leaves the police station to go back home. Often these people are caught up in the humdrum of sitting at court, presenting evidence and ensuring that justice is carried out in a proper way in pursuance of the duties which they performed while they were on duty.

In making this speech and in saying these few words about the Police Reserve I in fact really want to make what I consider three important points. The first point is that I think it is necessary for all of us to say that the work and the sacrifices performed and undertaken by members of the Police Reserve are not unnoticed by this House. I think we should say that the work which is put in by the Police Reserve in defence of the people of South Africa and their property is most gratefully received I think that we are all thankful. I think that the English, Afrikaans, Brown and Black peoples of South Africa who benefit from the work are grateful for the work that is done by the Police Reserve.

The second point I wish to make is in regard to the recruiting of members for and the resignations of members from the Police Reserve. When I look at the answers given to me in reply to a question I asked some weeks ago, I see that recruitments over the last three years have largely been cancelled out by resignations. If you look at the figures for 1971 you will see that 1 431 police reservists were recruited whilst 1 489 resigned. In 1972, 1 731 were recruited whilst 1 106 resigned. In 1973, 1 520 were recruited whilst 1 149 resigned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the recruiting campaign for the Police Reserve is not perhaps lagging a little. It certainly does not seem as if it has climbed over the years. It seems just to be jogging along. When one considers the staff shortages and the importance of the work which these people perform, I think it is necessary that we should have another look at the recruitment campaign for police reservists. I do believe that there is a very large reservoir of men in South Africa who would be prepared to render service if they were made aware of the need for their service and if they were made aware of the activities of the department. I do feel—and I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this—that it is time we had another look at the recruitment campaign. Perhaps we can ask the hon. the Minister to try to breathe new life into the recruitment campaign for the Police Reservists. I believe that we should recruit at least 3 000 persons per year and that we should try to halve the resignations.

The last point I wish to make is not addressed to the hon. the Minister but to the people outside. I think that the people of South Africa should know that the Police Force is working for their safety. Over recent years the Police Force has made it possible for ordinary citizens to play a part in law enforcement and in the protection of property. In speaking to the citizens, and I speak for myself, I want to say that I think that English-speaking people have not necessarily played as full a role in the work of the police as they could have done.

Hear, hear!

I think it is the duty of English-speaking persons in South Africa to come forward and play their part in the Police Reserve because the times require it and the work is urgent.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton made a positive speech about police reservists. I was not aware that he was capable of such a positive contribution and I want to congratulate him on it. However, I want to discuss a disturbing matter, namely the constant negative criticism, usually accompanied by condemnation of the conduct of the police, particularly in regard to the use of firearms, the continual calling into question, both within and outside this House, of the conduct of the police; something that is done by the Progressive Party in particular. This borders on contempt and testifies to a lack of confidence in this proud Police Force of South Africa.

Where are they?

This, then, is the Progressive Party, of whom only two members are present here today. Year after year, their favourite allegation in this House is that numerous people are shot dead and killed by the police every year. This kind of behaviour is a bad habit that harms the image of South Africa. It is a reflection on the police, on the Government and on South Africa. There are certain people in this House who want and intend this to be so. When one considers for a moment the questions put to Ministers during this short session, we note that up to and including 11 October 1974, 51 questions were put to the hon. the Minister of Police. Of these 51, 20 were asked by the official Opposition and 31 by the Progressive Party, of whom only two members are present now. Of these 31, and the hon. leader of the Progressive Party should take note of this, 28 were put by the real leader, the hon. member for Houghton. She, a single woman, asked more questions than all the other members of her party and the official Opposition combined. She is fully entitled to put these questions. However, when one analyses the drift of these questions, one cannot but come to certain conclusions. The hon. member for Houghton justifies her conduct by saying that she wants to improve certain conditions in South Africa. She also does it because she likes to provide the Press with subject matter. She also does it to enable the foreign Press and the poison-pen writers to clutch at what she says and distort it. It is stated in the London Times of 6 April 1972, on the basis of a question put by the hon. member for Houghton concerning deaths among detainees, that she fights for truth and justice in South Africa. Probably we are to be grateful that there is someone who is striving for that. Then the report goes on: “But that unbridled monster pursues its task with satisfaction.” The “unbridled monster” is supposedly the police and this Government. The “task” to which is referred, is apparently the killing of people. There are many other newspaper cuttings I could quote in this regard. In The Cape Times of 16 October 1974, the following report appears—

What right has an individual member to ask the police to use their discretion? This is not the first time this year that the hon. member has done this. There are many more of these newspaper cuttings I could dwell on. However let us look at the true facts. Let us look at the latest figures, namely those for the first six months of this year. During these six months, 50 people died, while 195 were wounded by the police. I am the last person to say that a life should be taken. On the contrary; everyone wants life to be saved. This also, of course, applies to the police. However let us see these deaths against the background of more than 3 million reports of offences and infringements of the law every year in this country. Let us, then, ignore for a moment the fact that the number has dropped. The number of serious offences has also dropped by 18% during 1972-73. Let us also ignore the fact that serious offences per thousand of the population dropped by 50% during 1972-73 to 20 per thousand, which is the lowest in 60 years in the history of this country. Let us look at the really serious offences. During the first six months there were 142 312 serious offences. Of these more than 142 000 offences, only 3,3 people out of every 10 000 were killed by the police, whereas only 13,6 persons out of every 10 000 were injured. You must bear in mind that we are dealing here with the most hardened and dangerous criminals in South Africa. Seventeen of every 10 000 of them were for it, while 9 983 came off without a scratch. We are always hearing ad nauseam, and I have the proof of it here in my hand, that our Police are trigger-happy, cruel and wilful. I am not sucking this out of my thumb, because it is stated here in the documents I have in my hand. The impression is created abroad that the police shoot in cold blood with intent to kill. From the figures it is apparent that of the 50 persons killed during the first six months of this year, 36 out of a total of 2 905 escapees were killed in the attempt to escape; in other words, 1,7% of the most dangerous criminals who escaped after arrest, were killed because there was no alternative when an attempt was made to arrest them. Of the 50 people killed, 14 were killed by the police. Twenty-three people were wounded in attempts to protect a policeman’s life or someone else’s life or property; in other words, they were killed or wounded in self-defence in cases of extreme emergency. These are amazingly low figures if we bear in mind that every year, more than 7 000 murders take place in this country, more than a quarter of a million assaults, more than 35 000 investigations of burglary, and so on. Often the policeman has to choose between his own life and that of a criminal, and this choice he has to make is an instantaneous one, because unlike legal experts, he does not have days or even weeks to argue the points at issue. He has to choose immediately. This process has been costly for the police in the year covered by the report, viz. 1973, because 22 lives were sacrificed. In the first six months of this year, excluding car accidents and deaths on the border, three policemen were killed, 12 seriously wounded and 677 wounded, injured or assaulted. This record is so much the prouder if we note that in the case of the 50 persons killed by the police, only two instituted criminal proceedings, the outcome of which is not yet known. These are only two cases out of the total Police Force of 32 000 policemen who may use arms, and we must bear in mind that the police has a wide-ranging task with regard to the preservation of security and the maintenance of order, that they have to act in cases where marching, aroused bands have to be prevailed upon by tact to turn back. How many times are the police not sent for to deal with compounds of 10 000 or 15 000 emotionally aroused workers, and how many times are the police not summoned too late in that the mine authorities have omitted to inform the police of unrest that had been developing for days before reaching a climax, and where the police are then faced with fighting masses and have to interfere to protect lives? How many thousands of people would not have been killed if it had not been for the fact the police were present and armed? The day has come for us to praise the police and to stop casting aspersions on what the police do in the course of the faithful performance of their duty. South Africa has a duty to protect its inhabitants, and it does so and shall do so in the future. South Africa also has a duty to protect the police, and it may not neglect that duty. As long as it is necessary for the police to use fire-arms to perform this duty, they will be supplied to the police for judicious use when and where necessary. This being so, the policeman shoots in accordance with his scientific training, in accordance with the provisions of his standing orders, and he shoots to kill only if it is a case of emergency, knowing that if he does not do so, his task will be rendered impossible, and knowing that a criminal and an internal departmental investigation into the shooting will take place. He fires every shot in full knowledge of the fact that he carries the responsibility of holding the name of the police high.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durbanville, who has just resumed his seat, has dealt with some dangerous aspects of the work of the police. I think there is no doubt that we, the citizens of this country as a whole, hold our Police Force in very high esteem. We do realize that in any force or organization there are always exceptions. There are cases which are dealt with, and they are dealt with administratively according to the disciplinary procedures provided for in the police regulations. This is done when members of the Force have stepped out of line with the general code of conduct which is required of the Police Force. There is a very interesting figure in the report of the Commissioner for this year. I refer to page 17 of the report, on which a summary is given of the crime incidence in relation to the population. One finds that during 1972-’73 there were 20 prosecution per 1 000 of the population. If one analyses the schedule on this page, one finds that that has been the lowest figure in the last 60 years in the history of South Africa. It is an extremely low figure. The figure applies to those crimes which are above a certain code in the records of the Police Force. I would like the hon. the Minister just to give us an assurance that in determining the figures which are included here, the same coding was used as has been used in previous years; in other words, that we can take this figure of 20 per 1 000 of the population as comparable with previous years’ figures. If that is so, it reveals a high degree of law-abiding conduct by the population of South Africa as a whole.

Each of us relates his regard for the Police Force to his own personal experience. I wish to refer here this afternoon to two matters. Firstly, I want to mention the Coloured members of the Police Force. I have had the privilege of seeing their activities at the Police College in Bishop Lavis Township. I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Coloured officers of the Police Force are now receiving the State President’s commission on being commissioned in the Force. I am sure that the country will have no fear that those Coloured policemen who are being commissioned with the State President’s commission, will not live up to the tradition of others who have been commissioned in a similar way in the past.

I have raised in this House frequently the position of the area in my constituency, particularly from Sea Point through the centre of the city and out to the Woodstock area. I have raised the question of street lawlessness. I have from time to time looked at the figures of the available Police at the Green and Sea Point police station. I want to say that that station is understaffed, and I do not think there is any question about it. We accept it. At the same time, however, I want to say that they render a service which could not be improved upon as far as the public of Green Point and Sea Point are concerned. They are courteous and efficient, and I have been surprised to find how rapidly a police van is available if there is a disturbance in any place and a van is called from that station. I want to say, however, that there is one thing which cannot be mechanized, computerized, or modernized, and that is the foot patrol policeman. I believe that, in spite of the figures to which I have referred, in spite of the position as it is in the Green and Sea Point area and the efficiency and service we receive from those Police officers, there is still a need for foot patrolling in the centre of the city and in the heavily built-up and densely populated areas. I know this is a matter I have raised before. The hon. the Minister will ask: “Where will they come from?” I want to suggest to him that he must look at what are called the “extraneous duties” performed by the Police. Paragraph 13 of this report says the following in this regard:

Let us make an analysis of these extraneous duties that are not strictly police duties. I should just like to say here that in 1967 that figure was 709 000 man-hours. Between 1967 and 1973 the figure for the time taken up by extraneous duties trebled. While this has been going on, while these man-hours were being used, questions were asked by the hon. member for Umlazi and we were told that on three consecutive days there were as few as 142, 158 and 143 policemen on foot patrol in all the main centres of the Republic. If one wishes to analyse this position and one assumes that the policemen involved in work of this sort are working 10 hours per day, six days per week, 50 weeks per year, we find that it would take between 800 and 1 000 policemen working full time to perform all these extraneous duties. What are these duties? If one investigates the departments concerned, one finds that in the Department of Justice there are something like 1 312 000 man-hours taken up in regard to the administration of justice and not the performance of police duties. The police perform eight categorie of service in the Department of Justice. There are 29 State departments which rely upon the police to perform duties which are departmental duties. These departments do this for the simple reason that they close at about 4.30 in the afternoon and they say that it is more convenient for the public not to keep their own departmental offices open but to let the police deal with these matters; the police station is open all the time.

And then they think they can pay the police the same.

That is what is being done. I realize that there are some of these duties that the police cannot avoid doing. Let us look at what they are doing at local authority level. We find that 141 000 man-hours are used up in serving summonses on behalf of local authorities. Almost all of these departments have the police tracing debtors who have incurred a bursary loan or something of that nature and have not repaid it to the department. This is what the police are supposed to do in the department. These man-hours to which I have referred, exclude the investigation that is involved in some 767 488 traffic offences. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come when trained policemen who have completed courses at the Police College and are qualified to do specialist work, should not be sitting behind desks registering births and doing things such as taking fines and issuing receipts for admission of guilt payments. I believe that the time has come when the hon. the Minister should say that if the departments concerned wish to make use of police stations, they must allocate clerical staff to do that work and not use trained policemen whose services are urgently required elsewhere. I believe that if this is done the plea which we have made and will continue to make to the hon. the Minister to provide foot patrols, will bear fruit and foot patrols will become a possibility as far as the Force is concerned.

I should like to say this in conclusion. To the ordinary citizen, to the elderly person who uses the public streets and public transport, people who mix with the general public and who do not have the privilege of entering a motor car in their private grounds and driving somewhere, their personal security from attacks or violence, is as important as the collective security of the State. Where we are giving our attention to the question of our collective security, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the question of the individual security of the citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. I prefer to revert to the matter dealt with by the hon. member for Sandton. I want to compliment the hon. member on having struck a very constructive and positive note. In fact, I find myself in agreement with most of what he said.

*Sir, we have it on good authority that the Republic of South Africa is involved in a war of low intensity at the moment, and without being alarmist, one may positively maintain that constant vigilance and preparedness in the days ahead will have to be not only the watchword, but in fact a matter of deadly earnest if we want to keep the territorial borders of the Republic unimpaired and maintain internal peace, rest and order.

That the South African Police play an important role in this, and will have to play an important role in the days ahead, is obvious. In fact, in section 5 of the Police Act, Act No. 7 of 1958, the duties of the police are expressly defined as follows: (a) The preservation of internal security; (b) the maintenance of law and order; (c) the investigation of any offence or alleged offence; and (d) the prevention of crime. But the Police Force also has to contend with a relative manpower shortage, although I want to agree with what a previous hon. member said, i.e., that when we compare the number of approved posts with the number of men in the Force, we find that the position is not very unfavourable. It is a fact, however, that the matter of safeguarding our national borders against terrorist insurgence has placed a major additional burden on the shoulders of our Police Force, and for that reason I want to agree with what was said by the hon. member for Durban North in this regard.

It is well known that the South African Defence Force is supported by various auxiliary organizations in its task of safeguarding the country. For example, great progress has already been made in developing civil defence services. Numerous local authorities have completed emergency plans, or have reached an advanced stage in the completion of emergency plans, which meet the requirements of the civil defence service. Agreements have also been reached with emergency services such as the Noodhulpliga, the Red Cross and the St. John’s Ambulance Brigade. I want to contend that unless the S.A. Police, too, can rely on similar support, it will hardly be able, with the manpower it has at its disposal, to perform its many duties properly, duties covering anything from antiterrorist activities to filling in agricultural census forms. When we have regard to the fact that the Police Force consists of approximately 16 000 Whites and 15 000 non-Whites only, which comes to 1,49 police officials for every 1 000 members of the population, and when we have regard to the wide range of duties entrusted to the police, then, when we learn that during the past year no fewer than 2 150 689 cases were reported to the police for investigation, we come to realize just how enormous the task of the S.A. Police is.

In terms of section 34(2) of the Police Act, a Police Reserve was established in 1961—the Police Reserve to which the hon. member for Sandton also referred. At present this Police Reserve consists of 10 928 active reservists, White and non-White, in the Republic and in South-West Africa. Of these. 72 are officers, 1 204 non-commissioned officers and 9 652 constables. This Police Reserve is grouped as follows:

There is an A group, consisting of reservists who will assist in the discharge of ordinary police duties such as charge office duties, the manning of police vehicles, beat duties, the guarding of vulnerable points, or any other essential police duties, when they are called up for full-time service by the Commissioner in times of emergency. In normal times they will render local assistance in combating crime without their being remunerated for such assistance.

The B group consists of reservists who daily in their own residential areas in terms are prepared to undertake two-hour shifts of emergency without their being remunerated.

The C group consists of the employees of local authorities, fuel companies, etc., who guard vulnerable points of their own employers, and these include, inter alia, electric plants, water and other essential and strategic services, factories, fuel dumps, etc.

