Mr. Speaker, for several obvious reasons, inter alia, in view of the sub judice rule, I want to say nothing further on this occasion about the factual events at the Israeli Consulate in Johannesburg yesterday. Whatever provisional statement there was to make in this regard, has already been made by the hon. the Minister of Justice in his interview. I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the fact that he went to the scene immediately and was present on the spot throughout the night until the matter had been disposed of. Hon. members will understand that many matters of a factual as well as a legal nature will have to be explored and investigated. These matters include questions pertaining to constitutional as well as civil law. Hon. members may rest assured that this will receive attention on the highest level.

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish on this occasion to convey my special thanks and I think also the thanks of this House and of the country as a whole, to all the various Services that were involved in this matter. I am referring to the Police, the Defence Force and the Bureau. I should like to express my sincere thanks to Gen. Crous, his officers and men—of all branches to Gen. Biermann, his officers and men and all who were involved, and to Gen. Van den Bergh and his staff. What is particularly gratifying, is that I am able to inform this House that the co-operation between these various Services was not only excellent, but was also maintained throughout on a very high note. This applies not only to the Services, but also to the fire brigade and other municipal services involved. I will be permitted to make special mention of the part played by Gen. Van den Bergh in the negotiations with and in the surrender of the terrorist. These took place on a particularly high level.

Having already expressed my commiseration with all concerned, the next-of-kin as well as the injured, I should again like to express the hope, and we all pray, that all the injured persons will make a very speedy recovery.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Chairman, in this debate the Opposition has the opportunity of criticizing the Government in respect of labour matters in South Africa and in respect of the way they are handled by the hon. the Minister of Labour. I make bold to say that the hon. Opposition has failed miserably. The fact that five speakers of the joint Opposition have taken part in this debate up to now, as well as the content of those speeches, shows that the Government has a sound labour policy and that the Opposition has very little criticism to pass on the labour policy of the Government.

The hon. member for Hillbrow began a speech yesterday in which he mentioned a few things on which I should like to comment. In the first place the hon. member referred to the fact that, as he alleged, South Africa has such a low productivity. I want to tell the hon. member that I am surprised that he advanced that argument here. The tables to which he referred are quite unscientific. He cannot apply tables of that kind to South Africa. After all, the hon. member cannot compare the productivity rate of South Africa with that of countries such as West Germany and America, where the population set-up is completely different from that in South Africa. If, for the purposes of the argument, we proceed from the economic development growth of a nation, as Rostow did, we shall have a completely different situation. The hon. member knows that Rostow divided the economic development of a nation into five different phases, namely the traditional phase, the transitional phase; the phase of initial development, the phase of maturity and the phase of high consumption. Do hon. members know that the American population was in the same phase in the period 1910-’50 as that in which South Africa is and will be in the period 1950-’90? I want to ask the hon. member where the Black man in South Africa stands in terms of Rostow’s various stages of development. Where does the Coloured person stand in that scale of development? Where does the Indian stand? And where does the White person stand? When we take that overall view, the hon. member will have to agree with me that his argument was completely unscientific.

The hon. member should pick his quarrel with Prof. Reynders, since he supplied the information.

After the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. member for Maitland took up the tune and elaborated on the same theme. The false note was only sounded by the hon. member for King William’s Town, who eventually, when he came to the question of productivity, sounded such a false note that he became quite irresponsible. When the hon. member said that South Africa had a low rate of productivity because of the fact that this Government was keeping the Black man in South Africa illiterate, I thought that that was an irresponsible statement which the hon. member made. However, the hon. member will get his answer in respect of Black education when the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Education comes up for discussion next week. All I want to tell the hon. member at this stage is the following, and I want to quote …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have much time. I want to quote to the hon. member what was said on this matter by Mr. Michael O’Dowd, an alternative director of Anglo American. He said—

I want to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who accused the hon. the Minister of Labour of being negative in his approach. These very things which the hon. member accused the Minister of approaching in a negative way, these very things are approached in a positive manner by the hon. the Minister. These very things are the cause and the reason for the continued implementation of a successful labour policy by this Government. These are the reasons why we have labour peace in South Africa. The hon. member mentioned that the hon. the Minister had said: “Over my dead body will job reservation be abolished.”

The hon. member mentioned a few other matters as well, basic policies in respect of which this Government and this Minister stand firm, policies which ensure prosperity in South Africa in regard to labour. I really think the hon. member for Hillbrow was extremely negative in his approach. He spoke of productivity and the EDP for 1972 to 1977 and the target we have set ourselves in respect of economic growth. If I ask the hon. member whether we have achieved that target, then the answer is “yes”.

No, you have not.

Yes, we have. Our target was 5,75% …

Over a five-year period.

Yes, over a five-year period. At the moment the growth rate is standing at 6,4%, and the period is not yet at an end. If the hon. member really wanted to be positive, he should have said that South Africa has a high growth rate and that our economic growth rate continues to show a tendency to rise, for these are the facts. Surely this increase in our economic growth rate has a beneficial effect on the standard of living of all population groups, of the lower income groups as well. Consequently it ensures a higher standard of living for all our inhabitants in this country.

If the hon. member wanted to be positive, he should furthermore have argued that the maximum utilization of human resources in South Africa is not only becoming a reality, but that our whole economic and labour policy must be designed to further this end, for the benefit of all population groups in South Africa. By April 1973 there was a shortage of almost 60 000 White workers, according to the manpower survey of the Department of Labour. With the EDP for the period 1972 to 1977, which has set a rate of 5,75% as its target, it means that the demand for White workers will continue to increase more rapidly than the supply and that by the end of 1977 the shortage of White workers will have increased to approximately 82 000. These are the facts, and the hon. member referred to them. However, this in turn means that the number of non-Whites who will have to be absorbed into vacant jobs in the economy will increase by approximately 5 000 a year. Job opportunities in the manufacturing industry alone will increase at a rate of 4,2% a year, i.e. by 57 000 jobs a year. Of these 57 000, approximately 11 500 will have to be filled by Coloured people and approximately 38 000 by Blacks. It goes without saying that in an attempt to ensure maximum efficiency and production, very serious attention has to be given to this fact.

There are three basic requirements we must comply with in order to ensure high productivity among our workers. The first basic requirement is that the workers should be paid a decent wage. In the second place, workers must be trained efficiently so that their productivity will justify the payment of such a wage. In the third place, labour peace must be brought about by establishing good relations between workers and employers. With these three basic objects in mind, the hon. member should have asked, if he wanted to be positive, whether this Government has provided the machinery with which this may be achieved. Then he should at least have come to the honest conclusion that that machinery has in fact been provided by means of works and liaison committees. Proof of this was furnished by, inter alia, the hon. member for Welkom, when he referred to the survey conducted by the University of the Orange Free State, and the hon. the Minister, when he referred to the survey conducted by the University of Natal. These surveys came to the conclusion that productivity has in fact been increased in 40% of the cases where that machinery exists. The Government’s system of liaison and works committees has established proper channels of communication, and as I have said, it is significant that in 40% of the cases this has already led to increased production. This system has tremendous potential. After all, it is a system in terms of which workers are represented on a company or an enterprise basis and not on an industrial basis, as is the case with ordinary trade unions. It does not only mean that the circumstances of the workers’ employment—their wages, their conditions of service, etc.— are improved by this. It can in fact be a powerful means through which the worker can be allowed to participate in the progress and the fortunes of the enterprise for which he works. It would enable him to take a common pride in the undertaking along with the management, and would consequently motivate him in respect of the quality of his labour and the product which is to be produced. I think that if the hon. member had referred to this, if he had come along here and appealed to our employers and industrialists to co-operate by means of these works and liaison committees, in training our people and in providing them with further motivation in respect of their labour situation, he would have made a positive contribution which could have done South Africa some good. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we have now had an example here of productivity and of labour utilization in the sense that the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who belongs to the right party, a productive party, made a productive contribution to this debate. I do not derive any pleasure out of other people’s embarrassment. One finds it difficult to say something when people are in an embarrassing position. The truth, circumstances and other peoples’ interests, sometimes force one into situations one does not want to be in. The entire Opposition, as they are sitting over there, is political completely bankrupt, and the proof of it is sitting here in front of us in the House.

Why are you so worried about it then?

It is simply a fact. It is once again quite clear to us that the entire Opposition, as they are sitting here, are integrationists. They are interested in nothing else but the downfall of the National Party and the National Government in some way or other.

Let us consider the statements we have had in the debate so far. They must tell me whether I am offending them.

It was said that South Africa had a very poor productivity figure compared with that of other countries. It was also said that low productivity is the result of the Government’s ideology. It was said further that a “crash training programme” will solve the productivity problem. [Interjections.] It was said: “The Government’s labour policy has come to the end of the road”; “narrow the wage gap”; “no discrimination of labour”; “do away with work reservation”; in other words, job reservation plays no part in South Africa. It has been asked which Whites are unable to compete with the non-Whites. This is a summary of the statements. These statements amaze me; as a matter of fact, they astonish me. Hon. members complain about the productivity figure, but at the same time they want to enforce increased wages for the workers.

Better training.