Then there is the D group of reservists, who have to assist the police in combating riots which may develop in rural areas.

In addition to these there is yet another branch, which is known as the S.A. Police Wachthuis radio reserve. This branch consists of radio amateurs who, by means of their own radio sets, assist the police with the reception and transmission of messages in the maintenance of law and order and the combating of crime.

On the one hand I want to appeal today to the male population of the country to come forward in greater numbers and with greater zeal for inclusion in one or other of the above-mentioned groups or branches of the Reserve Police Force. On the other hand I want to suggest that greater use should, even at this juncture, be made of the services of Police Reservists for the performance of general police duty.

Sir, I am aware of the dangers inherent in creating an emergency or crisis psychosis under our people and I do not, in any way, want to make myself guilty of this. However, the fact is that a feeling of insecurity and fear is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than an emergency or crisis psychosis could be. In places in the rural districts a real danger does indeed exist that the community will feel unprotected and insecure. How could it be otherwise if the public is aware of the fact that a police station with an far-flung district is manned only by a few members of the Force? How could it be otherwise if various police offices in rural areas simply have to be closed early in the evening and throughout the night because there is no one to man the charge office?

Thanks to the preventive steps taken by the hon. the Minister of Police and his colleagues, there is in reality no emergency in South Africa. I should like to emphasize, and pay tribute to the hon. the Minister because of, and thank him for this.

Strictly according to the provisions of the Police Act, it would not therefore have been possible to utilize fully the services of the Police Reservists under the present circumstances, yet it is still essential that they be integrated more actively in the preservation of internal security and the maintenance of law and order, thereby relieving the pressure on the members of the full-time Police Force.

Finally, and with this I want to concur with what has just been said by the hon. member for Green Point, is it really necessary for members of the Police Force to spend their precious time on the completion of agricultural census forms and returns? With the necessary co-operation from our farmers and/or other Government departments, it should surely be possible to remove this burden from the shoulders of the police.

The speeches in this debate so far have shown with what concern the public of South Africa views the serious duties which confront the police. Time does not permit me to react to the arguments advanced by the previous speaker, but I want to come back to the promotion of senior officers. Now, the hon. the Minister of Police is a very nice, friendly fellow, but I want to warn him that the way the Hell is paved with good intentions, as the way to Rome is paved with skulls, the skulls of those officers he is going to jump over in order to obtain his goal. I think this is most unfair and unnecessary, but we will come to that. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the deep resentment that is prevailing in the Force as a result of these promotions and moves where men are being juggled around. I make this earnest appeal—I am honest about it—that he must put things right before it gets worse. We do not want to revert to the position which prevailed in the early ’sixties when one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors was sent to Rome and it was left to the present Prime Minister, when he took over the portfolio, to put things right. John Voster will forever be remembered in the annals of police history for the wrongs which he put right which his predecessor had done wrong, not only in the Police Force but in the Defence Force as well. I ask the hon. the Minister to take this seriously.

Mention has been made of beat duties. People do not realize that beat duties are a very important aspect of police work, particularly in the prevention of crime. This is where the men learn their grounding. Not only do they learn to be tactful and forbearing and to avoid being over-zealous, but they also learn how to ge on with the public and to improve their relations with people of other races. A few weeks ago I asked the hon. the Minister some questions. Do you realize. Mr. Chairman, that in Pretoria, our administrative capital, there was not a single policeman on beat duty on Tuesday night, 6 August, while on Thursday night, 8 August, there were only three Bantu constables on beat duty? On Saturday night there was not a single policeman on beat duty in the whole municipal complex of Pretoria. What are the Pretoria M.P.s doing? They are all Nationalists! For goodness sake, get on your feet and do something! [Interjections.] It is time that they wake up. They do not want to hurt the feelings of the hon. the Minister; so they sit back and are being disloyal to their constituents. [Interjections.]

Order! I order hon. members to keep quiet now so that the hon. member for Umlazi may continue with his speech.

Cape Town is the legislative capital of South Africa. On that same Tuesday night there were three White and two Coloured policemen on beat duty. On the Thursday night there were three White, two Bantu and two Coloured policemen on duty. On the Saturday night there were three White, two Bantu and two Coloured policemen on duty. That is a disgrace. [Interjections.) I appeal also to my colleagues on this side of the House to jack them up. The hon. member for Green Point has been doing it year after year. Bloemfontein …

Vrystaat!

The hon. member says “Vrystaat”, but does not know what is happening.

†In Bloemfontein there were only five Bantu policemen on the Tuesday night, three on the Thursday and one on the Saturday. This is the centre which is sort of the mother of apartheid. In Pietermaritzburg there were also only two Bantu policeman on beat duty. I can keep on quoting figures in this regard. On that particular Tuesday night there were in some 20-odd places in South Africa only 16 White policemen on beat duty: on the Saturday there were 14 Whites, 118 Bantu, 4 Indian and 7 Coloured policemen on beat duty. The hon. the Minister, in reply to a question, added information about policemen who went on van patrol. However, that is not an excuse for this deplorable situation. August was a winter month. I was in the Police Force—do not worry about that. [Interjections.] In those days we did not have vehicles and we had to walk on our flat feet. Today they wind the windows up and they see nothing.

You were a good policeman.

I was a good policeman and that is why I was a brigadier in the Police Force.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. member what he actually knows about the Pretoria M.P.s.

You are talking rubbish! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will excuse me if I do not follow up on his arguments.

How can one sit before one’s time has expired?

I am saying nothing about the content of his speech but I enjoyed the display and I am not a Pretoria M.P.

I should like to express a few ideas concerning the role and the approach of the S.A. Police in regard to the drug problem. I should like to do this on the basis of the modern concept that stress should be laid on rehabilitation rather than on punishment, more on prevention than on cure. Only today the hon. member for Aliwal referred very strikingly to this matter. On Friday, 11 October, the hon. member for Houghton also referred to dagga and related problems. What she said, appears in Hansard (col. 5216). With all the respect which I as a backbencher have for the hon. member for Houghton, I want to tell her that it is very clear to me that she knows a lot more about dagga than about the medical treatment of prisoners. I know a lot about both. I have had a lot to do with both. Apart from the manpower problem, I think that the prisoners receive very good treatment. However, I want to leave the matter at that.

The recently published report by Prof. Engelbrecht of the RAU casts further light on the problem and I want to quote to hon. members from a summary of that report that appeared in Die Transvaler of 12 October (translation)—

On 16 October I read a report in Die Burger concerning an attorney’s son who was found guilty of dealing in drugs. I want to quote to hon. members from that article. He confessed, inter alia, that at one stage he received 1 000 LSD tablets from the Netherlands and 300 from Cape Town. This was one of the biggest consignments of LSD the police have yet had to deal with. He sold it, inter alia, to two girls and in regard to the one, whom I shall call Miss Y, who was also found guilty, I read the following in the article (translation)—

In this week’s Huisgenoot an excellent article on the same phenomenon appeared in which the matter was very well explained.

What I have just put before you, clearly indicates three things. In the first place, it is apparent that the drug problem is still a major problem, in fact, a growing problem. In the second place, it is apparent that rehabilitation and prevention, rather than punishment and cure, should be stressed. The third matter that is quite obvious is that dagga is still the major taproot of the problem in South Africa. The question I should like to try and answer, concerns the role played by the police in this regard. When people infringe legal norms or even norms of social conduct, the first line they come into contact with or with which they clash, is the S.A. Police. The question is whether the police play any positive role in this regard. Hon. members will agree with me that two basic principles underlie the prevention of the problem. The first basic principle is the limitation of the availability, in other words, the availability of the drug. This should be entirely limited. Then we should not have a problem. The second basic principle of prevention, is education and guidance. Let us look at the work done by the police in this regard. They undertake the large-scale eradication of dagga. I have before me a newspaper report stating that in one raid this year, the police destroyed literally tons of dagga on a plantation stretching over many acres. The report goes on (translation)—

This is the result of just one raid. This is the kind of work to which the police are also giving attention. This is positive and preventative work being done by the police. What might not have happened if those millions of rands worth of dagga had eventually been sold! In this regard I want to refer once again to the hon. member for Houghton, who stated in another debate that she preferred to rely on the reports of commissions. I do so too, and I take it that the hon. member takes up the same standpoint in regard to overseas commissions. Looking at the reports of these commissions, one realizes that the recommendations cannot be applied here without further ado. There are two very good reasons for this. In the first place, South Africa’s dagga, as is that of Vietnam, is much stronger than that of other countries. In the second place we are dealing here with large-scale cultivation. A Purple Heart, a Black Bomb or a Yellow Jack would certainly not kill me or the hon. member for Houghton—in fact, it would only make us feel good. But if this Purple Heart, Black Bomb or Yellow Jack were to be made much stronger and applied in large doses, as is the case with dagga in South Africa, it would become extremely dangerous.

I want to conclude my reference to the hon. member by referring once again to rehabilitation.

†The hon. member also said, and I agree wholeheartedly with her that stress should be placed on the rehabilitation and not on the detention of people. The fact of the matter is, however, that the prognosis, the success rate of the treatment and the rehabilitation, is still very poor. Therefore, whether we like it or not, prisons must of necessity play a bigger role than we want to see them play. Secondly, one must not forget that rehabilitation can be undertaken and is being done in prisons as well. In other words, gaoling a person does not exclude rehabilitation altogether.

*I again want to deal with the positive task of the police. In the first six months of this year there were 22 500 drug cases and this indicates a positive eradication of this problem. Guidance and lectures are also undertaken by the police. I myself have participated in this. The police museum is visited by 300 schools per annum and by 80 000 other people as well. The experiment in the Cape, according to which persons arrested for drunkenness are detained until sober and cautioned and then sent home, constitutes positive action on the part of the police. In conclusion I want to point out that through the recently established South African Narcotic Bureau, linking and co-ordinating the work of eight departments, the problem can be contended with far more effectively, and in addition, overseas sources can be contacted. These are all vigorous and positive steps taken by the police.

I want to conclude with two thoughts. The one is the phenomenon known as “glue-sniffing”. This is a problem that is spreading fast and as far as I know, the police initially experienced many problems with this because they were unable to determine whether it really represented any infringement of the law, in view of the chemical composition of the substance. I do not know whether this is still the case, but if so, I ask that urgent action be taken in this regard. I conclude with my text at the end of my sermon. In one Corinthians 13, verse 11, one reads—the hon. member for Pinetown is not present at the moment, but I do not have him in mind—

When I was a child, my heroes were not Tarzan or the Phantom, but the policeman and the engine driver. But now that we have these electric units, etc., an engine driver is not what he used to be either. But in view of the way in which the police perform their task, under difficult and dangerous conditions and often in spite of unsavoury criticism, the policeman is still my “hero”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Police. He is a new Minister and I look to him for a new approach in his attitude towards the police. I want him to break away from some of the policies of his predecessors, not concerning the conduct of the police but concerning the department’s conduct towards the police.

I want to refer especially to the police in the Transkei. The hon. member who has just sat down talked about the dangers of drugs and the service the police render in stamping out this menace by collecting and destroying dagga. We all read every now and again of the huge raids carried out in the Transkei in which they destroy acres and acres of dagga under the most difficult circumstances since the dagga is often grown in inaccessible spots.

The policy of this Government towards the police in the Transkei is one of discrimination in favour of the civil servant. I say that because the civil servants in the Transkei are paid generous allowances which are not paid to the police, the railwaymen, Post Office officials and officials of the Prisons Department. The excuse is, of course, that the civil servants are working for a foreign Government. However, the attitude of the police is that their work is less congenial than that of the civil servants who are paid allowances. The police come into more direct contact with the Transkeians than do the civil servants working for example in the magistrates’ offices. The relationship between the police and the Transkeians is of the utmost importance for us in South Africa. Our relationship with the Transkeian Government and with the Transkeians as a whole depends on the attitude of the police there towards the Transkeians and their relationship with them.

The police are on duty at all times. The adage that a policeman’s lot is not a happy one, is especially applicable to the Transkei. I know that the police throughout the country serve in isolated spots. In many instances they serve in farming areas, and so on. However, the position is worse for the policeman in the Transkei because he does not have the occasional farmer or the small White village any more where he can enjoy social life. The White traders are leaving; there are very few left. The White villages are disappearing; there are very few villages left where Whites are still trading and carrying on business. Only the policemen are left there. These policemen, especially the young ones, find that there is no social life there. The married policemen who have children find that there are no playmates for their children. In addition, the children have to be sent away from home to boarding schools earlier than is necessary in other parts of the country where there are White schools available to them. White schools and White people generally are disappearing in the Transkei except in the larger towns.

I have only a few minutes at my disposal and in those few minutes I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to adopt a different attitude towards these allowances. I have been asking for these allowances year after year and his predecessors have turned them down. However, the position in the Transkei is changing. We know that the Transkei is on its way to independence, which we can expect within a year or two. More and more White people are leaving the outlying districts of the Transkei. In a few towns there is an increase in the White population but I am talking particularly of the outlying districts. For the Whites to remain in the Transkei the maintenance of a suitable Police Force there is essential. Take the Police Force away and you will find that the remaining Whites will also leave. In other words, we must have a Police Force there. What is more, it must be a happy Police Force. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to change the attitude of the Government towards the police in the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, I must honestly say that one is a little overwhelmed at the unanimity which has prevailed in this debate on this Vote. The hon. member for Durban North congratulated me on the 500 national servicemen we are now going to absorb into the police. He asked for more particulars in this regard. I do not know what further particulars he still requires. As far as these national servicemen are concerned I mentioned in my statement that they would not go to the borders. I want to inform the hon. member that it is not our intention to send them to the borders, since they are in fact being set aside to supplement the shortage of policemen in South Africa. But the hon. member will of course understand that, when a person is in the Police Force—and these national servicemen will be fully qualified policemen after six months—they will of course have to go in an emergency or under circumstances when we are of the opinion that policemen must go to the border. I just want to correct this, for in the statement I made it very clear that they were not going to the borders. I want the hon. member to accept that it was not a categorical statement. They are not being earmarked for border duty, but they could go to the border if it is considered necessary. They are in fact being earmarked for internal service.

Will they be volunteers?

Oh yes. All the border men are at present volunteers in any case.

No, the national servicemen.

They will of course be asked as well, if it becomes necessary.

Do the national servicemen come to the police at their own request?

Yes. The idea is that they should state this when they have to exercise their choice in respect of the Defence Force. Circulars are sent to the schools, and the young candidates are asked which service they would like to discharge. They are offered the choice of discharging this service in the Police Force as well. The documentation of course is all done by the Defence Force. Between the Defence Force and the police a decision is reached on the 500 candidates who come to the Police Force in a specific year. They will not be people who would not like to come to the police. We shall take people who have indicated on their forms that they would prefer that. Provided they possess the qualifications which we lay down as requirements for the Police Force, they may do their national service with us. Hon. members will understand that since we are now going to train these people to be fully qualified policemen, there will have to be a certain measure of selection which would quite probably differ from the selection in the Defence Force. As it is, we have different requirements in view when we train a person as a policeman. When these young men come to the police as national servicemen, they will, however, receive an intensive training in which training for border duty will also be included. In other words, they will also have to go through the additional, intensive course, to qualify them to act as terrorist fighters. Up to that stage they are merely national servicemen, with the appropriate remuneration. Subsequently they qualify as full policemen. For the rest of their training period, be it for six or seven or 18 months, they are quite simply posted to some or other police station in South Africa where they then, together with other policemen, serve as ordinary policemen. After that, of course, they have a choice. They may automatically remain on in the Police Force if they wish. However, if they had had another career in mind prior to leaving school, they may, upon completing their training, pursue that career further. This is what we have in mind. We think that it will afford a measure of relief in respect of the vacancies which exist at present owing to the fact that some our men are doing a tour of duty on the borders.

The hon. member also requested that the police be removed from the control of the Public Service Commission. That is a very difficult request to comply with. I must honestly say that the hon. member knows how I personally feel about the police. He knows that I should like to give them higher salaries. I must, however, concede to people who do not agree with me that the Police is a Service in itself. It is not like the Railways and the Post Office which have their own Estimates. It is a service which is financed purely from the Revenue and Loan Account. As a result of that I do not foresee the police ever really being able to be detached from the Public Service Commission. However, I want to say that I do not entirely agree with the hon. member when he says that the police salaries compare unfavourably with other similar salary structures. Police salaries of course fall within the framework of Public Service salaries. Public servants are within the same salary structure as policemen. However, policemen have additional advantages. Let me deal at once with the comparisons which my hon. friend drew between the S.A. Police and the Railway Police. I do not think that this comparison may be drawn, for the Railways has its own Estimates. In reality the Railways is analogous to a major business enterprise in the private sector. Just as I cannot complain if Iscor, for example, should appoint policemen to guard their gates at twice the price for which our policemen have to work, so I cannot in reality draw a comparison between the salaries of Railway Police and those of S.A. Police. I want to state wholeheartedly that the service which the police as such are rendering is such that I do not think we can pay them enough. As far as I personally am concerned, these people ought to receive at least twice the amount they are receiving at the moment. However, one must remain practical when it comes to the salaries.

May I ask a question? Is the hon. the Minister aware that the top notch of a warrant officer in the Defence Force is R7 380, while that of a warrant officer in the S.A. Police is only R5 820?

The hon. member is now referring to the technical staff in the Defence Force. The hon. member should not draw comparisons between posts which are not entirely analogous. This is the difficulty when we come forward with comparisons. One is sometimes inclined to compare services which are not precisely the same. Let us consider the salaries which are being paid at present in the Police Force. I make so bold as to say that in spite of the fact that I should personally like to give them increased salaries out of appreciation for what they are doing, I do not think that policemen are worse off when one compares them with the ordinary public servants.

In the first place the police official receives special training, and he is paid whilst receiving that training. Other young men go to university and they have to pay the university for the training they are receiving there. The hon. member for Umlazi is laughing, but this is a fact. This young man is being trained as a policeman, and he is being paid while he receives that training. He is already on his salary scale. After a year that person leaves the Police Force, and then he receives a double notch, while the ordinary public servant only receives one. After a year that policeman is on his third notch. This is a great improvement on the position of the ordinary public servant. But more than that—he immediately receives his service allowance on a sliding scale from R240 to R420 per annum. This he receives immediately after he has qualified. In addition, he receives a hardship allowance which amounts to a fixed amount of R360 per annum. Over and above the double notch which he received, he therefore receives an additional R30 per month.

I also want to say that policemen are able to stay in barracks, where they need pay very little for board and lodging. I think they pay something like R25 per month for their board and lodging. If that man marries, he could perhaps qualify for the benefits under the housing scheme as well. In any case, they enjoy the ordinary housing scheme benefits, the 100% loan, but they can go one better. Here I want to refer to Durban where there is a beautiful block of flats for policemen near the beachfront. Policemen with three or four children can rent those flats, at amounts which vary from R11 to R15 per month. Let us consider the medical services. A policeman need pay only one-seventh of his wife’s confinement costs.

Sir, in this way I could enumerate all the advantages to you. When a person is sent to the northern borders of South-West Africa, he receives an additional R4-50 per day. I mentioned this morning the additional allowance which is paid for service on the Rhodesian border. This amounts to approximately R9 per day. There are therefore considerable benefits attached to service in the Police Force. Another advantage is of course that the young men can begin working immediately after they have left school. While other young men first have to go to university for three years to obtain a degree, the young men who join the Police Force begin working immediately, and in addition skip two salary notches. After a while he then begins to write his examinations. He writes his warrant examination, his lieutenant examination and he qualifies then for commission rank.

Sir, the Police Force offers the young man who does not go to university, an opportunity to become a man of status in society. The policeman is a man of a high status. Police officers are usually people who are highly respected. They move in the best circles. Many of the young men who join the Police Force will tell you: “Sir, I am a product of the depression years; I had nothing when I started; the Police Force has given me everything.” Consequently I want to say in all honesty that if a young man wishes to choose a career which offers adventure and which offers a good salary and good benefits and prospects, I would advise him to join the Police Force.

You even become a brigadier.

Sir, I should just like to refer to the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who pleaded for more policewomen officers. Sir, I want to inform the hon. member that the young women who join the Police Force are, to my knowledge, the only women in the Public Service who receive precisely the same salary as men. They receive precisely the same benefits as the men do when it comes to promotion. Sir, however much sympathy I have for these women, I want to tell the hon. member for Potchefstroom that we cannot give preference to them over men as far as promotion is concerned. Such a young woman joins the Force as an ordinary policewoman, and from there she ascends the ladder of promotion as far as commissioned rank. Sir, as far as border service is concerned, I do not know whether the hon. member thought that they should also be sent to the border.

It is a good idea.

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Umlazi. I want to say at once that I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Umlazi. This debate every year is one of the highlights in the career in this House of the hon. member for Umlazi.

What is the joke?

He always does his best to promote the cause of the police, for which I have a great deal of appreciation. He often comes to see me outside the House to tell me this or that about the police, and I always listen to what he has to say with great appreciation because he is a person who retired from the Police Force with a very high rank. He therefore knows police work inside out.

†The hon. member raised the question of medals the last time he spoke here, and I want to say to him that they have already been struck. We conceded to his request. Then the hon. member asked me not to promote people in the Police Force without taking seniority into account. Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member raised this question, for a very simple reason. I am quite certain that the hon. member for Umlazi would not like me to do what he asked me to do, and that is to tell him in this House what qualifications each member of the Police Force has and why a particular person receives promotion and why another does not get promotion. I think that would be a most invidious situation. I am certain that the hon. member would not like me to dissect the officers of the Police Force in this House. The hon. member knows that promotions are usually made on the basis of seniority, but when one reaches the higher echelons of the Police Service, it does become necessary to take other factors into account. As a senior police officer, I think the hon. member himself is aware of that. Therefore seniority is always an important factor, but it can never be put higher than that it is simply a factor, because other qualifications are added at a certain time. Other needs arise. The hon. member mentioned people coming out of the Bureau for State Security back to the police. They were taken from the Police Force to go to the Bureau, and when the Bureau started they were not all taken on a voluntary basis. They were nominated to go there and they always asked what would happen and whether they could come back to the Police Force, and they were always told that they could come back; all they had to do was to apply.

But one must never forget that the Bureau for State Security has given certain members certain insights that are absolutely necessary in the South Africa of today, so that when those men do come back, they come back with additional experience which is needed in the Force today. I may just tell the hon. member that in regard to this one particular case—I know whom he is referring to—that person is not in command of anybody who is his senior. I know there are other seniors in other branches of the Force but the people under him in his command are all his juniors, so that there is no complaint. I want to assure the hon. member that we certainly will not just shunt people around. The only criterion I have in this regard is what is in the interests of South Africa. The best man, in the interests of South Africa, must be given the best job. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Umlazi will not quarrel with me on that point.

The hon. member spoke about beat duty. I agree straight away that the policeman on the beat is one of the best things you can have. It shows that authority is walking along the street, but then you must have a policeman for the beat. That is our difficulty. Crime as done today is mobile. Crime is not done on the beat any more. You do not get the pickpocket grabbing something and running off to such a large extent any more. Crime is more organized, and I want particularly to ask hon. members to get reservists to join with the specific purpose of going on the beat. The B reservist is a person who can take two hours walking on his own little beat in front of his own house. That is all we require, but we must get people to volunteer. People must come to the Police Force if they are in a dangerous area at all, get a few of their friends together, and join as reservists and spend two or three hours walking up and down in front of their own house. On that basis we can keep the man on the beat.

*The hon. member for Potgietersrus made a very positive speech on the system of police traps, for which I am very grateful. The hon. member explained to us that the police traps are not always purely traps in that sense of the word, but that they are for most of the time ordinary police officials, and that what are regarded as police traps are very often people who are simply informers. But he placed it in its correct perspective and I remain grateful to him for doing so. I do not want to deal with his entire speech.

The hon. member for Parktown raised three matters. He apologized to me for not being able to be present here this afternoon. Firstly, he mentioned the matter of Press photographers. He mentioned a few cases here. I looked into these cases. I have them here. You know, Sir, a Press photographer in an unsettled situation as we have been experiencing during the past few years, is a very difficult thing. He is a difficult person to begin with. You know, I have seen, when we were holding a passing-out parade of the S.A. Police, a wonderful parade at which there were 500 police and the most magnificent horses and a fine athletics display, now, as soon as the police had been marshalled for the inspection, a group of people dressed in civilian clothing suddenly rushed onto the parade ground and spoilt the entire parade. But you may not take them to task, because they are members of the Press. You may not tell them to stand aside for then they tell you that they have their rights; they can go where they like and they want to take photographs.

We come then to the student disturbances, the minor “rallies” which we had. The police have the greatest difficulty in getting people to calm down, but then feelings are roused further with these popping flash bulbs of the cameras in their faces, and people who push you out of the way. One arrives at the scene of a murder. What happens? As a detective you still want to examine the body when you find that someone else is taking photographs. You are still looking for fingerprints, when you find that the Press photographer has left his fingerprints all over the place. It is an unruly situation. I want to mention only one example. Take for example the photograph which was taken at Curries Fountain. A large photograph appears in the Press. I am not blaming the Press for publishing their photographs, for that is the best way of telling a story. I should like them to be able to present their stories graphically, but they must be careful, too, for one finds for example, as in this case, the photograph of a policeman grasping a Bantu by the back of his jacket after he had caught him, while holding on to a dog with his other hand. Of course, the dog’s mouth is wide open, and the Bantu’s mouth is also open from fright, but that photograph is taken and published in the newspapers. There is not the slightest possibility of the dog biting the Bantu, for the policeman has the Bantu under control and he also has the dog under control. However, the photograph •depicts an image of terror which is caused by the South African Police. That Bantu was under arrest and in terms of the Prisons Act no person may take such a photograph. The S.A. Police know that this is the case, and the moment they are hindered in the performance of their duty in this way, they become annoyed—they are also human—at the unidentified photographers who are standing around, as the hon. member said, as Koos Meyer did. In a case where private photographers take photographs under such circumstances the policeman confiscates the camera. However, the mistake which the police made in the past was that they confiscated the camera without apprehending the photographer. If a person has taken a photograph of a prisoner, which is unlawful, the policeman is thereupon entitled to apprehend the photographer and confiscate his camera. The policeman must confiscate the camera to be able to prove that the photographer took a photograph of a person who was under arrest. I shall tell you this afternoon that it is a sore point between the police and the Press, but I do not want to take it any further than merely to inform the House that I am negotiating on this matter with the Press Union. The Press Union is complaining to me, and I readily concede and disapprove of policemen sometimes carrying on too roughly with representatives of the Press. I understand why it happens, and for that reason I do not take it amiss of the policemen, but we shall have to regulate the matter. At present I am negotiating with the Press Union and looking into the situation and we shall see whether we cannot meet one another so that the photographer can do his work and the S.A. Policeman can do his work as well, for I do not think the Press really wants to mar the image of South Africa. I say, however, that at this stage, as matters stand in regard to the taking of photographs, they are harming South Africa.

The hon. member also mentioned the use of police dogs. I have the references to the case in question in front of me. He referred to that Press report (translation), “Young police dogs are trained on Bantu”. I do not want to relate the entire story of this matter, but this is of course not precisely as it was related in the newspaper. In fact I have the entire story here. The police, after a charge had been laid to the effect that Bantu idlers were stealing maize on a farm, went to that farm with dogs to track those Bantu down. The disposal unit worked on that farm and subsequently, on its way to another farm, passed someone’s shop. There were a number of Bantu in the vicinity and a number of them apparently ran away when they saw the police. The police vehicle stopped in front of the shop, and a Bantu person rode away on a bicycle. After a private individual had shouted “Fetch him! ” the dog set off in pursuit of the Bantu, and unfortunately bit him on his right arm. He was arrested, was subsequently convicted of a minor offence, which is not relevant at the moment, and released. This is what happened in this case, and you may verify it. The dogs were in reality under control, but unfortunately the accident occurred that the dog reacted to another command, and bit the Bantu on the arm. However, we do not use untrained dogs. This report is completely false, for it alleges that young police dogs are trained on Bantu. I do not know whether the report is trying to imply that we use ordinary Bantu for the training of these dogs, but there is of course a Bantu person at the college who has to run away and whom the dogs then have to catch. In this way a dog is trained to catch a man. I just want to say that the hon. member submitted this matter to me in a good spirit, and I hope that he will be satisfied with the explanation I have given him.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke advocated that we should introduce non-White policewomen. I can tell him that many of the police stations are at present being manned by non-Whites. This is a good idea and we have already appointed non-White women as clerks and typists. We shall also give attention to his other proposal.

†I must say that the speech which the hon. member for Sandton made was the best speech I have heard him make. I think it was a very, very positive speech. The hon. member asked whether the recruiting of reservists was not lagging behind. I do not think so. We have a very high officer who does the recruiting. With a service of this nature, however, it is automatically so that a lot of people must be lost. Many people join the reservists and then after a year they are transferred somewhere else and they obviously have to leave the service. Other people resign because they get tired or because they have other work to do. The hon. member forgot to mention one aspect in a very well-delivered speech, namely the fact that the reservists deserve our thanks mainly for the fact that they do it for nothing. There are thousands of reservists working for the police who do long shifts at night. They are doing it completely for free and we appreciate it very much. The hon. member said he was directing his remarks at the people outside; he wanted more people to come into the service. I want to thank the many English-speaking people who have joined the reservists. This is the one branch of the Force that is properly manned by the correct number of English-speaking persons. The rest of the Force only has about 5% or 10% of its permanent staff who are English-speaking. We would like more English-speaking people to come into the Police Force as such. We are thankful for the reservists who are English speaking.

What has that got to do with it? Are they not all South Africans?

I am not speaking about whether they are South Africans or not; I am talking about cultural groups in this instance

*The hon. member for Durbanville made a very interesting speech.

A shocking speech.

No, he made a very interesting speech. He described the positive work of the police, and he pointed out that the police are accused of shooting too readily, but that this was not true. He pointed out that there were more cases of assault on the police than cases of the police assaulting members of the public. I can give hon. members the assurance that this is the case. Our experience is that the South African policeman does not use his revolver too frequently. I should like them to refrain from using their firearms unless it is absolutely necessary, but on the other hand I am honestly not prepared—I said this last year and I want to repeat it now—to allow South African policemen to try to carry out their duties in the streets without weapons. Their lives are more frequently in danger than in any other service in South Africa, and these people are entitled to defend themselves.

†The hon. member for Green Point asked whether we had the same coding in respect of offences. There was a slight change in that we have taken drunkenness out of the statistics as well as a few of the lesser crimes. There were not very many cases of that kind. It would not have made very much difference to the very interesting figures which the hon. member gave to us. The coding, however, is not exactly the same as it was last year. He also spoke about street lawlessness. I ask the hon. member, who is the member for Sea Point, again …

He is the member for Green Point.

Yes, he is the member for Green Point, but he was speaking about Green and Sea Point. The hon. member could well develop a police reserve unit there. I have often seen people from Sea Point walking along the seaside for at least an hour or two. All they have to do is to don a uniform, and they will be able to do the beat in Sea Point. We are experiencing great difficulty in getting men on the beat in Sea Point, but the Sea Pointers normally walk on the beat. All you have to do as the member of Parliament for Sea Point is to call a meeting there and to ask for reservists …

To give up bird watching at Clifton.

Yes, give up bird watching at Clifton and walk on the beach at Sea Point.

*I am in complete agreement with the hon. member as far as the extraneous services of the S.A. Police are concerned. I was absolutely astonished to hear of the extraneous services which the S.A. Police do in fact perform. The hon. member previously put the question in this House, and the reply was of such a nature that I could not furnish the particulars here because there was such a great deal of information, and I sent them to the hon. member personally. However, I was astonished at everything the Police have to do for other departments, and did not myself realize that there were so many things. I just want to quote a few examples of these.

†We assist the Department of Labour with inquiries about workmen’s compensation, tracing of debtors, inquiries regarding unemployment insurance, inquiries in relation to mechanical apprentices and inquiries in regard to compensation to employees. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development also receives assistance as regards duties as prosecutors, the collecting of belongings, passport control, the issue of passports, assisting in the training of Police Forces in the homelands, inquiries in regard to the exemption of parcels, the issue of burial and removal orders and Bantu Resettlement Board inquiries.