Any normal person will know that increased wages and salaries follow increased productivity, and not the other way round. Surely, this is a fact. They say a “crash training programme” should be followed, as if this is the only factor which promotes productivity. With this “crash training” one can very easily accomplish the opposite of what one wants to accomplish. They say job reservation only affects 2,6% of the Whites in South Africa. They know only too well that this is not true. Anybody in his right mind will know that this is not true. Job reservation affects the entire economy through the country and, therefore, all the population groups. This they will now have to gainsay. In its entirety it affects the whole of the industrial sphere.

The other question is what the United Party wants to do when we come to, among other things, the Public Service. They must reply to my question and tell me what they want to do. What do they want to do when we deal with the White worker, the Coloured worker, the Indian worker and the Bantu worker in the trade unions? Do they want to liaise with them or do they not want to liaise with them? The utilization of manpower has become such an important factor in our industrial life today that it is the task and duty of the Opposition party to appeal to the people to see to it that they make the best use of the manpower they have at their disposal. Here is something the hon. members cannot dispute. A few years ago I made a speech on the shortage of engineers we would have. Let us consider the reverse side of the picture. Engineers dealing with research and planning, do work which may just as well be performed by technicians. This also happens in many other occupational spheres. In this way, for instance, architects are often used to draw plans. It is not his task; it is not his duty either and therefore it is a waste of manpower. The engineers for instance point out that 30% of their working time is occupied by work which may just as well be performed by technicians. It was found that escpecially new graduates are of the opinion that they are not being utilized as desired. According to the research of the HSRC 34% of the new graduates said that their training receives very little attention when they are employed and are given tasks to perform. Just how useful the training is, is another question.

The effective utilization of our labour force is the responsibility and the task of every individual employer. It is here that we think a major deficiency exists. Seen from a practical and organizational viewpoint, this is not always, possible. Because we know it, we have to admit that incorrect usage springs from this organizational aspect. When we consider the small engineering firm, we notice that it cannot afford an architect, or an engineer together with a technician. Some solution or other has to be found for it. Then there are other cases where the training cannot be linked to the profession so easily. A person who has a Std. ten certificate is able to do a large variety of jobs. The same applies to the person with the B.A. degree. He is not specialized either and can therefore choose his work from a wide field. I want to plead that training and professional spheres be linked up to a greater extent and that more and more research be done in this regard. With appreciation, I also want to take cognizance of the work the Department of Labour is already doing by means of professional services to bring about this liaison. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during this debate we have heard a considerable amount of nonsense talked about trade unions, especially Black trade unions. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in particular had a lot to say about that. A certain amount of confusion seems to exist about what a trade union really is. It must be appreciated that a trade union is merely the machinery that is used to facilitate the process of negotiation which is a necessary part of normal and healthy employer/employee relationships. Trade unions do not bring about strikes in themselves. We have strikes aplenty as the hon. member for Pinelands has already pointed out. Strikes are a manifestation of worker discontent and it is important that, where there is discontent and unhappiness with the working conditions, the necessary machinery should exist to channel that discontent into a position where problems can be discussed and solutions found without having to resort to strike action. Whether or not trade unions for Black workers are recognized, this will not prevent strikes. People will withdraw their labour if they are dissatisfied with working conditions. The fact that in recent months and over the last couple of years so many people have withdrawn their labour shows a great deal of dissatisfaction with working conditions. If a union exists, there is a good chance of the problems being resolved before the workers resort to strike action.

I want to warn hon. members on the other side of the dangers of refusing Black workers the right to organize themselves. During the last couple of years we have seen from the many strikes that have taken place that Black workers have begun to realize that they have power. Denied political rights of any sort, they have begun to realize that they have power of another sort, and that is economic power. Black people have begun to realize that this economic power is a very potent weapon indeed. I believe we are endangering South Africa by creating a situation in which economic power is used for political ends and in which wild-cat strikes or illegal strikes are used not to better working conditions but for political advantage. We saw what the position was in the case of so many of the strikes that took place in Durban last year and just before that. In those strikes there was no direct negotiation between employer and employee. Negotiations took place between employer and homeland Government. In other words, it became a political issue. I want to warn members on the other side that this sort of situation must be avoided at all cost. Machinery should be allowed which will enable negotiations to take place between the employees and the employers in any one industry as a matter of course.

If we Whites in South Africa are dissatisfied with our situation, we have the machinery at our command to express this dissatisfaction. On the political level we have the ballot-box. We can vote for or against a member of Parliament, a member of the provincial council and a town councillor. On employment level we can join trade unions and in that way operate legally and on an organized basis. A trade union is at the very least a safety-valve, and that is what is needed for Black workers. Hon. members on the other side must realize that membership of a trade union is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it gives members specific rights, but on the other hand it also gives specific responsibilities to members. I think I am right in saying that for the most part the trade unions in South Africa have exercised their responsibilities in a responsible way. However, after listening to the attitudes expressed by members on the other side of the House I wonder whether certain members on that side are in favour of trade unions at all. Perhaps the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who expressed himself as against trade unions in various countries, can say …

Did you read my speech?

Are you in favour of trade unions? Perhaps I can get an answer from the hon. member now. Is the hon. member in favour of White trade unions?

You do not understand Afrikaans.

I get no answer from the hon. member. I want to know whether he is in favour of White trade unions.

Did you read my speech?

I heard your speech yesterday, but it was not clear to me. The hon. member cited various instances of countries around the world where trade unions were supposed to be having an evil influence and then the hon. member talked about Black trade unions, but he did not say anything about White trade unions. Will the hon. member please say whether or not he supports White trade unions in South Africa? I get no answer at all.

I shall answer the hon. member. Of course I am in favour of responsible trade unions. [Interjections.]

I am very pleased to hear that. Now, if the hon. member is prepared to accept that he is in favour of responsible trade unions, why is he not prepared to accept responsible Black trade unions? This is discrimination. Why is he not prepared to do so? [Interjections.] What is the criterion? Is it race?

Colour.

I again cannot get an answer from the hon. member. If the criterion is race, then that is disgraceful and blatamt discrimination. [Interjections.] Allowing Whites to belong to recognized, responsible trade unions and forbidding the same thing to Blacks is totally discriminatory. I find it quite extraordinary to hear the hypocritical chants that we have heard from other quarters about getting away from discrimination, because when it comes to something important, like the rights of workers, the real truth comes out. Discrimination can exist as long as it does not matter and does not affect people as individuals. [Interjections.] We see it as well in the breaking down of job reservation and the industrial colour bar. We hear lots of hypocritical talk, plenty of it. Butter would not melt in the mouths of certain people whom I have heard talk, until we get to the really important matter of job opportunities. Then all these fine-sounding phrases that we hear from the other side of the House are forgotten. I would like to put to the hon. the Minister the urgent necessity to change certain sections of present Government policy specifically on two points, namely trade unions and the industrial colour bar. The present policy is indefensible, immoral, discriminatory and it will result in the long run in embittering industrial relationships. The signs are all there but there seems to be blindness on the part of the hon. the Minister and the Government. During an earlier debate I raised the question of the migratory labour system and I asked whether the hon. members opposite considered this system to be conducive to increased productivity. We have heard talk about productivity today.

What do you know about it?

Perhaps I should ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers the migratory labour system to be efficient or inefficient. Is it more costly or less costly than normal forms of labour? As far as I am concerned it hinders productivity and therefore it is inflationary. Again we have lip service being paid to the fight against inflation, but when it comes to this point the Government’s ideology again raises its ugly head and we are expected to live with an inflation rate that is far worse than it need be. We are made to pay for nonsensical policies by decreasing living standards. There are a lot of hon. members on that side of the House with the mentality that it would be better to be poor and separate than rich and together. It would be better to live on “mieliepap” apart than have a more comfortable existence in a more comfortable and shared society. [Interjections.] Hon. members can make as much noise as they like, but the choice is as simple as this ideology or common sense or, to put it another way, prosperity or porridge. We on these benches have made our choice; we want prosperity and common sense.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member who has just spoken whether, in speaking of Black trade unions and strikes, he was not aware of the fact that the Schlebusch Commission found last year that there had in fact been certain militant powers behind certain strikes, in Natal, for example. I want to say to the hon. member that he did almost the same this afternoon by suggesting to the Black workers that they are able to achieve this or that if they want to. I want to tell the hon. member that fortunately our Bantu workers in South Africa are responsible people who listen to their leaders, and that their leaders, too, are responsible people. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to make so many interjections.

Sir, I want to come back to the arguments advanced here by certain hon. members yesterday, but before doing that, I just want to say this to the hon. the Minister; I wonder whether he realizes that one of the greatest compliments that has ever been paid to a Minister in this House was paid to him yesterday and is being paid to him today by hon. members on that side. I say this because the Opposition is finding it so difficult to get enough speakers to take part in this debate. We had the situation here yesterday that one of the hon. members spoke for half an hour. An hon. junior member on the other side spoke twice, and another hon. junior member also spoke twice. This should indicate to the hon. the Minister that they have no criticism to pass on his policy. They have no alternative labour policy to the one implemented by the hon. the Minister and his department.

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Pinelands, who said here yesterday that strikes are much more common in South Africa than in certain other African countries. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is not ashamed of himself as a South African for having made such an accusation here. After all, he knows that the countries to which he referred are not at all comparable to South Africa. These are countries with a very low percentage of employment. In these countries there is almost no employment, and when strikes occur, those strikes are not reported to the world.

Sir, hon. members on that side have spoken of wiping out the wage gap. That may be a popular slogan, but it is an irresponsible one. I want to say to those hon. members that if they are going to wipe out the wage gap everywhere and raise Black wages to an unrealistic level, they will give rise to chaos and unemployment among the Black people in South Africa. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that South Africa has a Black labour force of 3 million people. The ideal is for those 3 million people to enjoy full employment at wages on which they can live fairly decently. The alternative is for only 1 million or 2 million of those 3 million people to have jobe at very high wages; it is only logical that this will happen, because as soon as wages and salaries are increased to an unrealistic level, industrialists and employers will proceed to automatize and mechanize their factories and works, and this will cause Black manual labour to disappear from the labour market, and the upshot of this will be that a million or a large number of the 3 million Black workers will eventually be unemployed and unfed. Sir, I do not say this only because I am a South African and a National M.P.; I say this because I find myself in good company, company which includes overseas experts. I have here on my bench an American newspaper report. The heading of the report reads as follows—

The United States News and World Report quoted this information from the magazine African Development—

United States News and World Report goes on to say—

I may just mention here, Sir, that the labour policy followed by our Minister and his department, in terms of which a minimum wage is determined for certain jobs, is the right one. The employer must pay this, but if he wants to pay more, he is free to do so. It is up to him. We on this side of the House believe that this is the right policy to follow. Then I may just ask hon. members who think that our Black people are working for such low wages whether they realize that no fewer than 900 000, of perhaps 1 million, Black immigrant labourers are employed in South Africa today? Almost 1 million Black immigrant labourers are employed in South Africa at the moment. These are the people from the countries where there are no strikes. [Interjection.] I just want to ask hon. members whether they realize that in a country such as India, with its 600 million inhabitants, 400 million have to be content with a salary of less than R4-38 a month. When one looks at these things, I think that the Opposition should not just pay a silent compliment, but that they should rise and convey their congratulations to the Minister in words.

Sir, I want to express a few words of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the fine things they are doing, the fine things which they still find the time to do in the midst of their pressing activities. [Interjections.] The department provides work for, inter alia, persons who are unemployed in South Africa. It is a magnificent task which the department is performing there. The department also provides a wage subsidy— which amounted to R272 000 last year— for persons who are physically unable to compete in the open labour market because of advanced age or physical handicaps. The department subsidizes eight workshops for blind persons to the amount of R470 000 a year. The subsidy on sheltered labour for Whites was increased by 15% in the past year and that in respect of non-Whites by 25%. As far as I know, there are 13 factories which offer sheltered labour to these people who are unable to compete in the open labour market.

Sir, in the light of all the speeches yesterday and the few that have been made today, I want to say once again that we may congratulate this hon. Minister and his department on their fine labour policy which helps to make South Africa the country which enjoys the greatest peace and prosperity in the whole world.

Mr. Chairman, when one rises in this House for the first time, one feels very humble, because one realizes that one is standing in the highest and most authoritative Chamber in our country. I realize, too, that I have to succeed a great man. Since this is the first time I have risen in this House, I want to begin by paying tribute, on behalf of my constituency and its inhabitants, to my predecessor in this House, Dr. the Hon. N. Diederichs, our present esteemed State President. We thank Dr. Diederichs for his loyalty to his voters, that fine asset in life which money cannot buy. We thank him for the steadfastness and strength of will which he displayed over the years, and for that wonderful gift of remaining calm in the midst of a storm. We thank him for always having persevered in a course of action once it had been adopted. Dr. Diederichs left a very deep impression in our constituency and as a servant of his people he also had to pay a price for his leadership. Dr. Diederichs did not pay this in gold, but, amongst other things, in long hours of work and sleepless nights. For this we convey to him our deep gratitude and sincere thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to those in this House who received me here with so much kindness, and who addressed words of inspiration to me. Furthermore, my sincere thanks and appreciation are due to the hon. members for Losberg and Vanderbijlpark, who introduced me when I made and subscribed the oath.

Mr. Chairman, allow me now to say a few words about productivity. Productivity is of major importance for the purpose of stimulating our economic growth and enabling it to reach even greater heights. Higher productivity and encouragement to work harder are of great national importance. It cannot be denied that increased productivity is a prerequisite for the strengthening of our national economy, the growth of the national product, and the promotion of the well-being and standard of living of all our population groups. It is the responsibility of every citizen to be enterprising, to show initiative and to analyse his own performance in his work more critically. Everyone must ask himself whether he is working hard enough and productively enough and whether he is making a positive enough contribution to the economic welfare and the development of his country to enable it to reach even greater heights.

Mr. Chairman, South Africa is the industrial giant of Africa. The Republic has a tremendous production potential, and the welfare which is made possible by this can only be fully realized if we work harder and more productively. Even if we prosper, we must be on our guard and remember that prosperity, just like adversity, presents man with one of his greatest and most important challenges. Increasing prosperity makes the greatest demands on man. If he does not respond to these successfully, he will be destroyed. It is the duty of every employer to afford his employees the opportunity of being more productive where this is not the case already. In this respect the relationship between employer and employee is of the greatest importance. They must take cognizance of each other’s aspirations and ideals. The important key lies in the fact that every job must be made worth while and must be invested with responsibility, so that every employee may derive full satisfaction from what he achieves in his work. Let every task he performs be a challenge to him. Let him feel that human life must from its very nature be dedicated to something, a task or enterprise, great or humble, a destiny, glorious or insignificant. Only in this way can we be assured of the most highly motivated people and consequently of high productivity as well. Great attention must be devoted by the employer to the question of recognizing in an efficient manner the human involvement in the business or enterprise. The emphasis must not be laid only on the security and benefits offered to the individual. There are some who believe in having rights without accepting corresponding obligations, but the motivation of workers, with the emphasis on the positive part they play in the progress made by the business or enterprise, has become the most important thing. Let authority be allocated in accordance with responsibility. In this way it will be possible to use every person as a sound springboard in order to create a powerful and balanced economic growth and also to face the great questions of the future with the thought that the economic future is the challenge of today which will determine the tomorrow of our nation.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Overvaal on his maiden speech in this House. I am especially pleased that he dealt with the subject of labour and hard work. When I was at school, I had a teacher who taught me that you get “nothing for nothing and very little for six pence”. Now it has become “nothing for nothing and not much more for five cents Whatever the case may be, I want to wish the hon. member for Overvaal a very productive parliamentary career with very hard work, because it is clear to me that he will enjoy that hard work.

I now want to return to the Vote and quickly rectify two small matters. The first is the remark which the hon. member for Koedoespoort made about what he called a scandalous remark by the hon. member for King William’s Town. What the hon. member for King William’s Town said was that the Government, for a number of years, as a matter of policy, had pegged the amount which was available for Bantu education and that that was conducive to a lack of skilled workers among those people in South Africa.

He said we are keeping them illiterate.

I do not want to argue with the hon. member about illiteracy or lack of skill now. In the sense in which I am speaking, both expressions mean the same to me.

Then I also want to say to the hon. member for Meyerton that I am actually sorry he did not consult his Whip before he spoke and came out with the absurd statement that there were too few hon. members on this side of the House who wanted to speak. If he had consulted his Chief Whip he would have known that as a result of an agreement between the Whips the time for the discussion of this Vote has been curtailed and that that was the reason our not allowing more speakers to take part in this debate. [Interjections.] However, if the hon. member would like to have half a dozen speakers, he can have them. They are ready to speak and I must express my regret that these hon. members are really not able to come forward with very positive contributions.

I have now said what I wanted to say, and I come now to that which I do not want to discuss. Firstly, I do not want to discuss work reservation. I remember the days when hon. members on the opposite side, on ministerial level as well, stood up and said to us “rather poor, but White”.

That is an old story.

Yes, but it is a true story. Now we do not hear it anymore. [Interjections.] Our standpoint then was that we were White and did not want to be poor. Where are the people today, who step forward and say “rather poor, but White”? Precisely the same will happen with work reservation. One minute they are fighting vehemently for it, the next it no longer exists. It will then evaporate like country mist before the morning sun. In the same way the non-acceptance of Black trade unions will also evaporate.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. This non-acceptance of trade unions for the Black labourers will evaporate in exactly the same way in years to come. I do not want to discuss it, for of what avail is it to argue about it?

You are howling like a pack of wounded dogs.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making another appeal to hon. members not to make so many interjections, and if they do not heed my appeal, I shall have to refer to them specifically.

However, if the hon. the Minister would like to prove his point about the non-existence or non-acceptance of Black trade unions, he can quote Chief Minister Matanzima with pleasure. But I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that he should be very careful. If he were to find in two or three years’ time that that hon. Chief Minister accepts Black trade unions, what is he going to do then?

And what do all the other Black leaders say?