*So I can continue. There is a tremendous amount of work which the S.A. Police has to do, and I shall definitely give attention to this aspect of our work, because we already have a staff shortage in the Police Force. I should like to make use of these people for essential services. I realize that when there is something which is difficult for other departments to do, the S.A. Police are pre-eminently the agency that has to do it. However, I should very much like the departments, if necessary, to make less use of our services, and in that way afford the police a greater opportunity to see to their own work.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very interesting speech, and explained to us how the reservist system works. It made very interesting listening. The hon. member for Krugersdorp told us about the Narcotics Bureau which has been established by the S.A. Police. I also found his reference to the various drugs very interesting. I want to thank all the hon. members very much for their contributions to this debate. It was a debate without any discordant note, and without any major issue. I want to express my appreciation to the S.A. Police in general and to the police officers in particular who have to cooperate closely with me, for the very pleasant co-operation. I would also like to convey the thanks of us all for the work they are doing.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Votes Nos. 15, 25, 29, 34, 35, 39 and 42 of Schedule 1.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

SCHEDULE 1

(CHARGEABLE TO REVENUE ACCOUNT)

SUMMARY

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 15 (Bantu Administration and Development):

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the increases in respect of items H and O. I notice that in respect of item N the main estimate of R47 846 000 is being increased by R4 000. It seems to be a very small amount and I wonder if the hon. the Minister can explain to us why this is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to the hon. member why these additional amounts are being required. Item N represents grants-in-aid which have to be paid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund. This entails for the most part assistance to the Caprivi in regard to social services to Bantu there. This is additional money required for the Caprivi on account of the increased tariffs in regard to these social services.

And the other expenditure?

In the case of subhead N the amount is only R4 000.

What about subhead O?

In the case of subhead O it concerns the same kind of expenditure, but here it applies to all the other Bantu homelands. In the case of the Transkei the amount is R596 000, for the Ciskei R209 000, for Bophuthatswana R225 000, for Lebowa R359 000, for Venda R82 000, for Gazankulu R68 000, for KwaZulu R604 000 and for Basotho Qwaqwa R16 000—a total of R2 159 000. This is also on account of increased social pensions and other social services.

But sub-head H refers to pensions and ex gratia assistance.

Yes, but the homeland governments receive this under subhead O. In the case of sub-head H it concerns payments which are made by the department directly and which are not made via a homeland government. Sub-head O are those made via a homeland government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 25 (Social Welfare and Pensions):

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister who, I presume, will furnish the necessary information in respect of these increases, will explain the reason for the increase of R1 100 000 under sub-head J—Civil Pensions, Gratuities and other Benefits (other than Pension Funds). I would also like him to explain the reason for the increase of R2 824 000 under subhead K—Contributions to Pension and Provident Funds.

Mr. Chairman, the supplementary amount in the case of civil pensions relates to the announcements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech, I hope the hon. member does not want me to …

Is it 10%?

Yes, 10% or a limit of R25 per month. Apparently the hon. member is aware of this.

With regard to the further contribution to pension and provident funds, these are obviously on account of the increased pensions in that the State also has to make increased contributions.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Deputy Minister why an additional amount of R3 326 000 is being asked for under sub-head L—Social Pensions?

The same answer applies in this connection. This is on account of the implementation of the scheme as announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. He furnished the particulars in this regard to this scheme; therefore I hope it will not be necessary for me to repeat them.

If they are the same, I am satisfied.

Yes, the circumstances are exactly the same.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask with regard to this contribution whether there was not sufficient money for this payment to have been made prior to 1 December of last year?

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to ask this. He may only ask the reason for the increase.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 29 (Community Development):

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a general overall increase or is it attributable to anything special?

Mr. Chairman, the increase is attributable to the fact that the limit in respect of houses qualifying for the subsidy has been increased from R18 000 to R20 000.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 34 (Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General):

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions here. I think I need to motivate them first. I particularly want to deal with sub-head E. In this particular case we are dealing with expenses in connection with the stabilization of the price of maize. I would like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the accounts of the Maize Board as at 30 April 1972. He will see there that the balance was about R11 million. We have also been informed that as at 30 April 1974 the figure was still R11 million. We have also been informed that the figure will be R69 million on 30 April 1975. The facts are also available in respect of the very substantial income resulting from the sale of maize overseas this year. The question that needs to be posed here, is a twofold one: Firstly, is the amount of R7 459 000 included in the amount of R69 324 400? Secondly, why is it necessary to vote a further amount in respect of the Stabilization Fund when that fund appears to be extremely high at the present moment and is anticipated to be high next year as well?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville is perhaps confusing matters a little. The Stabilization Fund is not at issue here at all. What we are dealing with here is only the subsidization of the increased costs on account of the increased producers’ price. For his information I may just mention here that the Stabilization Fund consists of funds paid by the farmers. At this stage it cannot be said that, according to the Budget and also the reply furnished here in respect of the size of the Stabilization Fund at the close of the financial year, that amount will in fact be realized. This depends on a great many factors. The price of maize overseas could quite possibly drop; there could be enormous delays; the next crop might be so poor that we had to hold back some of our maize. These two aspects cannot be related to one another at all.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have to quarrel a little with the Deputy Minister, but if he would look at the statements of the Stabilization Fund, he would see that it is quite wrong to suggest that the Government does not make any contribution; the Government does make a contribution and a substantial contribution at that. It is not only the farmers who make a contribution. The explanation furnished by the Deputy Minister is not the reply to the question. As it appears in the Budget, the position is clearly that the amount represents a subsidy in respect of railway tariffs and maize products, as well as expenditure in regard to the stabilization of the price of maize. The Stabilization Fund is being used to stabilize the price of maize.

Mr. Chairman, I shall put the precise factual situation to the hon. member. The additional amount is being required as an additional subsidy arising from the price of maize approved by the Cabinet for the year 1 May 1974 to 30 April 1975. The Stabilization Fund of the Maize Board is a fund which can only be utilized at a later stage to meet the producer. After all, this is money which belongs to the producer. This amount is a subsidy to the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this matter. If the Maize Board should obtain record prices of R115-91 per ton as far as the export of maize is concerned, how could it be that the taxpayer still has to pay towards stabilizing the price of maize? We are obtaining record prices for maize now.

Mr. Chairman, since they have started farming operations in Johannesburg—here I have in mind the hon. member for Houghton in particular—I find it strange that better times have set in for our farming. I hope this will continue to be the case. I want to assure the hon. member for Yeoville that this is not money that has been taken from the taxpayer, and that this money will not be returned to him. The money is being utilized for a definite purpose and that is to make the product as cheap as possible for the consumer. This complies with the urgent requests we have to listen to in this House day after day. I am convinced that it will definitely meet with the approval of the farmers on the United Party side. This fits in quite well with their policy.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 35 (Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure):

Mr. Chairman, I am still discussing agriculture and hon. members should know that we have maize in Yeoville too. May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he could furnish us with an explanation on sub-head E, which amounts to R150 000?

Mr. Chairman, I want to furnish the hon. member with a brief explanation. This amount which is being made available, is in respect of the replacement of the existing fence with a more efficient one on the border from Komatipoort southwards towards Swaziland. This is not in Johannesburg. The total cost of the fence is estimated at approximately R500 000, R250 000 of which will be spent during the following book year. Of this amount R100 000 is available already and R150 000 therefore has to be voted to cover the anticipated expenditure. This is the full explanation I have.

Mr. Chairman, after that clear explanation, may I also ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to furnish us with an explanation on sub-head J

First say thank you for the first explanation.

Mr. Chairman, the existing fence between the Kruger National Park and Mozambique is not elephant-proof, and a departmental study committee has been appointed to investigate how efficient this fence is. They recommended that a more efficient fence be erected. The total cost of the proposed elephant-proof fence which will extend over a distance of approximately 385 km is estimated at approximately R3½ million. If the erection of the fence is proceeded forthwith, expenditure during the current book year will not exceed R1,5 million. The whole project ought to be finished before the end of 1975. The erection of the fence will be undertaken by the Parks Board and an additional amount of R1 500 000 has to be made available in respect of the grant-in-aid of the Parks Board. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister whether it is only elephants he is concerned about?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 39 (Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs):

Mr. Chairman, we shall be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an explanation in connection with the increased amount of R2 163 000.

Mr. Chairman, my reply in this regard is the same as in the case of the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote. This amount covers the various categories of pensions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 42 (Indian Affairs):

Mr. Chairman, the headings here are the same as the equivalent headings under Vote No. 25. I should like to know what the reasons are for these increases. If they are the same as those given in relation to Vote No. 25, and the hon. the Minister says so, naturally I shall accept it.

They are the same.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Chairman, now that we have passed the Committee Stage, one thing has become very clear throughout the Budget debate, and that is that the discussions on the various Votes have had one theme which has run throughout them; that theme has become apparent again and again, and that is that the people of South Africa appear to be looking for security. Sir, much has been said about the steps which must be taken to deal with the political situation, both at home and abroad, both in our relations with Africa and with the world, in order to ensure security for the people of South Africa. Sir, we have spoken of the need to deal with subversion; we have spoken of the need to defend ourselves, and it is not my purpose to repeat these arguments or to deal with new political initiatives which need to be taken. I want to take as the theme of what I propose to say this afternoon, security through economic welfare in South Africa. Sir, it has often been said that to defend South Africa we need not only arms but we need to win the hearts and minds of our people. To achieve this, it is not enough to create political structures and an atmosphere of respect for all colours, but we also need to attend to the material well-being of all our people. We certainly need soldiers; we need them on our borders and we need them to defend ourselves, but a population which is in full employment sharing in the economic wealth of our land and with further opportunity for advancement, is a far stronger defence line than the Maginot Line ever was, and one that our enemies would find very difficult to penetrate. Sir, what we would like to see on the borders of our country is a true defence line, a group of people who are contented, who want to be South Africans, who want to defend South Africa and who have a stake in seeking to defend South Africa. Sir, I believe that that is the best defence line that we could have in South Africa.

It is because I come from the Transvaal that I am particularly concerned with the Transvaal and I would like to deal with the situation there. Sir, I can see nothing better for South Africa than a defence line stretching right across the Transvaal and made up of people who are contented, of people who have jobs, of people who have a stake in society, of people who are developing and who have hope for the future. That is a defence line that would enable us to resist any form of aggression against South Africa. Sir, I spoke in the Second Reading debate of the necessity of dealing with unemployment and the desirability of dealing with this problem on a short-term basis by means of a public works programme. In dealing with all the other matters that the hon. the Minister had to deal with, this matter escaped his attention, and I certainly do not hold it against him that in replying to the many other points that I had raised, he did not reply on this point. I would like today to come back to the subject of creating this defence barrier, of creating this contented community, and I would like to deal with nine specific matters which I believe will ensure our safety and our security in South Africa in the economic field.

The first matter is that we have asked repeatedly for statistics in respect of unemployment in South Africa in so far as the Black people are concerned, but regrettably there do not appear to be adequate statistics available. I believe that there must be an urgent and immediate, a complete and an accurate survey made of unemployment, particularly in the homelands. I would like to see that survey started in Vendaland, in Lebowa, in Gazankulu and in Bophuthatswana. That is the area which I regard as being our main defence barrier in that sense of the word.

Secondly, I want to repeat and urge upon the hon. the Minister that there should be a public works programme initiated in order to deal with those unemployed who cannot be absorbed in agriculture or in industry. There is ample scope for the development of infrastructure. There is ample scope for the development of public works in these homelands, and I think we have a duty, particularly in the short term, to ensure that those people have work and that they are contented.

The third point I would like to make is that I believe we must make greater efforts to see that there is an intensified programme to raise the level of agricultural capacity in the homelands. Here may I, with respect, refer to what Professor Tomlinson said only the other day when he complained about the fact that we are 15 years behind in respect of this matter and indicated that there was tremendous potential for agriculture in the homelands. May I just quote what he said—

If these figures are remotely correct—and they come from a man of great repute in South Africa—then there is a tremendous effort that needs to be made in the homelands.

The fourth point I would like to raise is that we need to create more facilities in the homelands to train Black people in skilled and semi-skilled work. You know, Sir, over the whole of Africa we have had the situation where universities have been established, that we have attended to university education but that technical education, the training of people for skilled and semiskilled activities, has lagged behind. Sir, with great respect, if we look at what is happening in many African States, where they train their people and give them B.A. degrees but cannot give them jobs, we find that this has created frustration and that in the community at large, there is a tremendous shortage of skilled and semi-skilled people. I believe this is one of the major matters that we should attend to. We must not make the mistakes that have been made in other parts of Africa in this regard.

The fifth point that I believe to be important is that we should review the social services and the other relief measures which are required in the homelands. I refer here particularly to those with which I am concerned in the Transvaal. I believe there is ample scope for looking at this matter again and seeing to it that more facilities are provided and more money made available for this purpose.

The sixth point I should like to make, which I think is important, is that a determined effort must be made to bring more Black people into the capitalist system of South Africa as entrepreneurs and employers and not merely as employees. With great respect, we have a problem in South Africa where one has a division between Black and White, a colour division, and one cannot afford to have that division accentuated by a division of capital and labour which is also a colour division. The world has enough troubles with divisions of capital and labour. If we create a situation in South Africa whereby we improve the lot of the working Black man as an employee, we will only have solved half of the problem because even though his lot will have been improved, he will still find himself frustrated in not being part of that group of people who own the means of production in the country. If we look at what has happened elsewhere in Africa we see that the metropolitan powers have repeatedly made the mistake of believing that you can give political rights to people and vet, economically, you can continue to own the means of production, i.e. you can continue to dominate economically. That is a system that has failed throughout Africa and the only way to ensure that this will not occur in South Africa is to bring people of all colour into the capitalist system and let them become owners of the means of production, to let them, in fact, participate in every level that there is in society.

The seventh point is that I believe we must make a greater effort to create a stable middle class. We have repeatedly spoken about allowing individual home-ownership in urban areas. We have spoken repeatedly about allowing businessmen in urban areas to extend their shops and businesses and allowing professional men to extend their facilities. I cannot, for the life of me, see the moral justification for saying that in an urban township you can, if you are a Black man, have a little shop, but you cannot have a supermarket. There is an inherent economic danger in this and one hears the whispers of it for it is said that this is done for the economic benefit of the White man, so that the Black man should be forced to shop in the big shops in the White areas. It is a dangerous thing that this should come about. I would appeal to the Government to put an end to this and, in fact, to allow the development of proper business activities in the urban areas, and not only to say that it should take place in the homelands. With respect, I put to you what is the policy of our party, i.e. that in the same way industrial areas should not be in the homelands only. There is no logic which prevents industrial areas from being adjacent to a place such as Soweto so that the people living in Soweto can not only work for White people but can, in fact, own factories of their own and become entrepreneurs. I say this because it is important that we should not have a system in South Africa where Black men are the workers and White men are the capitalists, for it is a dangerous situation to allow to develop and one that we cannot afford to allow to develop.

The eighth point is that I believe one should make life more meaningful for the Black people of South Africa. I have spoken before about greater police protection, particularly in the urban areas, and today I also want to make a plea for greater recreational and cultural facilities for the Black people of South Africa in the homelands and the urban areas so as to make life full and meaningful for them. How can one explain to the world that R25 million is being spent on an opera house in Pretoria at the present moment, which the Provincial Administration is doing, at a time when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says universities should not spend R3 million on putting up theatres? R25 million is being spent on the opera house in Pretoria at the wrong time in the economy, at a time when one should be cutting back on Government expenditure. The Administrator of the Transvaal says the amount is being spent on an opera house for Whites only and that Blacks must have their own facilities elsewhere. Where are the facilities for the Blacks? If one wants to make life full and meaningful for people so that they have something to be involved in and to participate in, then give them these facilities and do not say that you are spending R25 million and that they should find their facilities elsewhere when such facilities are not there in a real and meaningful sense. With great respect, life for us does not just consist of going to bed, getting up in the morning, going to work and coming home. It is a far fuller thing, and a far more meaningful thing. I believe that one of the more meaningful changes that is required in South Africa is that life must be meaningful for all people irrespective of their colour.

The ninth point I want to make comes back to the issue of unemployment. I believe that there must be a system of unemployment benefits for the genuine, unemployed work-seeker in the Black community, particularly in the homelands. I think this is essential, particularly from the nature of things as they are at the present moment. I believe that the greatest weapon which the people who want to infiltrate South Africa and the terrorists, whether on the border or in the urban areas or wherever they may be, have when they are indulging in subversion, is unemployment. The people who have no work, who have little prospect of getting it and who have no relief are prone to yield to the promises of those who come to them. We have to deal with that. We have to create jobs and we have to create work opportunities, but when there is no work for the man who genuinely wants to work, we must give him unemployment benefits while he is genuinely seeking work. These are the weapons which I believe we should use against the forces that threaten us. These I think are the most effective weapons. We need the guns, we need the army, we need the Police Force, we need all of them to protect ourselves, but a Magi not Line of contended people on our borders is the safest defence for South Africa’s future. There is nothing that can beat that and there is nothing that can help us more than such a situation in South Africa.

If I may, I would like now to turn to another matter, a matter which in the ordinary course I had not intended to speak about today. This matter, however, arose only the other day. I refer to the actions and words of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Perhaps we should establish first what the hon. the Minister said. He said in this House:

He went on to say:

The hon. the Minister withdrew the word “bombastic”. He went on to say:

The hon. the Minister was subsequently reported in the newspapers. I quote from a report which appeared in a daily newspaper, The Cape Times, of an interview which he is said to have given under the heading: “M.P.s will have to prove graft charges.” He is quoted as saying:

Here follows the important part:

What in fact is all this about? I do not want to deal with the merits of the dispute about which the hon. the Minister lost his cool; I want to deal with what in fact is the function of a member of Parliament—to exercise that freedom of speech which a member of Parliament is entitled to enjoy which is a tradition of this House and a tradition of democracy in the Western world—and I want to deal with the investigating functions of newspapers. I want to say that some of the greatest harm that can be done to South Africa to its image overseas and to the fight that we are presently conducting to stay in the United Nations is the kind of remark which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs made in this House. He makes threats as to what he is going to do. He does not say what the legislation is and he does not say exactly what he envisages but he issues a broad threat when he has lost his cool and in the process he does harm to South Africa. It is another example of the sabre-rattling technique that hon. Minister indulges in. Such sabre-rattling techniques, with great respect, Sir, only do harm to South Africa when they consist of threats to infringe upon the freedom of members of this House and to infringe upon the freedom of the Press in South Africa. The Press in South Africa has a right and a duty to exercise the investigatory functions which newspapers throughout the world have to exercise. We have just read about this same thing in America where the newspapers exercised their investigatory functions and in the end were proved to be right. There is a commission of inquiry on this matter in the United Kingdom. The investigatory functions of newspapers are recognized throughout the world. We have had all the threats about the Press in the past and now we get them again. We get them from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who should know better than to make them and who should stick to economic affairs. Do we not have remedies? Is there no law of defamation in South Africa? As far as all the newspaper cuttings he quoted are concerned, if defamatory statements had been made, why did the people not sue? Newspapers run a risk if they publish; they can be made to pay damages and they can be indicted if they campaign against anybody. But as far as this House is concerned, the threat against the inherent right of the freedom of speech of members of Parliament in a democratic institution, is one which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Members of Parliament, in the Opposition in particular, are the watchdogs of South Africa. That is one of our functions here. It is our function to see not only that there is no corruption but that there is efficiency, good administration and that there is no negligence. That is the function of an Opposition and that function of an Opposition the United Party will continue to exercise irrespective of the amount of sabre-rattling that the hon. the Minister wants to indulge in.

But the hon. the Minister is also something of an expert when it comes to juggling with figures. If he kept to his subject it would be a different matter. For example, he said that there was a 12% inflation rate in South Africa. When I suggested to him that the annual rate might be about 15%, he rejected it and said that it was 12%. It is 12%. But when we look at the statistics which are issued we find that the inflation rate during the 12 months ended September this year was not 12% as the hon. the Minister who got so excited told us, but 13,8%. If he had looked at the annual rate of the current inflation taking place, he would have seen that it is now 20%. When he quotes all the figures in comparison with the rest of the world, he conveniently ignores the countries where in fact inflation rates are lower. Other hon. members on this side will deal with that issue in due course.

I want to deal, if I may, with the question of the credit squeeze which we are experiencing in South Africa. I want at the outset to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the statement he made in order to reassure the public about the structure of banking in South Africa. I think it was important that he made that statement. Hon. members in this House might well remember how many times during his absence I endeavoured to obtain a statement like that from the Acting Minister of Finance. I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance did a service to the banking community in South Africa yesterday by issuing that statement. I think it is important. I think also that we need to go a little further. There are two matters that arise in this regard. The first matter that arises is that it is quite clear that the Reserve Bank acts as the lender of last resort. It is quite clear, too, that we have a banking structure with strong control as I have indicated in this House before. What I think is important is that in times of difficulty people tend to place their deposits with the larger institutions as opposed to the smaller institutions, and this practice aggravates the situation. That problem has been overcome in some countries by means of an insurance scheme. In America, for example, by means of the Savings and Loans Association the government guarantees or insures deposits up to a certain amount of money such as, say, $20 000 in certain instances. Even though I want to stress that it is not necessary or essential to have this in the existing banking climate, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider it as a matter to be dealt with in the future.

The second matter in regard to banks is that I would like to refer him to the meeting of the Central Bankers of Switzerland which took place in Basle in September this year. Reports indicate that at this meeting certain principles were agreed to by reason of the international liquidity problems of banks. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will not accept that these principles should be of equal application in South Africa. May I put certain of these principles to him? The first is that banks that get into liquidity difficulties within the national boundaries of a country will be supported by the central bank concerned, and the second is that banks that get into difficulties through fraud, however, will not necessarily be supported but that deposits will in fact be protected. These were two very important principles that were agreed on at Basle. They were necessary because of the banking climate in Europe which I want to say immediately is far worse than it is here because, as I have indicated, we have a much better banking structure and a far greater degree of control and confidence. Nevertheless I think that these are important matters in times of liquidity squeezes and that therefore we must pay attention to them.

The third matter I want to deal with is the question of the squeeze itself. There is little doubt that, even if the medicine is good, if you apply the medicine too well and the patient dies, you have the situation that the operation has been successful but that the patient is dead. There is little doubt also, that the use of monetary control measures in fighting inflation is something that is a recognized tool in such cases. However, we do have the situation in South Africa where, by reason of the tightness of the squeeze, it is quite clear that business and expansion is being hampered. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe the time has come for him to ease up a little on this medicine so that we do not in fact have a contraction in the economy but that we try to keep the rate of growth on as reasonable a level as possible. There is every indication at the present time that growth is going to tail off. There is also every reason why South Africa must continue to grow and why we must try to maintain as high a growth rate as possible. I believe that under existing circumstances, bearing in mind in particular the slowness in the expansion of credit over the past few months and bearing in mind too the fact that the rate of inflation is presently running very much higher than the rate of increase of the money supply, we can ease up on liquidity squeeze. I would like to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister today, not to allow the matter to get out of hand—far from it—but to allow business to develop in a reasonable fashion so as to allow money to flow in a manner that will encourage growth in South Africa.

There are many matters concerning inflation that we can deal with but there is one last matter I briefly want to mention to the hon. the Minister. In the USA where the rate of inflation at the moment is lower than it is in South Africa, there is a campaign afoot to get public support. People are, for example, being asked to sign pledges that they will help in the fight against inflation. This is being done to mount a public campaign for people to work harder, to save more, to spend less and, in fact, to help in the fight against inflation. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider this type of campaign whereby he can enrol the public in order to give support to a campaign against inflation. I concede that the Government cannot do it alone. It is in fact the people as a whole who must participate in this campaign against inflation. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider mounting this kind of public campaign in South Africa to enrol everyone in the fight against inflation which is perhaps one of the most difficult things we have to face in South Africa today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. Prime Minister has on various occasions accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of stealing the policy of the National Party. Two days ago the hon. the Prime Minister made a major policy speech in the Other Place. When the hon. member for Yeoville began his speech this afternoon, it was clear to me that he had read that speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister very carefully. Perhaps he went there personally to listen to the speech—I do not know. It became abundantly clear to me that the hon. member for Yeoville tried in the first part of his speech this afternoon to lay claim to National Party policy. All those things he said should be done to promote harmony among the people, for example, and to contain and keep at bay the enemy from outside, are things this Government is already doing.

The hon. member made an urgent request that we should give the Black peoples a great deal more. I have read a very interesting and instructive article in the German Tribune about these donations to the so called “Third World”. I notice this one very important sentence in that article. It is an extract from an article by Mr. Klaus Natorp of the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung. I quote—

This is precisely the philosophy which is being applied by this Government: These Black peoples of South Africa are being assisted to stand on their own two feet. They are not being supplied with money all the time. Even the younger generation of politicians and economists of the Third World are beginning to realize that one cannot uplift a people by simply pumping in money all the time. One can only uplift people if one helps them to stand on their own two feet, and this is precisely what this Government is doing. After all, if people are not taught to use their hands and the means available to them, one could go on pumping in money and assistance ad infinitum and one will never be able to uplift those people.

As far as the economic financial part of the hon, member’s speech is concerned, he has found fault with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who was supposed to have said that we have a rate of inflation of 12% at the moment. As against that, the hon. member is of the opinion that the rate of inflation, taken on an annual basis, is far higher; it is between 15% and 20%. But let us rather leave our calculations until the year is past, when we shall be able to see whether the rate of inflation is nearer to 12% or to 20%. I want to give him the assurance that it will be nearer to 12%. What we are dealing with of course is imported inflation, over which we have no control. But under the leadership of a very able Minister of Finance and an equally able Minister of Economic Affairs, I am convinced that this rate of inflation at the end of the year will be much nearer to 12% than to 20%.

As was also said by the hon. member for Yeoville, we have now come to the end of a debate on the Budget of the Central Government which has been in progress for several weeks. When considering this debate in retrospect, one fact remains as clear as a pikestaff to me, and that is that this Government is in a stronger position than it ever was. In every Vote discussed in Committee of this House every Minister, man for man, put up a magnificent performance as far as control over their departments was concerned.

I also want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Finance who, throughout this entire debate on the Budget, excelled to a greater extent than ever before. He is the man whose stature has simply kept on growing. I think involuntarily here of a conversation I recently had with a renowned economist of our country, who had had the privilege of attending the meeting of the IMF in Washington. He told me that it had done his heart good to observe our Minister of Finance in action there, how everyone, not only the representatives of the White nations, but also the representatives of the Black nations of Africa—flocked into that assembly hall to listen to him. All of them, Whites and non-Whites have the highest regard for our Minister of Finance. For that reason I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking him very sincerely for his actions on the occasion of the annual meeting of the IMF; I want to congratulate him very sincerely on his actions there in the interest of the Republic of South Africa.

In a debate on a Budget which we are now considering in retrospect, it is not only the deeds of the Government and the Minister of Finance which are judged. The Opposition, which also forms part of our parliamentary Government, is also judged in such a debate; a judgment is passed on them as well, particularly on the so-called shadow Minister of Finance. With very great expectations not only this House, but the entire country, looked forward to the display of this shining new star on the firmament of the United Party. Alas, Mr. Speaker, it has waned.

In the Budget debate last year I proved here, on a basis of statements as they appeared in Hansard, that the former shadow Minister of Finance of the United Party, Mr. Sonny Emdin, had been guilty of very serious double talk. Consequently, I looked forward with great expectation to this new shadow Minister of Finance departing once and for all from this double talk in the economic sphere, and speaking with a clear voice. Was it not, after all, this hon. member for Yeoville who promised a year or two ago that the time of double talk in the United Party was past Alas, it has not passed. If we take cognizance of the economic and financial statements of the hon. member for Yeoville during the past session, we cannot but conclude that he, too, was guilty of serious double talk. I listened here one day to a speech the hon. member for Yeoville was making, and at the end of it, I observed that he could just as well have made that speech before the doctrinaire socialists of the Fabian Society in London. For in that speech he made a stirring appeal on behalf of the so-called “have-nots”, who were supposedly not receiving their just desserts under this Government. On another occasion—it was during the Second Reading debate under this Bill at the beginning of the session—the hon. member said (col. 970)—

He then proceeded to make a plea on behalf of the less well-to-do sector of our population. Sir, we come then to another occasion. In the debate on the Customs and Excise Bill, I pointed out that this Government did not want to abolish the sales duty on luxury items because it was a general fiscal principle that the man who is able to pay, is asked to pay, and that the man who buys luxury items was consequently being asked to pay a 20% sales duty. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville carried on rather wildly in regard to this statement of mine that the wealthy should pay. Surely there is nothing wrong with that; surely it is a general fiscal principle that the man who is able to pay, is asked to pay. After all, why are the taxation tariffs on the higher income groups infinitely higher than the taxation tariffs on the lower income groups? There is nothing wrong with the principle, but listen to what the hon. member for Yeoville said in reply to that—

Of course that is not what I said; I did not say that you must extract as much as you possibly can from him; I said that you must let him pay because he is in a higher income group—

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that? What is very clearly apparent from this is that in exactly the same way as his predecessor this hon. member as well tried to act as the champion of the less well-to-do person on the one day, but on the next, when it suits him, he acts as the champion of the wealthy man. This is the typical double-barrelled tactics of the Opposition. Sir, this is why I say that this hon. member has been a great disappointment not only to this House, but also to the entire nation, for they really expected a new star to emerge from the ranks of the United. Party here, and unfortunately they were given very little evidence of this.

Sir, I do want to say this to the hon. member for Yeoville: I have a high regard for his wide knowledge on economic and financial matters; I also have high regard for the fact, which is clearly apparent from his actions in this House, that he works very hard indeed. It is that kind of member who can make a contribution in this House. But as a senior member on this side of the House, may I give him a piece of fatherly advice now? He should not do what the Shakespearian clergyman did—

He must not advise his party to put a stop to double talk and then be guilty of double talk himself.

I want to come to an extremely important principle which we shall once again, in my opinion, have to bring home to these people of ours. It is a fact that there is a very considerable lack of a fiscal sense of responsibility among a large sector of our population and unfortunately we are saddled with an Opposition which, after more than 26 years in opposition, is so frustrated that they have become so negative that it is the simplest and easiest thing in the world for them to make the people lose their fiscal sense of responsibility to an ever-increasing extent. If we consider how the Opposition is constantly advocating the abolition of, for example, sales duty and the lowering of taxes, then surely we are treading on dangerous ground. Then, surely, we are treading a slippery path, where we will find that fewer and fewer people will subsequently want to pay taxes. I want to advocate today that we inculcate in our people once again an increased measure of fiscal responsibility. To be able to do this, we will probably have to point out to our people again that all of us, whether we fall into the high income group or into the lower income group, lay claim to the services rendered by the Government. After all, all of us are safeguarded by the Defence expenditure of the Government. All of us enjoy the protection of the police. All of us, surely, enjoy the privilege of free education, and the lower income groups in particular can lay claim to social pensions. All of us eat subsidized bread, and all of us in the cities drink subsidized water, and on the farms we use subsidized water for irrigation. If we consider all these benefits—and I could of course mention a great many more—and all these services which the Government is rendering to the country, surely it goes without saying that all of us, the one to a lesser and the other to a greater extent, must contribute to keep the machinery of the State in operation. We are not in any way advocating that everyone should pay the same amount of taxation, but because everyone receives benefits from the State, we must bring home this principle to our people, that we all of us have a fiscal responsibility. If we cannot succeed in doing this, then we are heading for anarchy which could eventually lead to socialism and communism. Sir, the Opposition has every right to level criticism, and we do not want to deprive them of this right.

Tell that to Horwood.

But we are asking that this be done in a responsible manner.