Is he going to change his viewpoint then? I do not want to discuss it now, but it is nevertheless something which will happen as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

I want to discuss something else, something which I believe the hon. the Minister should hear and to which I hope he will devote his attention. During the past weekend a message was addressed to the people of South Africa by the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. The essence of that message to South Africa was that we as nation should save more, work harder and produce more. That was the essence of that message. Production is very closely linked to the security of South Africa in many spheres. When I look at South Africa, and I hear about the problems—and at one stage yesterday I was deeply aware of problems—I can only say that economic soundness and an economic resurgence will give us an answer to many of the problems which seem insurmountable to South Africa today. I have referred to the report of the Economic Advisory Council, and with reference to this I wish to address myself to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to argue with him; I am merely asking him to explain the matter clearly to me, for we have been searching for an explanation throughout the entire debate. That council states very clearly that if we want to maintain the growth rate of 6,4%— and no person will doubt that we should do this—it will simply mean that in four years’ time we will have a shortage of 60 000 skilled Whites in South Africa. We will have a shortage of 60 000 pairs of White hands to do the work to give us the badly needed growth of 6,4%. Hs the time not arrived in South Africa when we should stop looking at the colour of a man’s hands? Is it not true that South Africa was built over 300 years by black, white and brown hands? If I were to go to the hon. the Minister this afternoon and say that we should bridge the wage gap and the labour shortage for our own future, I also have to ask where he is going to find these people. He will tell me that we should train the people we have. However, the White man only has a certain ability. He cannot go further than that point. We also know that the vast majority of the Whites today are already skilled people. One therefore has to search on other fronts. Hon. gentlemen can tell me now that the industrialist should train his people. I say that I agree with him. But what industrialist will train his people at his own expense unless he has some measure of assurance that those people have a certain measure of permanency in his service? And as soon as I speak of permanency in South Africa, I am in conflict with the ideology of the National Party. Is it not true? If I am correct as far as that statement is concerned, I ask the hon. the Minister that he is going to do to cut the knot. It is as simple as that. He can say I am dramatizing if he likes. It does not matter to me what he says about me as person. After all, he as the hon. the Minister and I are both South Africans and surely we both believe in growth, productivity and economic progress. Are we not then aware of the fact that every time we want to raise the growth rate a little, one of the bottlenecks is in fact a shortage of labour? Is it not true? He can now say what he likes about work reservation and about Black trade unions. I know what history will prove. He should lift the veil for us a little from the secrets he apparently has and which he does not want to tell us about. What is he going to do to cut the knot? What is he going to do to bridge the gap between the labour shortage in South Africa and the work that has to be done?

He will not reply.

That is the one side of the matter. Have the hon. members ever thought about the tragedy of this country? While I am speaking of a shortage of labour, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration states manfully in this House that there are thousands of Bantu in the Cape Peninsula who are here illegally. Why? Because they are looking for work and dare not take what they can get. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland made statements here to the effect that the Republic is experiencing an economic crisis.

I said we could find ourselves in an economic crisis.

The hon. member for Maitland made the statement that we were experiencing an economic crisis and he referred to the crises which began …

Where did he say that?

He said so.

Order!

I would like hon. members to make interjections, because I want to hit them harder this afternoon than they have been hit for a long time. [Interjections.] I want to start with the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is the shadow Minister of Labour on the side of the official Opposition, and certain newspapers refer to him as the future leader of the official Opposition in South Africa. That will be the biggest disaster that has ever hit the Republic. The hon. member for Maitland referred to a disaster and a state of crisis, but I want to say that the hon. member for Hillbrow will have to do his homework. They are breaking down something very excellent in South Africa. I want to make the statement this afternoon that South Africa, economically speaking, is one of the most powerful countries in the world. My second statement is that the labour rest and labour stability in South Africa is one of the most important reasons for our economic stability in South Africa. The hon. members referred to an acute shortage of White trained workers. How serious is this shortage percentage-wise? We have a shortage of 3% in South Africa. What is 3 % when one considers the tremendous development in South Africa? If we did not have that shortage of 3%, would the hon. members have preferred unemployment in South Africa? Is that what hon. members want? The hon. member for Orange Grove advocated Black trade unions today. I want to say quite clearly what my viewpoint is with regard to Black trade unions. We in South Africa have labour peace. Let us consider the position in other countries. Take Italy, for example. I believe one can dial a certain telephone number in Rome where they tell you which trade union is striking. That is the position which exists in many countries in the wold. I want to say in this hon. House that we should pay tribute to the workers of South Africa for the wonderful labour peace we enjoy in this country; we should pay tribute to the labourers and the trained workers in South Africa for the peace we can enjoy here.

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

I do not have sufficient time, but I shall come to the hon. member’s arguments. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am asking for injury time. I have no time to waste and I want to come again to the statement I wish to make. The hon. members on the other side, being the Opposition in South Africa, should realize today that the Nationalist Party is governing this country and that the labour policy is closely linked to the political policy in South Africa. If the hon. members should upset the political policy of the National Party, they could speak of Black trade unions in White South Africa. Hon. members have to realize for good and all today that this Government believes in the development and the right of self-determination of the homelands. Do hon. members know what they are doing today? Hon. members know that we have labour peace in this country, but they want to demolish something else. They want to demolish the whole concept of separate identities. Hon. members on the other side are creating the impression in the outside world that labour unrest will develop in South Africa and that we shall experience economic problems so that we shall not be able to proceed with the policy of self-determination. Historically it is true—I want to be quite honest—that many foreign labourers are working in South Africa. This is so, and it will probably continue to be the case in future. But we are giving shape to the homelands. In this process of the homelands obtaining independence, education and all kinds of functions are transferred to them. In this way, labour matters will also fall under them in course of time. When the Transkei, for example, becomes independent and feels that it does not want to function on the basis of works committees, they will have the right to allow trade unions in their own area, but we say that we do not believe in Black trade unions here in White South Africa.

Are only the Whites allowed to have trade unions?

We believe it is not conclusive to labour peace in White South Africa to encourage Black trade unions and that is why we do not recognize them. Hon. members may make as much noise about it as they want to; it makes no difference. We believe that the Black labourer should be given opportunities in his own homeland.

He does not work there; he works here.

They should be grateful that they are able to work here, because they work here for people who treat them well. One of Africa’s major problems is that the people have not yet reached a level of development to be able to work their own areas.

We do not only enjoy an extraordinary growth rate in South Africa, but also a stable growth rate. In Japan, on the other hand, they have a growth rate of 13% in one year while there is a drop in the growth rate the following year. South Africa, however, enjoys stability and stable growth, of which we should be proud. The growth of a country does not only concern labour, but also the raising of capital managerial training and all kinds of other factors.

We are discussing labour now.

I do not wish to enter into a conversation with the hon. member for Pinelands. He makes all kinds of fine statements in this House, but I want to tell him that he is wearing a mask here.

You need a mask yourself.

The hon. member is being very pious here. He is a person who ostensibly pleads the cause of the Black man, but when a Black labourer walks through his constituency he has a fit. The hon. member is politically dishonest, for although he seems to be the great spiritual strength in this House who wants to speak to the Black labourer, he has a fit when a labourer walks through his constituency. [Interjections.]

South Africa has treated the Black worker in South Africa well, with a tremendous sense of responsibility. But my first priority and my first obligation in this White Republic is the White worker. There must be no illusions about that. I want to make it quite clear we establish technical schools and all kinds of institutions to grant the White labourer an opportunity to an increasing extent of becoming better trained. As the White worker progresses to better positions in this process, I have no objection to Black workers being employed in the positions vacated by the White workers. But I want to say in all sincerity, while there is a White worker who has to fill a certain position because he is unable to get another position, he will receive priority in White South Africa. I am not ashamed of saying that.

What about the Coloureds?

I think the hon. leader of the Progressive Party should first consider the position in connection with the swimming pool in Sea Point before he speaks about Coloureds.

That is no answer.

He should first pay attention to the swimming pool in Sea Point before I shall discuss the Coloureds with him. The White workers of South Africa have a sense of responsibility. We have to co-operate most closely with the trade unions, and this is what the Government is doing. This Government does not act in an irresponsible manner. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, South Africa is the workshop of Africa, and the importance of South Africa in the development of Africa should most certainly not be overestimated. Just as we have a common destiny with Africa, the progress of Africa is also bound up with the progress of South Africa in the industrial sphere and the labour peace here in South Africa. It is undeniably so that one component of labour peace and the progress of South Africa, is the confidence overseas countries have in our industrial power and stability and peace in this country. Therefore I want to suggest that it is criminal, that it is detestable and that it is a disservice to South Africa to suggest by means of misleading ideas and words that there is unrest in South Africa, that there is dissatisfaction among our labour force in South Africa and that the Black labourer here in South Africa is on the point of exploding because of his dissatisfaction.

†There are hon. members in this House, Sir, who take great pride in their so-called cleverness. I would typify this as being unpatriotic cleverness. [Interjections.] These are people who seem to think that should they get applause from leftist newspapers and reporters, this only goes to prove now absolutely objective they are. If the cap fits, you can put it on. They imagine that this proves how absolutely objective they are, and how international in thought they are as opposed to being patriots and nationalists of South Africa.

I should like to refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Pinelands. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Pinelands made a statement in this House that South Africa had the second highest strike figure in Africa.

That is correct.

I am sure that this remark will bring him tremendous applause from the leftist circle. Perhaps that is what he is angling for. No real and proper authority was quoted for this absurd statement. I asked the hon. member to supply me with the figures that he had quoted and he did provide me with a half or third of a page of typewritten figures indicating the countries and the figures he had quoted. I noticed that this was a torn-off piece of paper which gave no authority as to where those figures had been obtained. When I asked him verbally what the authority for those figures was, he told me that they had been obtained from the International Labour Organization.

That is correct.