If we now consider enemy No. 1, which is threatening our economy and our entire survival at the moment, viz. the high inflation rate, we must ask ourselves where the burden of this high inflation rate is being most heavily felt and how we can best alleviate it in that sphere. It is quite clear that the burden for those who are still working, those who are still being employed, is not too heavy a burden at all, because it is clear that salaries are being adjusted as rapidly, if not more rapidly, as the rate at which inflation is increasing. I have here a study made by Dr. Anton Rupert in which he makes it quite clear that salaries and wages in the private sector have increased by 176% over a particular period, while the consumer price index increased by only 74%. The working man, therefore does not experience this burden of the high inflation rate. However, this burden is being most heavily felt by the poor fellow who is not working any longer, i.e. the retired person. It is a fact that the State admits that the purchasing power of money is reduced from time to time on account of the high rate of inflation, and for this reason the State effects regular adjustments to civil pensions, pensions which are being paid to that unfortunate section of the people who are no longer able to work and who were not in a position to make provision for old age on account of some unforeseeable circumstances or other. In the case of civil pensioners, the State admits that the purchasing power of money is being eroded, and for that reason civil pensions are adjusted from time to time. I make an earnest request that we should reconsider this situation very carefully, and that consideration be given for retired public servants to be paid a pension commensurate with the posts they have held, irrespective of whether they retired 20 years or one year ago. I know that in reply to this it could easily be said that the State cannot afford to do this. Surely, it is only fair that people who have done the same work should have the same income in their old age, provided of course they have worked for the State. The argument used in this regard is that the person who has retired a long time ago contributed far less to the pension fund. What he did was to contribute fewer rand, but the rand he did contribute were worth far more, and had a greater purchasing power. If one converts the value of the rand of 20 years ago into the value the rand has today and takes into account the rate of inflation, one will find that the person who retired a year ago had not paid such a great deal more into the pension fund. I make an earnest request therefore that serious attention should be given to people who have been doing the same work, irrespective of how long ago they had retired, receiving the same pensions, or as near as possible to the same pensions. Teachers who retired ten years ago told me what pensions they are receiving at present and I have found that their pensions are less than half of those received by the person who retired a year ago. These people have done exactly the same work, but the person who has retired a long time ago is being penalized in his old age. I can quite appreciate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions saying immediately that the State is unable to afford this, but I am quite sure that our dynamic leaders in the front benches of this House will be able to devise a plan to remedy this injustice to those people who have retired at an earlier stage.

I now want to deal with those people who have to live on their private income in their old age. No adjustment whatsoever is made in their case. I definitely do not want to ask that we should simply take over the entire system of indexing as it has developed in Brazil, and as advocated by Prof. Friedman of the United States. But when it comes to the savings those people have put away for their old age, we shall definitely have to consider very seriously whether we should not accommodate them. On more than one occasion I have heard the ordinary man saying that it does not pay him to save for his old age because the State takes good care of those who do not save anything. They say that those of them who have earned the same salaries as others, but who have lived more frugally in order to be able to save something, do not receive civil pensions because they are disqualified on account of the means test. Consequently no adjustment is made for them. I repeat: I do not ask that we should apply the entire system of indexing Brazil has today, but we shall really have to go out of our way to devise some plan to accommodate these people who have to live on their private savings in their old age and whose money has been eroded as much as anyone else’s as far as its buying power is concerned. Of course, I appreciate only too well that we are unable to apply, and that we do not want to apply, many of the aspects of the Brazilian system of indexing. The hon. member for Yeoville had a great deal to say in his maiden speech in this House about this system of indexing, and he made a fairly strong plea for the introduction thereof. Of course, what the hon. member neglected to say, is that the income tax rate in Brazil is far lower than ours, and therefore adjustments are made. When salaries are raised, provision is made so that people do not have to pay higher income tax, simply because their salaries have increased on account of the rate of inflation. What the hon. member did not say was that the sales duty in Brazil is tremendously high, as high as 60% on certain items. This we definitely do not want in our country. I want to make an earnest request again that we should do some very serious and very hard thinking in respect of savings for old age in order to accommodate our people in that respect. If we do not do this we will be depriving our people of the incentive to save to a large extent.

Mr. Speaker, there are not many occasions in this House when I agree as wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Paarl as I do at the moment. I refer to his plea for some relief for civil pensioners who retired years ago on a lower finishing salary than their counterparts who retire these days. I fully agree with that plea. I also fully agree with his plea for some form of indexed investment. This was raised by myself last year and has been raised twice this year by the hon. member for Yeoville. This is something which I believe the hon. the Minister should seriously think about. In regard to the rest of the speech of the hon. member for Paarl—the senior speaker on finance on that side of the House bar Cabinet Ministers—I must express the greatest disappointment in what he had to say. For nearly two-thirds of his speech he played politics with the hon. member for Yeoville.

And failed.

He then talked about an important subject, viz. inflation, but he got off the subject as soon as he possibly could. I can only describe the hon. member’s speech as being one of fiddling while Rome burns.

The hon. member for Yeoville, when he opened this debate, started with the theme of security through economic welfare. I want to carry on with that theme and I particularly want to carry on with relation to public enemy No. 1, viz. inflation, which I think is a subject that we have not heard sufficient about during this session. It is a subject which is worrying every single person in this country.

I wonder how many members in this House realize what has happened in regard to inflation during the three months we have been sitting in this House. Three months ago the rate of increase in the cost of living was 11,2%. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, it is now 13,8. Three months ago the cost of food on an annual basis was going up by 11,8%, but now it is going up by 20%. Over the three months the cost of living, if put on an annualized basis, is increasing at the rate of 18,4% The increase in the price of food, over the three months we have been sitting in this House, if put on an annualized basis, is 28,4% I do not think I need to emphasize to any member of this House the gravity or the seriousness of this situation of inflation that is existing at the moment. Rising prices and incomes that are not keeping pace with those prices are recognized facts in this regard. I question the hon. member for Paarl’s statement in this regard, because I do not think that any incomes are keeping pace with the rate of inflation of 18,4% or with that of food of 28,4. Rising prices and incomes that are not keeping pace with them are the main causes of discontent and hardship amongst people. The hon. member for Paar said that salaries and wages are rising at a higher rate than prices. If that were to be so, and I do not believe that it is so, he is still not taking account of vast sections of the population where that does not apply. He is leaving out large numbers of lower-paid African and Coloured workers. He is leaving out growing numbers of unemployed workers amongst the African population, both in the homelands and in some of the industrial areas. I have heard this week that something like one third of the African workers in Hammarsdale are unemployed at the present time. He is leaving out large numbers of underemployed persons. There are persons doing casual work or working on short time. He is leaving out pensioners of all races, particularly pensioners belonging to private schemes who have no method of increasing their incomes and who are on fixed pensions. He is leaving out the vast army of salaried workers who get their regular 10% increases each year, because the 10% increase is not enough to take care of inflation. This is what is causing discontent and hardship and it is causing more discontent and hardship the further you go down the scale of income.

Give us the solutions.

I am coming to what the cause of these things is. Where it really hurts is at the bottom of the scale because then there is no margin to meet any price increases at all. I believe that the very worst recipe for security is a discontented people. If you want your population to join with you in defending the country against subversion and terrorism, you must have a population that is contented with its lot in this country. I believe that is the worst feature of inflation namely its effects on individuals.

However, there are other features of inflation that I also find frightening. At the moment many countries are experiencing a high rate of inflation and I am afraid we have to include South Africa in this. Unless such inflation is curbed and reduced to proportions that are manageable, I believe that in the long run it can have only one of two results. Firstly, inflation is leading us along the path of Socialism because the whole basis, source and value of capital on which our free enterprise system is based, is being eroded away and destroyed. We are being left with a vacuum. If low capital formation, low replacement of capital, continues in this way, the vacuum can only be filled by the State intervening and that to my way of thinking, would be Socialism. The other end result, if you think this matter out to its logical conclusion, is that we could alternatively be heading for a serious recession or even a depression with all that that entails—unemployment and hardship. If you are going to apply the classical method of a monetary squeeze to try to succeed in fighting inflation, you are going to have the effect of slowing down the economy which is going to put firms out of business and cause unemployment in the process. That, to my way of thinking, is a quite unthinkable end in a country such as South Africa. If inflation itself is a cause of discontent and unrest, as I believe it is, how much more dangerous are unemployment and empty stomachs?

If we think seriously and soberly about the serious end results, which may be Socialism or a depression, it becomes absolutely imperative that we find a solution at least to reduce the rate of inflation, which I am afraid at present is not being done. It is no use saying, as other speakers have already said during this session, that we are better off than other countries. I get down on my knees and I thank God that we are better off than other countries. I thank God that we do not have the inflation rate that they have in Australia, Japan, Brazil or in the United Kingdom. I thank God that we do not have the labour problems, the trade union problems, the social or structural problems to the same extent as they have in most countries, problems which are causing inflation. If we had those problems, our position would have been all the more critical and difficult to solve. However, I do draw comfort from the fact that there are other countries in the world who have an inflation rate considerably lower than we have in this country. I refer for example to Germany and Rhodesia. Germany, with an inflation rate at present of between 7% and 8%, has escaped the worst ravages of inflation, primarily because it is a highly productive country. It is a country of hardworking people, with the result that it has been able to build up a very strong currency and economy. Rhodesia, on the other hand, with a very different set of circumstances, has an enviable record in regard to inflation. Last year the rate of inflation in Rhodesia was only 3,6%. That, in fact, was a lower rate than the previous year, when the rate was 4,4%. In the last five years, the overall total amount of inflation Rhodeisa has had to bear for Europeans—they have a different index for Africans—was 25%. For Africans it was only 20%. The comparable figure over the same period, up to September of this year, for South Africa has been 50%, more than double either of the two Rhodesian indices. I believe that a comparison with what is happening in Rhodesia is something which we cannot afford to ignore; because the Rhodesian economy in many ways is structured in the same way as the South African economy, though of course on a much smaller scale. There rates of inflation in Rhodesia have not been achieved at the expense of growth. The real gross domestic product over the last five years in Rhodesia has shown a growth of 50%, as against the South African figure of 27%. This low rate of inflation in Rhodesia has been achieved despite sanctions which have been aimed at harming and destroying the Rhodesian economy. It has been achieved despite having to pay a premium on the price of imports on which they have had to pay secret commissions. It has been achieved despite having to use a much higher proportion of the national income on defence and security than we have to in South Africa. I believe that it is pertinent to draw these comparisons with Rhodesia, and I intend doing so in other respects as well. In doing so, I would like to say that I do not in any way wish to take on the political problems of Rhodesia, but I do think we can learn something from that country’s economic structure.

What has gone wrong that we have this inflation in South Africa? I am going to give you three reasons. As I said during the discussion of the Economic Affairs Vote, I believe that the South African economy is not structured for growth. Besides not being structured for growth, I believe that we have a built-in inflation factor in our economy. I say this, because whenever we reach a growth rate such as 6% or 7%, which is needed to take care of jobs for our expanding population, we first of all run into balance of payments problems, and then we run into the problem of accelerating inflation. Whenever we have an increase in exports, such as we have had in the past year, our imports increase to a greater extent and we run into balance of payments problems in a situation where we should in fact be having an easing of the balance of payments. I cannot believe that this is the case, but it seems to me that we are better off in our balance of payments situation when we hage low exports than when we have high ones. I believe that it is absolutely essential to recognize that we have these structural defects. It is necessary to identify and deal with them. It is no use denying them, as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs did, it is no use ignoring them, just because they are Nationalist Government-created. If we want to get rid of them we have to deal with them, and unless we deal with them we shall not be combating inflation effectively. I should like to mention three of the structural defects that I think exist in the economy. The first is the labour situation. Whenever our economy grows fast we develop labour bottlenecks which in turn cause a salary and wage explosion, which in turn causes costs and prices to go up with the result that no one is better off, not even the salary and wage earners who have received increases. South Africa has no manpower shortage, but because of Government policies which restrict the use and the mobility of African labour, and because the Government has been late in waking up to the fact that we have an economy based on skilled and semiskilled labour, not an economy like the one they probably think we had in the last century—and they are probably thinking in terms of the last century—i.e. an economy of unskilled labour, we have a shortage of labour in the categories of skilled and unskilled workers. The Government has now, belatedly, woken up to this fact but the pace at which they are introducing measures to overcome the problem, is far too slow. What we need is a crash programme for the training of our labour, because we have a lot of lost time to make up. I should like to draw another analogy with the Rhodesian situation. This labour defect is not found in Rhodesia because the Rhodesians have not been stupid enough to restrict the use or the mobility of African labour and they are therefore benefiting in terms of lower inflation. The fact that we have done so we are now paying for in terms of higher inflation.

The second structural defect that I consider we have in our economy results from the pattern of industrial development which has taken place as the result of the way in which the Government has applied tariff protection and import control to promote certain industries. We on this side of the House certainly want industrial development, but we want industrial development of the right kind. Much of the industrial development which is taking place has not led to comparable import replacement, which may have been a desirable objective, but it has made inordinate demands on our scarce resources of labour and on our scarce resources of capital. The motor industry is an example. It may be strategically desirable to have a motor-car with a 100% South African content, but we must count the cost to us of having such a motor-car. We have got to count the cost in terms of the strain that an industry such as this is putting on our scarce resources; we have got to count the cost of establishing an industry in a market which is too small to sustain economical production units. This is why we are paying high prices for cars; this is why the Datsun, which three years ago cost R2 340, now costs R2 950, 38 % more, whilst a Volkswagen costs 31% more and a Cortina costs 50% more. Mr. Speaker, I am worried, too, that the manufacture of TV sets is going to fall in the same category as the motor industry. I am concerned that it also is going to use scarce skilled labour resources and that it will be poaching its labour from the Post Office and the SABC; that it will be using scarce capital; that it will not save much in the way of import replacements because it is going to need to import its own components and plant for its own manufacture, and it is going to prevent the South African public from buying TV sets in the cheapest markets. I cannot conceive either that a TV manufacturing industry can be economical on the scale that will be permitted by a market of our size. Again I am afraid that the answer is going to be that the consumer is going to have to pay by way of higher prices. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in industrial development should be on using what we have in abundance or in relative abundance by way of raw materials and labour, concentrating on industries where we have natural advantages, concentrating on industries where we can produce most cheaply and concentrating on industries which have low import propensities and which do not draw too heavily on our foreign exchange reserves. I have said before during this session that I believe that our industrial development should first of all be directed towards building up our metallurgical industries, our industries for the beneficiation of minerals, and our chemical industry. Again I would like to draw a comparison, Sir, with what is happening and has happened in Rhodesia. Whether it has happened as a result of deliberate policy, or whether it has been forced on Rhodesia as a result of sanctions, the fact is that Rhodesia has diversified its economy into activities, whether those be industrial, agricultural or mining activities, which use the resources which are available in Rhodesia. Sanctions in fact may have been a blessing in disguise, but they have had the effect of producing a major rate of growth and of fighting inflation. Mr. Speaker, not only in my view has the Government misdirected the direction in which protection has been given, but I think it has also been incredibly hamhanded in the application of protective tariffs in certain instances. I refer to the recent application of duties in the textile industry. Sir, we are in favour of a healthy textile industry, make no mistake about that; it is a labour-intensive industry and it can be an economical industry, but we have been absolutely staggered at the recent increases which have been slapped on textiles. They are unnecessarily high; they are higher than was asked for by the industry in some cases. They are going to raise the prices of clothing, in some instances by a considerable amount. One of the worst features of the duties is that they have been made applicable to goods which were on the water and in respect of which the orders could not be cancelled. I have heard estimates that these additional duties just in respect of goods on the water which could not be cancelled, will amount to something like R15 million, just in additional duties. This is the additional amount the public will have to pay by way of increased prices. This is nearly twice as much as the relief from sales duty given in the Budget. What is the use of giving R8,5 million relief from sales duty and then slapping on duty which will cost millions and millions of rand by way of the increased price of clothing?

Finally, the third structural defect which I consider is causing inflation is the reluctance of this Government to regard the rand as a strong currency. I have never hidden my feelings about the fact that I regarded the events which led up to the 1971 devaluation of the rand and the devaluation itself as a disaster. It worries me, now that the rand is being independently managed, that it is still being allowed to slip back in value. This is happening at a time when our terms of trade with the rest of the world are still relatively favourable. Most of the prices of our exports are still on an upward curve with one or two exceptions, such as wool and copper. I can see no justification at all for a soft rand in order to try to stimulate our exports. There is every justification for a strong rand, so that our imports can benefit by being imported at lower rand prices. We are continually being told, and we were told again this afternoon by the hon. member for Paarl, that much of our inflation in South Africa is imported. Of course some of it is imported, and particularly as a result of oil prices, but why not counteract imported inflation by strengthening rather than weakening the rand? I believe if we were to follow that course in regard to the relationship between the rand and the dollar, we would be much more likely to attract capital, which would come to this country as the result of a strong rand rather than a soft rand.

I would like to draw one final analogy with the position of Rhodesia and to say that at the time of the Smithsonian agreement when the rand was devalued in 1971, the Rhodesian dollar was not devalued and has since been able to maintain a strong and stable relationship with outside currencies. This has been a major factor in offsetting the possibility of imported inflation in that country. I wish that we could say the same of this country.

The hon. member for Constantia would be very good at planting sweet potatoes, but he would not be a good sower. I say this because a sower walks across his field and looks at his field as a whole, but a person who is planting sweet potatoes looks straight ahead of him and plants his sweet potatoes one by one. For that reason he only sees his immediate surroundings. I want to say today that the hon. member has really disappointed me. I had expected much more of him. I do not want to say much about the comparisons he drew with Rhodesia. I just want to tell him this: He said in his speech that he was very glad that he did not have to handle or to inherit the political situation of Rhodesia. He began by taking a sidelong swipe at them and then he drew his comparison between South Africa and Rhodesia. I do not want to say much about Rhodesia; in any case I do not think it would be right of me to say much about that subject. However, I must point out to the hon. member that if he wants to draw comparisons, surely he should compare what is comparable. In the first place Rhodesia has no capital-intensive market. I want to leave the matter at that, merely remarking that his comparisons carry no weight with me.

The hon. member mentioned three ways in which we might be able to combat inflation. I shall come back to these later. Furthermore the hon. member pointed out to us the seriousness of inflation and how we were being affected by it. There is no argument about that. We know that that is the case and we accept it. The hon. member attacked the hon. member for Paarl because, according to the hon. member for Constantia, he devoted two-thirds of his speech to playing politics with the hon. member for Yeoville. Why did he not tell us that the hon. member for Yeoville devoted two-thirds of his speech to Bantu Affairs and the Bantu homelands? He did not talk about finance at all. The hon. member for Yeoville produced a statement which I took down because I thought it would be the statement of the year, but I was sadly disappointed. I had honestly expected more. I think the hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem these days. Surely he should realize that the homelands have their own governments. Most of the things which the hon. member for Yeoville wants done have already been entrusted to the homeland governments themselves. They will have to undertake these things themselves.

With the money they are getting?

He had better address himself directly to them and to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I am surprised that he did not have more to say about finance. He had better have another of his interviews and issue a statement afterwards. There is nothing new in all these things which he mentioned. This is what they will have to do or try to do themselves. However, I am very pleased that he spoke about the agricultural development of the homelands. I think he should go and tell the leaders in the Bantu homelands to make better use of their land. That land has a high utilization value and if it is properly farmed, the food production of the homelands will be higher. However, all these matters fall under their own control.

I now want to come to the financial aspects and to the attack made by the Opposition on the Government, as I see it. Once again we had the same old story: Inflation and more inflation. According to those hon. members the Government has invented inflation, as I said on a previous occasion. During the discussion on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said that he laid the blame for inflation squarely on the Government’s shoulders; the Government was responsible for it. This accusation was made in spite of the fact that we know that inflation is an international problem. We are sorry that we are suffering from it, but there is nothing we can do about it. It is to be found in all economic systems in the world. There are reasons for it, of course. If the hon. members opposite would only suggest an alternative to us, if they would only tell us what we should do. They should please suggest alternatives to us and work out a programme of principles of which they are able to say that they have already been tried. But so far they have given us nothing.

The hon. member stated three points. In the first place he attacked us on the labour situation. Once again, that is a hackneyed story. We are not going to argue about it again; it has been argued over and over again in the House and it has no substance. If I remember correctly, the hon. member also said that we should be integrated in the industrial sphere. Of course we are integrated industrially. So there is nothing new in that either. Then, however, the hon. member did produce a new argument—this was all I could call new—by saying, “There is a reluctance on the part of the Government to regard the rand as a strong currency.”

Did you understand that, Doep?

I honestly regard that as being a childish statement. The very fact that the rand is no longer tied to other systems, that it is on its own today, goes to prove that the Government believes that the rand is able to stand on its own. The hon. member still seems to be living in the old days when people did not believe in devaluations when the attitude was that the value of a currency should not change. The hon. member is standing alone in the world, for this is a recognized method in all countries today.

The rand was floated, and then it weakened.

No, the rand is not weakening; it will grow stronger. The rand will grow stronger; it is no longer tied to any other currency in the world. I am not going to waste any more time on this. I only say that I reject that statement; it has no substance. In any case, the hon. the Minister will no doubt deal with this at greater length in his reply.

I say that if these people could really suggest an alternative to us, we could say that it is brilliant and that we shall accept it. But I believe that their attack on inflation was merely a form of political escapism. They are being forced to retreat in the political field these days, and now they are retreating into the safe sphere of the economy, where they argue about inflation. I want to repeat for the record that this Government is doing its best to combat inflation. It has done so by means of the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. This Budget is designed to promote productivity, growth, prosperity and the creation of jobs for all, and to maintain a high standard of living in the country. The Budget was neutral, but at the same time it was designed in such a way as to bring the largest possible amount of goods into circulation, so that prices could be lowered.

This brings me to the other point of the United Party’s accusation against the Government. The accusation which has been made against us lately is that the Government is responsible for the liquidity squeeze. They say the Government should do something about it at once. This brings me back to the complete inconsistency of these people’s arguments. Upon analysing these, one discovers a blatant inconsistency. On the one hand they attack the Government for the current inflation, but on the other hand they hold us responsible for this shortage of capital and they say that the Government should do something at once to alleviate the position. If the Government were to do what they want, i.e. to pour more money into circulation, what would happen then? Suddenly the inflation rate would soar. If this were to happen, just you guess—and I am giving you only one guess—who would then be accused and who would then be held responsible for the higher inflation. Surely this is completely inconsistent. I shall come back to this later and I shall furnish further proof. If in South Africa, where we have a strong Government, a weak Opposition and responsible trade union leaders, we have to struggle so hard to control inflation, can hon. members imagine how difficult it must be for countries where they have a weak Government, a strong Opposition and completely irresponsible trade union leaders? Hon. members may imagine how difficult it would be to control inflation under such circumstances. As long as inflation is uncontrollable on the international level, inflation will continue to be a problem on the national level in any developed country in the world. We must remember—and here I am coming to an important point—that South Africa has proved that it is able to control and to curb inflation, if we compare our inflation with that prevailing in other countries of the world. Therefore hon. members should not come along again with the silly argument that they do not want to know what is going on in other countries. You cannot measure yourself against yourself, after all, for then you would always take first place. If you do not measure yourself against others, how do you know what you are doing and how to rate your achievements? I want to tell hon. members that this Government is having great success in that regard.

I now want to come to the liquidity problem and to the situation we have in this country which is giving rise to the complaints. It is ture that the present situation is creating tension and that enterprises which are under-capitalized and which are completely credit-orientated are being subjected to pressure under these difficult circumstances and that they are being forced to recognize and to plan anew. At the present moment, demand is being restricted, and entrepreneurs are not prepared to make investments at the very high interest rates, because it is not profitable. All these factors combine to bring about a slow-down in the economy, but I believe that the matter will right itself in course of time.

These things have not come about because of damping measures introduced by the Government. These things have come about because the economy has landed itself in that situation. Because there are damping factors at the moment, the Opposition is raising a hue and cry as if the end of the world were in sight. If the Government were to open the flood-gates at this stage and to inject money into the monetary system, as hon. members opposite want us to do, the inflation rate would soar. Here we have the position that the economy itself has generated a certain situation and is now undergoing a process of purification and trying to right itself without interference by the Government. These damping measures will have the effect of curbing inflation. It should bring down the inflation rate which we have been told is so high. One has expected the United Party to say that we should content ourselves with this, because it may bring down the inflation rate. But what do we get from them? They ask for more inflation. They ask the Government to inject more money. The Government cannot inject more money in this arbitrary fashion. This is a responsible Government which is bound by its banking laws. It is also bound by its monetary relations and formulae, in terms of which money and quasi-money is brought into circulation in the country. This policy has stood the test of time. It has been proved to be a sound and well-founded policy. Moreover, it is being handled in South Africa by brilliant and outstanding economists. The method by which money is created in the country is a very technical matter and it cannot be changed by injecting money arbitrarily and merely because some pressure is being brought to bear. The success achieved by this country and the fact that it compares so favourably with other countries are precisely owing to the success of our monetary policy. We on this side of the House are not lacking in sympathy for the problems experienced by other people in the country. The Government will keep a close watch on the position and will see to it that the economy is not materially damaged. The Government will also see to it that the coming slow-down does not get out of hand. We must bear in mind that an economy which is able to right itself is a fundamentally sound economy. I believe that the liquidity problems we are experiencing at the moment will resolve themselves. The fact is that there are large amounts of supplies in the country at the moment in which money has been invested. These supplies exceed the requirements, so it will soon be possible to convert them into money again. This would promote the flow of money in the economy. As far as Government expenditure is concerned, the Government will spend more money over the next few months than it will take up. This expenditure too should increase the amount of money circulating in the country. Another very encouraging aspect is the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place to the effect that it seems as if overseas interest rates are becoming more favourable and that there may be a positive improvement in the balance of payments. The increase in South African interest rates may enable us to compete with overseas interest rates and to bring about an influx of capital again. Consequently I believe that the economy will be able to rectify this situation by itself and that our liquidity position will return to normal.

There is another aspect I wish to refer to, namely the one raised by the hon. member for Yeoville under the Votes of the Minister of Economic Affairs. He kept referring to the high interest rates and to the liquidity position in South Africa, as he did again today. He compared this with the position in Europe in 1929 and 1930; in other words, the position just before the great depression which started in 1930. The implication of those comparisons made by him is that if the situation is not rectified at once. South Africa may, in terms of the comparisons and similarities, find itself in exactly the same kind of depression as has been experienced by Europe in the past. These may be his opinions or his fears, but I want to tell him that I do not share these fears. Nor do I believe that these fears are shared by many people on this side of the House. Nor are they shared by people who have some knowledge of the matter. I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister of Finance and to take cognizance of his explanation that there is great uncertainty about the future in the world at the moment and that there are really two lines of thought in respect of the position. The one line of thought is that we are faced with a great collapse, and the other one is that the future may only hold higher inflation rates. I just want to say that these ideas expressed by the hon. the Minister of Finance have nothing to do with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville was referring to the situation here in South Africa. I believe that this situation of uncertainty is largely owing to the serious oil crisis. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that one cannot compare the situation in Europe in 1930 with the situation in South Africa today. The two just cannot be compared. The fact that there is a similarity at this stage because the interest rates are high and there is a liquidity squeeze is merely accidental. South Africa is a growing, prosperous country in the Western world today. South Africa need import only 25% of the energy materials it requires, and it has sufficient funds to pay for this. South Africa has all the natural resources required for this purpose. Europe, or Germany, to be specific, was not in the same position at all in the years 1929 and 1930. The two just cannot be compared. I do not want to go into detail, but I do want to say that the important factor in this matter is that the great depression of 1930 was the last depression experienced by the world. Since that time we have not had another depression of its kind. It is true that we have had recessions, and there has been more or less unemployment—a small percentage in various countries—but there has been no repetition of the unemployment and misery caused by that great depression. The reason for this is that the economists and monetary authorities of the world have acquired the technique of controlling income. The greatest economic problem of the world used to be unsteady and unstable demand. This led to unsteady and unstable production. When the economists learnt how to control income, they also learnt how to control demand. The economists used to think that demand was determined by price, production and supply, but this is not the case. Demand is determined by income. By manipulating income they were able to manipulate demand, and that has resulted in the process of growth which we have today. The steady demand which had been created led to a stable production process, and this gave rise to the process of growth which we have today. Attempts were made to bring the process of growth into line, they tried to align supply and demand in order to keep price fluctuations down to a minimum, but the situation was that the demand was always slightly higher than the supply. The result was that there was always a slowly rising price index. This has led to the inflation we have today. Eventually, as the years went by, an element of permissiveness crept into this process. There were unilateral devaluations and trade unions acted irresponsibly, thereby pushing up costs. The whole process grew confused, with the result that the inflation rate increased and eventually even got out of hand. This was how this position arose. The latest example of completely irresponsible behaviour on the international monetary level was the oil crisis which we had and still have, which caused the prices to soar and which virtually brought some countries to the point where they could no longer exist and compete. All these things have been happening lately. Therefore I do not know how the hon. member for Yeoville can compare the position in South Africa with the position in Europe. These situations cannot be compared. I want to say that I am quite sure that we shall never again have a depression in South Africa such as the one we have had in the past.

I want to associate myself with the view expressed by the hon. the Minister of Finance in saying that the world is more afraid of a depression and unemployment and the misery which this entails than of inflation. I want to say quite honestly that I am also more afraid of a depression. I should prefer to live with a moderate degree of inflation rather than to experience the misery, the problems, the poverty and the famine caused by a great depression and the resulting unemployment. I am quite convinced that unless we have a terrible war or some other catastrophe, we shall never have another great depression in South Africa, for our people have now developed the ability and the technique with which to avoid and to eliminate that kind of depression. I have very great confidence in the future, and specifically in the future of South Africa. I have very great confidence in the hon. the Minister and in this Government of ours, for I know that they will handle the situation as it should be handled, taking into consideration the circumstances in this country as well as abroad. I want to wish the hon. the Minister of Finance every success for the future and I should also like to wish him well over the Christmas season.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg that inflation is found throughout the world. On the other band. I would tend to disagree with him in that I do not think we need to have the degree of inflation we presently have in this country. He has said that the Government has done its best. Naturally, I accept his word for that. However, if that is so, it simply is not good enough. I also agree with the hon. member that one should not discount totally the possibility of a depression or a serious recession. I would like to come back to that, because it seems to me that the medicine is the same in both sets of circumstances for South Africa.

I would like to start with the following quotation—

The speaker was the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in the Other Place on 12 September. These are of course very laudable sentiments which would certainly be shared by all members on this side. He actually went on to say later on—

These are fine words indeed, but they are actually the antithesis at this point in time of the deeds of this Government in practice. The hon. the Minister will know—I am sure he will agree with me—that at any one point in time there is a limit, prudent or otherwise, to the financial capacity of our country, or indeed for that matter, any other country. The constraint is the amount of finance available which, broadly speaking, comes from two sources, either that which is self-generated within, or capital which is borrowed from abroad.

In one sense one could say that the financial capacity of our country can be linked to a liquid in a glass or in a thermos flask where the injection of more liquid or capital will expand its size—that is the economy—for the benefit of us all. In the case of South Africa, we need not worry about the fact that the flask might burst because of the investment opportunities available within this country, because all that will signify, is the end of the artificial constraints based on colour, which have held us back. When that happens, the hon. the Minister will find himself with a newer, a much larger flask, even if the liquid in it may be slightly mottled in colour. The hon. the Minister will know that, at any one point in time, there will be two competing elements for the liquid within the flask, the public and the private. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has said that in his opinion the ratio is of the order of 30% to 70%. This simply means that the health of the private sector is going to be greatly affected by the nature and extent of the operations of the public sector. It is more particularly true if you consider that the public sector, in terms of my analogy, is expanding at the cost of the private sector. However, there is one other very important factor. Imagine that there is a leak in the flask, namely inflation, and that it is necessary therefore to have about 15% more liquid simply to keep the real quantity of liquid the same. Now, in a situation like that, if no check is put on the expenditure of the public sector, whereas the private sector is forced to go out and attract capital or finance from elsewhere, the result will be a simple ever-increasing role for the public sector, especially in circumstances where the private sector is prevented from turning to the best possible account the resources available to it within our country. I think mainly here of labour. Such a situation will not only be at the expense of the private sector in that that sector will have a diminishing role, but it will affect directly the pocket of each inhabitant of South Africa, as indeed has already been the case in the past. The problems with which the South African economy is faced, and in a very direct way, the rate of inflation at present prevailing within our country, can be seen to have their origin, in the absence of other action which the Government has refused to take since it would run counter to the policies, in the level of Government spending. The expenditures by the Government in our country have consistently outrun the increases in production and for this gap, or excessive spending, it is incontrovertible that the Government is in a direct and large measure to blame. The spending of the public sector for current and capital purposes grew considerably in most of the years during the last decade to 1970, and in the light of the Budget it shows no sign of ceasing to do so; and overwhelmingly, over the past 13 years, it has outrun the increase in the gross domestic product. The other side of the coin is naturally that the relative spending by the private sector has been forced to decrease. Given the quantity of liquid in the flask, the Government has simply taken more of it.