The hon. member says that is correct. I then surmised that these figures might have been an abstract from some source or other. I wrote the hon. member a little note to ask him whether he could kindly let me have the document that he had referred to but, thus far, the hon. member has not replied to me. This was very clever. Obviously, one must then say that this was a pamphlet issued by the Progressive Party for their information service. [Interjections.] Knowing the Progressive Party as I do, I decided that this could only be slanted against the interests of South Africa. When I consulted the statistical yearbook of the International Labour Organization for 1974, I found the following interesting facts. In the first instance, the list that the hon. member supplied to me was a conglomeration of figures. In one case figures for 1971 were provided; in another case, 1972 figures were supplied. Interestingly enough, in certain cases as far as certain countries were concerned, the worst figures were given. In other cases again the best figures were taken. Obviously, I must say again—I do not think the hon. member did it himself—that these figures were slanted by the person who compiled the information. The figure that the hon. member quoted for South Africa did not appear in that statistical yearbook. Indeed, the figure quoted in that volume was in respect of industrial disputes and it was 69. Then I compared the figures with the countries which appeared on the little list given to me by the hon. member and I found the following on consulting the yearbook of the International Labour Organization. The highest number of strikes— I just want to quote three countries—took place in Morocco, where there were 462 industrial disputes. In Zambia, which is halfway down the list, there were 68 strikes, and the country which had the lowest number of strikes was Upper Volta, where there were two strikes. In South Africa there were 69 strikes, so according to that Year Book we were not the second highest on the list, but somewhere in the middle of the list.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sit down.

Sir, we must bear in mind the reasons why we have industrial disputes in South Africa. The first reason, which no hon. member on that side mentioned, is the fact that we have tribal fighting, which has nothing to do with politics or with colour. We often have this particular problem with people coming from neighbouring countries, not from South Africa itself. Sir, I would like to quote the following from what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 1 April, just to indicate that these industrial disputes are not caused by low earnings, because the earnings of our Black workers in South Africa are higher than the earnings of Black workers anywhere else in Africa—

The cause of strikes cannot therefore be low wages.

Sir, I had a quick look at the number of working days lost as a result of industrial disputes. Morocco heads the list with approximately 590 000 days. In the middle of the list we find Algeria with about 52 000 days lost. At the bottom of the list is Malawi with 940 days lost, and the number of days lost in South Africa is approximately 3 500. In other words, South Africa is very low indeed on the list. Sir, there is another factor to be looked at, and that is the number of workers involved in these disputes. Morocco heads the list with approximately 82 000 workers involved. Zambia is about halfway down the list, with about 15 000 workers involved. The lowest on the list is Malawi, with 1 500, and the figure in South Africa, where we have a Black labour force of approximately 8 million, is 4 400. Most important of all, however, is the number of working days lost per worker. In Morocco the number of days lost, per worker is seven, in Zambia one and a third day per worker, and in South Africa three-quarters of a day, which indicates that industrial disputes in South Africa are of a trivial, piffling nature. They no sooner start than they stop, which indicates that we have a most peaceful labour force in South Africa. Sir, I would suggest to the hon. member for Pinelands that he should be more charitable towards South Africa. As the hon. the Minister said, priestly goodness should also be displayed in this House. I would suggest, Sir, that the figures of the International Labour Organization are preferable to the figures supplied by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Have you looked at your own report for 1973?

Sir, the accusation was made here that an Under Secretary of the department, Mr. Botha, had adopted a certain attitude with regard to Black trade unions. This statement of the hon. member for Pinelands was a far-fetched one, as were the figures he quoted. He grasped at the first straw he could get hold of. He grasped at what could possibly discredit the Government—whether it was untrue or whether it was incorrect reporting made no difference to him—rather than calling a halt to consider and first read the following day’s newspapers. The hon. member is a very clever member; he is a very learned and an eloquent member, and I believe that it is not purely by chance that he did not mention the fact either that Mr. Botha denied that he had said that which had been ascribed to him. Then I want to accept that those hon. members of the Opposition who understand Afrikaans and respect the idiom, will take note of what the hon. member for Rustenburg said. Sir, White South Africa is the natural home of White trade unions, and this is the country of the White labourer. According to our policy the Black man will receive a country of his own. Now I want to ask this question: Should one give the inhabitant of another country a say in the economic situation of one’s own people here? [Interjections.] For example, should the Italians who work in Germany, be allowed to establish Italian trade unions there while working in Germany? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now had the greatest collapse in a labour debate I have witnessed since I first came to this House, i.e. since 1953. One asks oneself what the reason is for this collapse on the United Party side. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that some of their ablest labour generals are no longer with them. This may be. But I think the main reason why we have witnessed this United Party collapse in this debate is the fact that they have no case to oppose to the labour policy of the National Government. If they had had a case, they would have jumped up one after another, including those two noisy members who are sitting in front of me, and they would have wanted to make a contribution.

There is not enough time for that.

Not time for that? You have as much time as the Opposition wants. This is the blessing of parliamentary procedure, but you cannot and you will not use that time because the United Party does not have a case which it can oppose to the Government’s policy in this country. Various wild remarks were made here. I am particularly glad that the hon. member for Pretoria West took the hon. member for Pinelands to task for the slanted and inaccurate representations we got from him here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the report as issued by his department, which was conveniently overlooked by the hon. member who has just sat down, is correct, i.e. that over 90 000 Bantu workers struck during 1973?

Sir, if the hon. member quoted from a report of the department—I do not know which one it is—I assume that it is correct. While the hon. member is on the subject of strikes, I wonder whether he would not find the following interesting as well. It concerns the 435 strikes which the hon. member quoted with such glee and which allegedly make South Africa the country with the largest number of strikes. Does the hon. member know what the average duration of those 435 strikes was? I have had it calculated. Their average duration was 12 hours and 36 minutes. So it is true what the hon. member for Pretoria West said, namely that the strikes we had were insignificant, a trifling matter. It is certainly not something which should be used by an hon. member of this House to blacken South Africa’s image.

Sir, one asks oneself why a collapse of this kind took place. Now it strikes me, in looking at those four newcomers who are sitting over there at the back, that they did not come here because they had defeated a United Party opponent. All four members who are sitting over there came here without having been opposed by a United Party opponent. Just as the United Party collapsed in this debate, it collapsed in those workers’ constituencies as well. They do not even have a case any more to present to the public outside.

With that I come to the hon. member for Overvaal—to whom, by the way, I want to convey my own congratulations on his maiden speech—who represents a workers’ constituency where the United Party did not even have the courage to put up a candidate. I want to congratulate him on the subject he chose, namely productivity. I want to tell the hon. member that his speech was very neatly and very well formulated. I look forward to hearing his contributions to labour debates in the future, even though hon. members on this side receive so little stimulation from the disappearing United Party.

I should like to refer to three contributions which were made yesterday. In the first place I want to respond to the contribution made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. The hon. member made a plea for, amongst other things, the border areas. [Interjections.]

Order!

The policy of the Government is to promote industrial development in or near the Bantu homelands. This is because the standpoint of the Government, as administered by the Department of Labour, is that we place fewer restrictions on the labour of Black workers there than in metropolitan areas. Where there are restrictions in border areas, these are dealt with by way of exemptions. In fact, there are 45 industrial council agreements and 37 wage determinations at the moment which are applicable in the border areas. This underlines the fact that the border areas are not exempt from wage control. They are part of White South Africa, and because they are part of White South Africa, industrial council agreements and wage determinations must naturally apply to them as well. However, the important point is that in this case waged exemptions are continually being considered. They can apply for this to the industrial councils concerned, and if they do not fall under the industrial councils, they can apply to the Minister of Labour. In the latter case, the policy is always to be accommodating. I should like to take the opportunity of pointing out to industrialists in those areas that the fact that they are operating in border areas does not mean that they are automatically exempt from any of the wage measures. Some of them appear to be under the impression that if they go to a border area, they receive automatic exemption. This is not the case, and for this reason I want to ask the industrialists in those areas to follow the normal procedure in requesting exemptions. Such requests will always be approached with a view to accommodating them.

The hon. member for Brakpan raised various aspects in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. His speech testified to a very thorough study of the subject, and I should like to reply to a few aspects which were raised by the hon. member. I think it may be of interest to our workers in general. The hon. member referred to the question of pain and suffering on the part of the worker and to the calculation of this in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. As hon. members know, the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is to compensate the workman for the loss of his ability to work. It is the responsibility of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to use his discretion in this regard. Criteria have been laid down in terms of which he uses his discretion, of course, but I must point out to the hon. member that pain and suffering can unfortunately not be measured, and for this reason pain and suffering cannot be one of the criteria in the awarding of benefits. The hon. member also referred to assault. It is true that under certain circumstances this is accepted, as has in fact been shown by various court rulings, provided, of course, that it did not come about through the workman’s own fault. The hon. member also referred to the question of the transportation of workmen. It is true that this can be accepted under certain circumstances, for example where there is a contractual obligation on the employer to transport his workers. The hon. member also referred to the question of the negligence of an employer. It is true that when an accident has been caused by the negligence of an employer, a larger amount has to be paid in compensation.

Then the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for South Coast, referred to the question of asbestosis. The way it is calculated, the compensation, is not less favourable than the compensation paid in terms of the Occupational Disease Act. In fact, if one takes the capitalized value of a monthly pension under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the pension on the basis of 100% permanent disablement, it may amount to as much as R40 000.

The question of apprentices was also raised. In their case it is true that when an apprentice is injured, compensation is calculated on the probable income of the apprentice on reaching the age of 26 years, or on expiry of a period of five years after the date of the accident, or on completion of his apprenticeship, whichever is the most favourable. I may just mention that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is at present considering certain amendments which may be introduced here. We shall probably submit these during the next session of Parliament.

The hon. member for South Coast raised various aspects in connection with lead poisoning to which I too want to refer. He dealt with the question of lead poisoning as well as asbestosis. The chapter of the Factory Act in this regard was recently rewritten to promote the health of factory workers in this field. In the case of lead poisoning my department has already drawn up the regulations, but as hon. members will realize, this is a very comprehensive matter which requires wide research. Comment by interested parties is still being awaited in this regard. As far as asbestosis is concerned, I may just mention that the background study of pneumoconiosis, which includes asbestosis and silicosis, has now been completed. But this too is a very comprehensive task and the regulations to be drawn up in accordance with these findings involve a great deal of work. But my department is hard at work at this task. I trust that we shall be able to announce this in the near future. Perhaps I should just mention for general information in this regard that the commission of inquiry recently appointed by the State President into the nature, the occurrence and the proportions assumed by occupational diseases may be a very valuable investigation. It is an investigation which is being conducted by carefully picked experts. They will determine the extent to which statutory measures and existing facilities are being applied for the protection of workers. They will also see where these overlap and make recommendations in this regard, and they will see how the public may be effectively protected against any industrial activities which may prove to be unhealthy.

The hon. member for Maitland asked where we were going to find the people for the economic upsurge in South Africa. The Human Sciences Research Council has conducted a particularly thorough investigation into this matter. It concluded that the total labour force of all population groups between the ages of 15 and 74 years was estimated at 7½ million units in 1970 and would increase to 10½ million by 1980, and 17,8 million by the year 2 000. Now the question remains how we are going to train the people. There are a host of training schemes and I am not going to list them all here, except for mentioning two important facts in this regard. The first is the increase in the number of technical students at our colleges for advanced technical training, who have a key role to play, after all, in the manpower situation of the future. While we had 75 000 registered students at these colleges in 1969, this number had increased to 90 000 by 1973. If one adds to that the fact that the number of students, including those of Unisa, increased from 65 000 in 1968 to more than 95 000 in 1974, one arrives at a good answer to the question of what is being done in this country by this Government to provide for technically trained people for our development process in the future. In this connection one need only think of apprentices. In 1974 we had the magnificent total of 37 330 registered apprentices, which surely goes to show that in this field as well we are doing everything to tram apprentices. Another question which is continually being asked is what we are doing to utilize the Black workers of this country. In this regard as well the manpower survey which is being conducted by my department is of great significance. The latest manpower analysis shows that 1½ million Black workers are being used in higher posts. I repeat, “in higher posts”.

What is the definition of “higher posts”?

Higher posts include semi-skilled operator posts, which are important supervisory posts, as well as clerical posts, which involve administrative work. The term does not include people from the labouring class. It only refers to high-graded posts. I referred yesterday to the latest proposals made by the engineering industry in regard to wage recommendations. These are in effect that Black workers who with the permission of the Industrial Council can work in their C and D classes are able to earn up to R60 a week. These are high-class Blacks who occupy those posts. So really significant steps are being taken in various fields to meet the demands made by the development of our country.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that this department is making a real contribution to the maintenance of labour peace and to the creation of an atmosphere of productivity. Furthermore the department is playing its part, as far as training is concerned, in preparing our people for the growing requirements of our country.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 12.—“Information”:

Mr. Chairman, in the annual report of the hon. the Minister’s department, the Secretary for Information gives a summary of the present attitude towards South Africa in countries in which the Department of Information has offices. In several West European countries there are signs that greater propaganda attacks on South Africa are being planned and that the anti-South African movement is being intensified there. Fortunately, judging by the reports, a softening has taken place in most cases and the hostility is showing a downward tendency. We also understand from other sources that there has been an improvement in the attitude towards South Africa. Of course, this is welcomed by all of us. There are various reasons for this improvement, of which the most important is obviously that our publicity men abroad have now departed from the earlier custom of trying to defend the whole policy of the Government at all times. What is now being sold is change, and the image we are getting away from and must get away from is that of a negative policy. This confirms what we have said in debates on this Vote for many years, viz. that we cannot hope for an improvement of the attitude towards South Africa abroad before internal change has taken place and become observable to outsiders. According to the annual report, our information offices abroad have made the best possible use of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Other Place last year and particularly of Mr. Pik Botha’s U.N. Statement that we are doing away with discrimination Furthermore, wide publicity has been given to the fact that changes have taken place in the field of sport. In foreign publications, the department speaks of “multi-racial sport” which we are now practising and great emphasis is also laid on meetings between the hon. the Prime Minister and Black South African leaders. Therefore the emphasis now falls on internal change and almost immediately we are reaping the fruits of new interest overseas and a willingness among news media and opinion formers, to be less venomous and to give us a chance.

In the light of these new developments, there are a few thoughts which I want to express in the few minutes at my disposal. The first is that our position is still delicate in spite of improvements. Incidents at home can destroy in a moment the good work which is done abroad. Recently we had a practical example of this again. The department placed a series of expensive advertisements in the British, American and West German Press. In passing, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what it cost to place one such advertisement in the London Times. The one advertisement which appeared in London on 4 March had as its heading, “Could the next Olympics be in Pretoria, South Africa?” The advertisement was accompanied by a large photograph of a mixed sports meeting and the advertisement spoke of “our Black and White merit teams”, and of competition “regardless of race, colour or creed”. It certainly was an impressive advertisement. It so happened that a sports incident took place almost at the same time in Johannesburg. A traffic constable forced a Black marathon runner from the road in an unceremonious way because he was running together with Whites. The result was that the London Times wrote on 5 March—and I quote from a newsletter of the South African Foundation—

Here we see a good attempt abroad being thwarted by an incident at home. The department spends an amount of almost R3½ million annually on the distribution of information within the Republic. It seems to me that in the future much more of this money should be spent on cultivating a new attitude among our own people in respect of human relations. In other words, the message of change must be sold with much greater enthusiasm at home if we want lasting success abroad. The hon. the Minister himself holds a key position in this respect in the work which has to be done. However, I regret to say that he often creates a far more intolerant image of himself at home than he does abroad. Unfortunately this filters through to foreign countries. I do not have time to mention a series of examples, but the department states in its annual report that it is making more vigorous attempts “to establish sounder relationships between the White group and the Coloured group”. Those attempts should be encouraged. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister lets no opportunity slip to give the Coloureds an unasked for slap in the face and to tell them that he will refuse to recognize the Coloureds as Brown Afrikaners. Why so negative? I am sure that no Coloured person has ever asked the hon. the Minister to recognize him as a Brown Afrikaner. As far as I know, the Coloureds want to be known as South Africans or as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, if they are Afrikaans speaking. The aggressiveness and the “anti” attitude of the Minister about a completely unasked-for matter only create bad feelings which do not accord with the work his department is trying to do.

As I have said, this sort of attitude filters through to foreign countries and nothing can be more damaging for an important department such as the Department of information than for the man at its head to acquire the image of someone who displays a different attitude abroad from that which he displays in South Africa itself.

One of the most important sources of positive publicity abroad is the political development around the Bantu homelands. We have no objection to its being advertised whenever political participation is extended in South Africa, under whatever policy. But I notice that a new note has crept into the publicity which is given to the Bantu homelands by the department and the hon. the Minister, and it makes anything but a good impression. It is alleged that the old British imperialism is actually to blame for the fact that the Government cannot solve some of our problems properly. I have here a copy of an interview which the hon. the Minister had with Paul Giniewski. This interview was published in the 1973 autumn edition of Plural Societies, which is published in Den Haag The heading is: “C. P. Mulder, South Africa’s ‘next’ Prime Minister, interviewed.” That heading is not the fault of the hon. the Minister and I do not hold him responsible for it. But the hon. the Minister told the reporter that the Government would not be prepared to go further that the Act of 1936 in respect of the addition of land to the homelands. Then Giniewski asked—

The hon. the Minister replied to that—

Putting all the responsibility for the Government’s policy problems on the British colonial policy of those days, which is at best a half-truth, is very unconvincing. The important point is that the impression which the hon. the Minister has created is that he does not have the answer, while he is head of the department. He creates the impression of selling a policy in respect of which he has to admit himself that it is impractical in its final stage. The more the department sells the idea of sovereign independent states abroad, the more it will be confronted with the question of how an area such as KwaZulu, which will consist of ten fragments or “little bunches”, as the hon. the Minister calls them, can be expected to become a politically viable independent State, even after the 1936 Act has been implemented. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must excuse my not wishing to join the swine rooting in the mud. I want to discuss this department in general on a high plane. In the first instance I want to refer to the annual report we have before us, the report for the calendar year 1974. In my opinion this is a model annual report. It is outstanding in all respects, outstanding in the information it contains and outstanding in that it actually gives us more than sufficient information. In this regard I should like to refer to page 7, where the Secretary states—

I should like to agree that this report should perhaps be curtailed because we know that this department and its officials, from the Secretary to the most junior official, at home as well as abroad, do not begrudge a single day or a single evening or a single hour in devoting their time and their efforts to serving the interests of this department and of South Africa. The fine results of this, which can be seen throughout South Africa and overseas, too, and which are beneficial to South Africa—the hon. member also referred to this—are ascribable to the zeal and perseverance displayed by the hon. the Minister and his department. I think we should do well to take cognizance of this. Consequently we could perhaps eliminate a little of the information and concentrate more on the fruits of this department with its officials.