By 1973, public spending accounted for 21,1% of the gross domestic product. That figure in itself is an understatement, because it excludes expenditure of a non-capital nature by public business enterprises such as the Railways and the Post Office, as well as Escom and Iscor. In addition, gross fixed investment by the public sector has been growing even faster, as the hon. the Minister will know, and amounted, as a percentage of total investment in the Republic, to 42,8 % in 1971, 53,2% in 1972 and 46,5% in 1973. It seems surely reasonable to ask whether it is the best thing for a country at a stage of its economic development such as is the case with South Africa, that half the total national investment should be undertaken by Government bodies. The argument about the infrastructure does not really stand up, as its relative importance has been dropping as a percentage of that expenditure, from 70% in 1960 to 60% in 1970. The latest figure, for 1973, is 63% Within this context there is, of course, the rapid increase in investment by the public corporations. The justification used for that, is that it is either for strategic reasons or for socially desirable industries which could not otherwise be developed. We would have no problem with any public State corporation which fell within either of those categories, but in practice these public corporations are and have been rapidly entering the general business field. They are only accountable, if that, as we heard from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to him on policy; otherwise they are answerable to no one. Their activities simply amount to a degree of nationalization of a part of our economy. They use public money without the sphere of normal economic discipline. All this happens and continues to happen at a time when inflation is running at 13% and is still increasing. To put it simply, at this time when the monetary authorities are doing their best to fight inflation, public expenditure is increasing at an unprecedent rate and stoking its fires. We have heard the hon. the Minister and others preach the value of discipline, exhorting us all to work harder, to which no objection can be found and indeed none is taken, but it is a pity that neither he nor the Government practise what they preach for more and more we are paying the price, i.e. in the level of inflation, for ideological and political considerations; because if the Government were to do more than pay lip service to the need to cure the disease, it would rephase and reduce its expenditure and it would certainly allow the most efficient use possible of our labour. It is no use and it will serve no purpose because the peoples of South Africa will not be fooled by pious lectures or strictures given them by this Government on the virtues of self-discipline, harder work, or the necessity to accept a lower standard of living than they might otherwise enjoy; nor for that matter will the frequent reiteration that inflation is endemic at this time throughout the world impress them. That is the line which has been put forward repeatedly, and the Government simply says there is nothing that can be done to reduce the prevailing rate of inflation within our country. They simply wring their hands and lament. The hon. the Minister of finance himself said in an interview published in Germany—

A little later on during the same interview he said—

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister of Finance. These are rather gloomy tidings for all the peoples of South Africa, but the irony for all of us is the fact that whereas the hon. the Minister may be correct in regard to the developed part of the world when he says practically no Government has the political courage to tackle inflation, this country is totally unlike others because it has a vast potential to increase its production of goods and services and thus through that route move towards correcting the imbalance in the equation from which much of our present level of inflation flows, in the absence of one other action I am going to come to. Of course South Africa cannot stand alone, as the hon. member said, and neither is South Africa immune from the world, and to that extent the inflation experienced elsewhere is obviously going to affect us. That is an unfortunate fact, but to move from that point and simply make the deceptive transition that there is nothing that can be done for our country simply does not stand up. There is a very great deal that can and should be done and which would go a long way to reducing, if not eliminating, our rate of inflation. Firstly, we should aim at policies which will maximize the productivity of all our peoples, Black, Brown and White. I have not the time to spell out the full implications, but this means that they should all be allowed to play the part of which they are capable.

Secondly, the only criterion which should be applied by the Government to any programme or policy is whether it is likely to maximize the overall rate of economic growth of our country. This is particularly relevant to the course of development of the homelands. Thirdly, the Government should cut its own cloth, i.e. its expenditure, to meet the needs of the situation. Instead it has put forward proposals which mean increases of the order of 23% on Revenue Account and 25% on Loan Account. Fourthly, the Government must therefore re-examine and review all the projects to which it has already committed itself or is likely to do. It should take a leaf out of the book of the Government of West Germany, as the hon. member to my right said, where the rate of inflation by simply such means has been kept to the order of 7%. They should realize at this time that projects, however desirable they may be for the future, except the most essential, should be scrapped, postponed or replaced to minimize the expenditure which will be entailed. Let there be no mistake. If the Government refuses to accept the reality of South Africa—and I mean over and above the fact that there are no longer enough White hands to go round, and I mean over and above the fact that there is a critical shortage of skilled hands—the Government must begin to see the first hints that there is developing a shortage of hands in South Africa, skilled or unskilled; and in those circumstances, if the Government continues to increase its expenditure as it has done in the past over and above the rate of growth in the domestic product, then the Government is the carrier of the disease of inflation. The policies of this Government are increasing the degree of the infection, and whilst it may make the hon. members on the other side of the House feel better to bemoan the symptoms, this Government would have done nothing to cure the cause of the disease.

May I put a question?

No. I am very sorry. Of course, our country can point to and be very proud of our considerable assets and our position of strength as compared with certain other countries at this point of time; for that we are all grateful and we certainly give credit where it is due, both to the Government and elsewhere. But naturally what concerns all of us, Black, Brown and White, is the rapidly rising cost of living and the fact that there seems to be no end to it. The opportunity is there, if only this Government would grasp it for the benefit of all our peoples. But so far the Government is pursuing a course where its own expenditure continues without even a temporary check and the private enterprise sector is simply being strangled by its tight monetary policy and where it is in one way or another constrained from using the talents available to it to the fullest extent. Sir, the Government expenditure is, of course, in the immediate sense much less productive than that of the private sector. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said in reply to a question on Monday that the Government was looking carefully at its commitments. We on this side of the House will wait with interest to see the results, because the Government without doubt has it in its power significantly or in a major way to reduce the level of inflation at present being experienced in our country.

Sir, after having listened to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I should like to compliment him—he reads much better than he did at first. He is in his stride now. One is pleased to see this. We all live and learn.

Sir, in actual fact the hon. members on that side all come along with the same story; introduce a new monetary policy; circulate more and more money; bring more money into all sectors; stop inflation; do not cause unemployment; create more jobs; do not cause a depression; do not take away the luxury of our lives, give us everything, even this: “If you vote U.P. you get T.V.” But who is paying for this? We find ourselves in a situation where the wolf has built a cage for the fox and has himself and the fox in that cage. [Interjections.] I do not know whom the hon. member for Houghton is quarelling with. I think that she and I have had absolutely nothing to say to each other up to now, and I think we should keep it this way for the next 20 years. Sir, the fact is that the Western world will not be able to curb inflation to such an extent that it will be able to bring about a more productive working hour, a more substantial working hour; this will have to come from the will of our people. It will have to come from the will of our people, and not through measures. For many years money carried no risk. For years and years, labour did not have the bargaining power it has today, where it even has a country such as England by the throat. Canada and Australia are also moving in that direction, and one may say that although they have no yet been throttled, they are breathing more slowly already. But fortunately, both those Governments are still in power and are still able to carry out their policy, whether it be monetary policy or national policy. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has one problem. I do not want to use the same phrase, company before country, because I do not like that sort of thing, but I just want to mention this, that when it comes to the vastness of this country and its resources, we find that we cannot develop them without State assistance in the form of State corporations. There are one or two big companies in this country, but a country does not consist of two companies only. The country must create jobs for its total population, and for that reason it is the duty of the State, it is essential for the State to undertake the necessary development and not to wait and to neglect its resources. This is the kind of thing we have to take into consideration. Therefore we should not attack the State on those grounds.

I should like to mention a further point to the hon. member. The energy used for air-conditioning alone in America is more than the total amount of energy used in China. Do we want the conditions in China, with its poor people and those who are driven to the rural areas—do we want those conditions in our country? Do we want a depression? We cannot afford this. We shall have to use inflation moderately, as Keynes says.

If capitalism is unable today to handle inflation and to direct it into the right channels, we ought not to survive in the Western world. We shall have to make an effort and to act objectively, and we shall have to handle our labour in such a way that it does not take us by the throat and force us down. Together we must work out methods for combating inflation, and we shall have to be skilful in taking our labour with us, in order to avoid a confrontation between labour and capital in this country.

Now I come to the United Party. There have been so many divergent ideas from the United Party side, in this debate and on earlier occasions, that I think one should ask them as the alternative Government to formulate an economic policy for the future. Accordingly, they have to come here next year and say that if they come into power—and heaven knows what the inflation rate will be by the time they come into power if it keeps growing at the present rate—but if they come into power … [Interjections.]

What is so funny?

I am amused by the fact that I cannot see any realism on that side. But this is not really so funny. What I actually want to say is that the hon. members opposite should submit a policy. They should be positive. The hon. members say that the policy of the Government is causing a squeeze in banking. I admit that there is a squeeze as far as funds are concerned, but I request the hon. members opposite to submit their solution to us. They should say how they would handle matters. The hon. members talk about unemployment and they say that too much money is chasing too few goods. They confine themselves to theory, but they should also enter the practical field. They should tell us in detail what they would do under these circumstances, for then we would be able in our turn to tell them where their mistakes lie.

I have tried to ascertain what has been happening over the years. Before a Budget is introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, there is wide speculation by the newspapers and politicians about the contents of the Budget and the effect of the steps which the hon. the Minister may announce in his Budget speech. However, two or three days after the Budget has been introduced, one does not hear a word about the Budget any more, except of course in this House, when the Budget is discussed by hon. members. After the latest Budget had been introduced, I went round to banks, building societies, chain stores, jewellers and other people to make surveys in order to find out what their views and analyses of the Budget were. I also wanted to ascertain how they had been affected by the Budget. It was a fantastic experience to me to see the extent to which they accepted the Budget. They also told me that it had caused almost no change in the public’s buying pattern. As far as the saving pattern was concerned, that too had remained virtually unchanged. In this regard I want to confine myself to the underprivileged people. The fact is that when we see a person who is dark-skinned, we immediately think that he is underprivileged. I have noticed that as far as saving and the purchase of jewellery were concerned, the Coloured person is showing signs of greater activity. Either he is buying more jewellery now, or he is now buying it almost for the first time. This goes to prove to us that they have more money available and that they are no longer restricted to buying food. I have also noticed Coloured people applying to the building societies and inquiring about investments there with a view to obtaining a bond on a house eventually. This is a good tendency and one is glad to observe it. What I also consider to be very important is that when one questions restaurateurs about their activities over the past few months, in the light of the current inflation, one learns that their turnover is increasing. They say that more and more people are patronizing restaurants and that the visitors are not always foreigners or rich people either. I was told that more and more people from the working classes were patronizing restaurants. This clearly shows that although inflation has caused certain bottlenecks in our economy and is having an adverse effect on people, it is nevertheless preferable to a minor degree of unemployment. We should take these facts into account and not make wild statements in an arbitrary manner. So many people are making wild statements about inflation and its effects at the present moment. Let us take one case. Let us take the case of building societies. I find that the people who earn between R4 000 and R6 000 a year are no longer interested in the tax-free investments at building societies. This category is now investing at 9½%. This may cause that group, which accounts for the greater part of our population, to bring about an increase in the price of money. Hoever, this group is being enabled to do this by taxation benefits. We find, too, that there is a shift to the Post Office, and the building societies believe that the money is being channelled to the Post Office and the new issues. For that reason I believe that this Budget has been of great value to us. Whether we are in the Opposition, or no matter who we are, we must inspire confidence in our business community and in the foreign investors. It is for this reason that we are witnessing this tendency today, i.e. that of great interest being shown in gold.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not have the time to react to the arguments made by my friend who has just sat down, nor will I have time to deal with interjections or with questions. I want to deal with the question of the freedom of speech which I believe is a vital component of democracy. In South Africa freedom of speech as a concept and as an ideal has been upheld by successive Governments. So jealous of the freedom of speech are South Africans of all political persuasions that very deep concern has been expressed in recent months in Afrikaans Government-supporting newspapers about Cabinet Ministers sitting on Press boards. Over the years English newspapers have voiced their anxiety at every opportunity at possible Governmental curbs on Press freedom as they have called it, without generally defining it. I want to deal with this matter of Press freedom.

First of all, I want to ask whether there is really a free English Press and secondly, who is in control of the English Press. Between them, Argus and SAAN control well over 90% of the English-language daily newspapers in circulation. They also publish three Sunday newspapers. I must say I have taken reasonable steps to check my facts, otherwise I would not make allegations in this House. Let us look at the shareholders of the Argus group. All major English-language afternoon newspapers and The Sunday Tribune are owned by the Argus group. The Argus group has always been thought to have been effectively controlled by JCI and Rand Mines, at any rate until recently. Forty-eight percent of the JCI shares are in fact controlled by Anglo-American through nominee companies. Not long ago Rand Mines of course was linked to Barlow-Rand. Now, mysteriously, according to share records which I checked in the middle of September, 15,3%, or the largest single shareholding in the Argus company, is in the hands of Standard Bank Nominees. It represents 218 285 shares. Standard Bank Nominees is a nominee company often used by JCI. It seems to me, therefore, that the JCI and Rand Mine shares in Argus have been sold, but sold mysteriously, to Standard Bank Nominees. No announcement of this sale of shares was made in the Press or to other shareholders. I think the reason for this transaction is an attempt to disguise the names of the beneficial holders of the shares from curious eyes. The second largest shareholding in Argus, totalling 11,6% of the shares, or 165 205 shares, is in the name of another nominee company often used by Barlow-Rand and known as Amosite Nominees Limited. And the largest shareholder in Barlow-Rand is the Anglo-American Corporation. Other major shareholders in Argus are SAAN with 99 000 shares and CNA with 45 000 shares, but then, as we know, CNA is fully controlled by the Argus. If you add to these, carefully chosen mine pension funds, company pension funds and friendly nominee companies the result is that over 50% of the Argus shares are apparently controlled by Anglo-American. There are three Anglo-American employees on the board of the Argus Company. If I am wrong, then who are the mysterious men of Standard Bank Nominees with the 15,3% holding of Argus shares, the biggest single holding in the company, and why are there three directors on the board who are Anglo-American employees?

Now let us look at South African Associated Newspapers (SAAN). SAAN controls all newspapers of the morning group and also the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express. It also has control of the Eastern Province newspapers and through a holding in the Robinson Company in Durban it has an option to acquire control of The Natal Mercury. The largest single shareholding in SAAN is the Argus group with 32,8%, or 633 865 shares. The Argus group has thus effective control of SAAN in terms of the Companies Act. The second largest shareholder in SAAN is Union and Rhodesian Mining and Finance, which for years has been effectively controlled by Mr. Clive Corder formerly of Syfrets Trust Company. It holds 323 675 shares. Syfrets, as you know, Sir, has recently merged with Union Acceptances, which is an Oppenheimer company, and later with the Netherlands Bank. In the new Nedsual group, as it is known, the largest shareholder is the South African Mutual which holds 12% of the shares. But the South African Mutual is traditionally a neutral operator in the number of public companies in which it holds shares. The second largest shareholder of the Nedsual group is Anglo-American through nominee companies. If you add to Anglo’s shareholding in SAAN through Argus, those of the Abe Bailey Trust and Bailey Nominees, both controlled by Syfrets one finds that Anglo-American has a controlling interest of 53,1 % of the shares in SAAN. That excludes a further 8,5% holding of SAAN shares which are again in the name of Standard Bank Nominees.

I must say that the Argus does not interfere with the day to day running of the SAAN group, but there are several reasons for this. First of all, there is a so-called majority shareholding grouping in SAAN which, in the past at any rate, has on occasions outvoted the Argus. This group centres on the Abe Bailey Trust and its traditional allies on the SAAN board. Yet it was this very same grouping of shareholders who, not very long ago, without the knowledge of SAAN’s management or the minority shareholders in SAAN, tried to sell SAAN to the Argus. Subsequently it in fact sold 31% of SAAN’s shares to the Argus and thus with it effective control. At one time these majority shareholders claimed to be able to outvote the Argus with 41% of SAAN shares as against 31% held by the Argus. But there was a dilution of shareholdings, and that changed the percentages to a ratio of 39% to 28%. Then one of the majority group shareholders, Sir John Ellerman, died. He was one of the traditional allies of the Abe Bailey Trust on the SAAN board. His shareholding is believed to have been divided fifty-fifty between SAAN and Argus. As far as I am aware this fact has not been disclosed either to the public or to the shareholders by Argus or by SAAN. This arrangement brought about virtual parity between the majority shareholding group and the Argus shareholding, but it is a known fact that subsequently Mr. Oppenheimer has been able to muster considerably in excess of 50% of SAAN shares.