It is the task of the Department of Information to disseminate information at home as well as abroad, at home in regard to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu and to inform them about South Africa, the policy of the Government and so on. We are short of well-trained staff to disseminate this information. I just want to mention that it takes at least nine months to train such staff before they can be sent abroad or put in charge of an office. I just want to refer to what is stated on pages 77 and 78 of this report. We note that some of the senior officials of the department arrange background seminars in order to train our officials in many fields. I should like to refer to a few of these. There are, inter alia, the following: Various aspects of Government policy; the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party; the political parties in the CRC; Political parties in the Bantu homelands; Socialism and Communism, neutrality, neutralism and non-alignment; the peace efforts of the United Nations; the pattern of South Africa’s foreign trade; pressure groups in South African society, etc. The standard of the training these people are given speaks volumes. In the past 14 days we have been making the acquaintance of this department. We know how thoroughly and well these people are trained. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the minister for this sound training. We know that seven of the persons who were trained last year successfully completed the language course in French offered by the Language Service Bureau of the Department of National Education. This means that when these people go abroad, they will be able to speak not only English and Afrikaans, but French as well. Even their wives are trained, because the wives stand by the men in our foreign service.

We are very pleased about this sound training.

However, we want to go further in regard to training. One of these days our homelands will become independent and, as the hon. the Minister made known last year, non-Whites are going to be trained for the foreign service. I think we shall have to give more attention to training non-Whites for service in the Bantu homelands, in their own information service, when these homelands become independent. The Transkei and the Ciskei have already requested that certain of their people be trained so that they may have their own information service later on. I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister would tell us what progress has been made in this regard. For example, I think that some of our White officials should be seconded to those Government departments for a certain period. Some of the Black information officers who are employed abroad could also be used to train people from the homelands. While we are training non-Whites for the information service here, we could train people from the homelands, too, at the same time. Sir, this would be of immense value to these homelands in the future.

In passing, Sir, I just want to drag in one more matter and refer to the guests we receive here from overseas. Other hon. members on this side will discuss our guest programme this afternoon and tomorrow, but I just want to mention here that last year we brought 664 official guests here from abroad. Those guests were received and looked after by the department. Do you realize, Sir, the tremendous influence those guests from abroad could have on domestic opinion and, on the other hand, when they return to their countries, what a tremendous influence they could exert on foreign opinion concerning South Africa? I should like to see us possibly bringing these guests from abroad into contact with our policy-makers and opinion-formers in this country to a greater extent in the future, because these visitors from abroad always have a very good word for South Africa when they return to their own countries.

Sir, I want to make special mention today of the dissemination of information in the interior. In the Budget debate this year I referred, inter alia, to inflation and to everything that could be done to check inflation. I called for an effective information programme and I said the following (Hansard, 7 April 1975, column 3634)—

What authority are you quoting?

Sir, I now want to refer specially to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council which, according to a report in yesterday’s Burger entitled “National Campaign against inflation”, requested that a thoroughgoing information programme bee instituted. I quote from Die Burger (translation)—

Sir, in my opinion it is in the interests of all of us in South Africa, whether a Nationalist or a United Party supporter, whether White or non-White, that we should lend our full support to this effort on the part of the Economic Advisory Council to launch an information campaign of this kind in all spheres throughout South Africa, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could use his Department of Information to assist the Economic Advisory Council in propagating this idea, and even whether he could make use, next year, of television as well, in order to publicize these matters. Sir, this would be in the interests of the country in general. Now, I do not want to discuss the colour politics which the Opposition harps on every day; I am discussing bread-and-butter matters that affect every man and woman in South Africa and throughout the world.

Sir, let us train our people to contribute towards ensuring that everyone in this country will have enough to eat, that everyone will be economically strong; and that everyone will have employment opportunities. I do not think anyone will take it amiss of me when I ask that this department go out of its way to disseminate information in that regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke earlier, I pointed out that the Bantu homelands are an important positive factor in the department’s publicity programme, but that it will increasingly be faced outside with the question of how an area which consists of ten fragments of land can become a viable independent state. My impression, having looked at the department’s publicity and also at the sort of answers which the hon. the Minister gives outside, is that he and the department are not prepared for giving answers to this sort of question, and I think that attention should be given to this. Paul Giniewski asked the hon. the Minister another question, which is also the sort of question one is always being asked, and that was—

To this the hon. the Minister replied—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that accents of this kind do not seem to me to be advantageous to our image outside, and I think that the hon. the Minister and his department will have to find—a better way of presenting to the outside world the question of the homelands, which, as I have said, can be the one positive aspect of the Government’s image outside, if it is handled correctly. Now, in his interview with Mr. Giniewski the hon. the Minister adopted a strong attitude about Africa. He said—

Sir, that is a good sentiment. Then he continues—

Where the hon. the Minister speaks about Africa, we support his sentiments. He likes to speak about the way our fate is tied to Africa and the fact that we are all Africans. But what I still really miss in the activities of the Department of Information is a real Africa factor. Sir, the department has a desk for African countries and the East. It invited 164 official guests to South Africa last year at a cost of about R½ million. They came from South America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Western Europe, the U.S.A., Canada and one from Japan, but there was not a single African, not a single visitor from our neighbouring states or from those few Black countries with whom we have relations or who are prepared to co-operate with us. I believe that Africa should become our priority. We shall have to forge cultural links with Africa if real understanding is to develop between us and the rest of Africa. I think this should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister, and especially of the Department of Information which, when one comes to think of it, is really our permanent “department for détente” in South Africa. Now, last year the hon. the Minister held out the prospect of suitable Black and Brown candidates being trained for service in the department both at home and abroad. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how much progress has been made in this direction and what the programme is which the Minister has in mind in this connection.

The hon. the Minister’s annual report also mentions that there is likely to be increase in psychological warfare on the international scene. That is a correct appraisal, and in this connection I should to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. The first is: We have a permanent office at the U.N., and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he intends to keep this office, our foothold at the U.N.; or is the Department of Information is also reappraising our relations with the U.N. and our position in the world body? Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister what co-ordination there is, here and abroad, between the Department of Foreign Affairs and his Department. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I personally—and there are others who have had the same experience—have gained the impression in certain places abroad that the Department of Information uses a different approach in its activities and publicity from that of our foreign missions, which carry the chief responsibility for policy and action abroad. It is obvious that I am not going to mention names, nor do I intend to mention places. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether care is taken to see that there is proper co-ordination between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the work which the Department of Information does abroad. I think that the hon. the Minister will concede that it is extremely necessary that there be uniform action and that the guidance in this connection should in fact come from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The hon. Minister knows, too, that there is an impression at home that there is competition between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information, and that the Department of Information is promoting personalities. Government newspapers have contributed more to the creation of this impression than anything else. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment on this impression which there is.

I see in the annual report that the department is helping the homelands to establish their own departments of information, especially those who ask for them and qualify. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us more particulars about what is being planned and what will eventually be the role of his department when each of the homelands has its own department of information and what the extent of their activities will be. I also read in this report that the department had a project in Zululand where they motivated the Zulus to register as citizens of Kwa-Zulu The report mentions that the opportunity was also used “to promote a feeling of national identity and pride” among the Zulus. This amazes me, and I must honestly say that it sounds to me like the height of arrogance for a White department to and pride among the Zulus. Does the Zulu promote a feeling of national identity not have an identity? Is this something which has to be created artificially? Does he not have national pride? I repeat that it is arrogant, and that it is a pity that something like this should appear in a report of this sort. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will know what it means; I must honestly say that I do not know what it means. [Interjections.] Yes, paternalism, but to me it sounds like arrogance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a statement to the effect that the attitude towards South Africa abroad will not change before we bring about certain changes at home. But is the hon. member not aware that the hostile attitude of the outside world towards South Africa is an attitude that has developed in the course of many years owing to a total lack of knowledge, and that the situation has been exploited by reckless and unscrupulous writers and journalists with only one aim, viz. to make money out of this deficiency or short-circuit—call it what you will—that existed with regard to knowledge, information and experience pertaining to South Africa. This situation developed at a stage in our history when there was a world famine of knowledge and information concerning strange and mysterious continents such as inter alia, Africa, including South Africa. These authors very soon found that the more sensational the story, the better it sold, and the better it paid them. That is why the world has been bombarded and indoctrinated with misrepresentations which later developed into hostility towards South Africa —that is already history. How else does one explain the fact that much of the world refuses, in the fact of the facts, to believe that South Africa is developing and uplifting its Black peoples to a level never before known in Africa? The per capita income of our Black people is one of the highest in Africa. Their rate of mortality is among the lowest and this may be ascribed to sufficient food and good medical services. Percentagewise, too, they are far more literate than their so-called brothers in Africa. It is safer for the law-abiding Black man to live in South Africa than in many Black states. Per capita of the population they also possess more cars, live in better houses and in addition, enjoy better welfare services than Black people elsewhere in Arica. Those are the facts. It is these facts that have forced a man like Chief Minister Matanzima to say that the awakening of his people as a nation is owing to this Government. I have quoted his words before. But writers overseas do not state these facts because it does not suit them to do so. The world, whose attitude is one of bitterness and hostility, owing to having been shaped for so many years by what has been written about South Africa, still seeks sensation and evidence of so-called atrocities and oppression. There are still many people who make money out of this, as witness, inter alia, the film Last Grave at Dimbaza.

In consequence of this situation, the Department of Information is faced with the extremely difficult task of breaking down these barriers of hostility towards South Africa that have been built up so thoroughly over the years, and to confront the world with the true facts. South Africa is one of the few countries in the world in which the Black peoples are being guided along the path of development towards sovereign independence without their having to fire a single shot. This is a political achievement unequalled in modern history. It is unique in modern history. If, therefore, one considers South Africa and its people, White and Black, and the facts concerning them, one would think that our Department of Information ought in fact to have a spectacular and easy task. However, we are not living in normal times, and therefore this department and its Minister have an extremely difficult task. It is the task of this department to afford perspective to the view of South Africa held by the outside world and to ensure that there is a stream of knowledge, information and facts to the outside world; that this stream be normalized and the facts made accessible. This is a difficult task. All the money-makers in the yellow press and all the anti-organizations whose members are professional demonstrators who have never known a day’s good and honest work, see to that. Then, too, there are many other political groups, organizations and individuals whom it would not suit for South Africa to reflect a favourable image abroad.

There is one factor that we must not lose sight of, viz. that the enemies of South Africa do not want the peace efforts initiated by our hon. Prime Minister and President Kaunda in Southern Africa to succeed. They want the struggle to be perpetuated and even to be stepped up. Once again it is the task of the department to break down these barriers. These agitators believe that they will not be affected, whatever form the struggle may take now or in the future. That is why they are engaged in this agitation.

It is also the difficult task of this department to arouse an absolute repugnance among influential and prominent people overseas and in Africa, against sanctions, boycotts and terrorism calculated to destroy peace in Africa. If there is one thing we must guard against, it is an ideological conflict between White and Black in Africa, and this is being instigated by many bodies and persons throughout the world.

South Africa follows certain principles as far as its relations policy is concerned. It is our sincere belief that were Africa to consider these in an atmosphere of détente, it would find in them elements that would not only be acceptable to it, but which could also serve as an example to it. The issue on which the so-called struggle against South Africa is based, viz. the reasonable upliftment of and provision for our Black peoples, has for a long time no longer been applicable. At this stage, South Africa’s Black people are better provided for than the people of the enemies and critics of South Africa. It is not I who say so, but I quote from the Volksblad of 15 December 1974 (translation)—

Nowhere in the world and at no time in the past has one country seen its way clear to setting itself such a challenge.

For this reason I can rightly say that this is a political achievement unequalled in the world and unique in our time.

This statement by Chief Matanzima is proof that the hostility of the outside world towards South Africa is based on absolute ignorance and the lack of a desire to learn about South Africa. Abroad there is no need to become acquainted with the true facts about South Africa. Our Department of Information must cultivate that need among all prominent people and opinion-formers overseas.

The issue is, therefore, not simply a change in South Africa’s domestic policy and its domestic situations, as is stated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We therefore wish the hon. the Minister and his department all success in this tremendous task they have to perform for South Africa and its people. The success of this department will be South Africa’s success too, and South Africa’s success will mean peace, progress and development for the whole of Africa and all its people.

Mr. Chairman, in the previous speech he made—if I am not mistaken he only spoke for eight minutes; he had two minutes left—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout dealt a backhanded blow to the officials of the Department of Information. He said that it was the aim of officials of the department to boost certain personalities. We know that the hon. member was hinting at the position of the Minister. The hon. member still had some time remaining. Why did he not come to this House with evidence so that we could argue the matter? It is disgraceful to make an unsubstantiated charge of this kind against the officials of the Department of Information. It is rejected in toto by this side of the House

I should like to discuss the guest programme of the Department of the Information. This programme is not only a very important, but also a very effective function of the Department of Information. We know that its aim is to bring influential people to South Africa, because it is a fact that there are ways in which South Africa can promote its good image apart from writing about South Africa abroad and showing films. In fact, the best advertisement for South Africa is South Africa itself, a beautiful country with a great deal to show and a great deal to offer. An-itinerary for Mr. Don Goodenow, managing editor of the Herald Examiner in Los Angeles, is published in the report of the Department of Information. Mr. Goodenow visited South Africa on the invitation of the Department of Information. I want to point out a certain aspect of the programme as published here, viz. that a person coming to South Africa has ample opportunity to become acquainted with all opinions and the policy of all political parties in South Africa. When we consider persons who are politicians or who occupy positions or hold office in political parties, and if we include the daily newspapers of the Republic of South Africa, then we may consider which political personalities were visited by this person according to the published itinerary. In the first place he had an interview with Prof. S. A. Strauss, the national chairman of the Democratic Party. Subsequently he had an interview with a member of the editorial staff of The Star. He then had an interview with the editor of The World. His next interview was with Mr. B. Rudden of The Daily News. He then had an interview with the United Party member of Parliament for Green Point, Mr. L. G. Murray. Subsequently he had an interview with the hon. member for Sea Point, and another with Mr. J. R. Coleman, the senior assistant editor of The Argus. In all, therefore, he had interviews with seven persons who could state the opposition political point of view. On the other hand, the same person had an interview with Senator Denis Worrall and Mr. J. J. J. Scholtz, the assistant editor of Die Burger. On the National Party side this person interviewed two persons only. In addition, he had interviews with three Coloured leaders of South Africa. It is important for us to know that the persons who come to South Africa are given a true image of the Opposition point of view in South Africa when they meet politicians. It is probably for that reason that this person, Mr. Goodenow, wrote as follows to the Secretary for Information—

In my opinion we should extend out sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department on this objective programme. I think it deserves the support of everyone. South Africa is an important industrial country and there is no doubt that we must bring this to the attention of people from abroad. We can show the people from abroad other things, too. We can also show them—and we do, too —that we in South Africa have good race relations and that we have succeeded to a large extent in eliminating poverty. We have the privilege of showing people from abroad in South Africa that people of various colours and races are able to coexist peacefully here. In this regard it is important that a Negro professor from America who visited South Africa, a certain Prof. Braithwaite, said that he was amazed, when he visited South Africa, to find no hate between White and non-White in South Africa, and that the policy of the South African Government was designed to eliminate these very situations of conflict that could possibly give rise to a negative situation of this nature. Consequently it is also good to know that so many people have come to South Africa to come and see for themselves the situation we have in South Africa. There were 164 official guests in South Africa during the past year and 284 “domestic” guests, viz. persons from abroad who came to South Africa and were given some assistance by the Department of Information. Then, too, there were 664 visitors from abroad, giving us a total of 1 112 visitors from abroad received in South Africa. It is very important that we should take note of the various countries from which the visitors to South Africa came. These people came from both the East and the West. There have been people from Japan, New Zealand and Australia and a number of people from the U.S.A., as well as people from the Argentine and many from Europe. This is in respect of the 164 guests who visited South Africa officially. Of course, we do not know where the 284 foreigners—they are called “domestic guests” in the report for a specific reason—and the 664 foreign visitors came from, nor do we know how many of them came from Africa. In these times, when we want to coexist with Africa in a spirit of détente, in these times when we have so much to show and when we know that much of the prejudice against South Africa on the part of Africa can be eliminated, in my opinion the department and the hon. the Minister can—and I am sure they will—consider inviting official guests from Africa to South Africa from time to time on a very selective basis. In this regard I think the hon. the Minister will invite specifically anti-communist people, because it is only with such people that we can converse. In the second place we can only invite to South Africa people who are by nature unprejudiced. We shall only be wasting money if we invite prejudiced people or enemies of South Africa here. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister would give attention to this matter, too, in these times of progress, development and détente.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches naturally have appreciation for a great deal of the work done by the Department of Information. There is some of us who have personal experience of what is being done locally to give overseas visitors a better understanding of our country. Many of us have personal contact with members of the staff of the department and we have high regard for them. It hardly needs saying, but we do, of course, support the endeavours made by the department to create a genuine and more honest image of this country abroad. We are glad about the degree of success which the Department of Information has achieved in this regard, but it would be very sad if I were to do nothing this afternoon but to join in the singing of these praises. The hon. the Minister would be very disappointed if I were to neglect my duty and not take a critical look at this department. I want to take a very critical look at it, because I feel rather strongly about this. My objection to the department is, put simply, that too many or many of its efforts miscarry as a result of its acting as an agent of the National Party.

Oh, no!

My argument is simply that this misconceived and misdirected brief, for that is what it in fact is, has produced a tendentiousness and a bias and, above all—this is the most serious of all—a credibility gap which not only spoils much of the department’s work, but which in fact negates it in the eyes of people who know. The extent to which the department internally regards itself—consciously or otherwise; this is difficult to determine—as an agency or arm of the party in power, is a matter about which the taxpayer necessarily has reason to feel quite bitter and quite strongly. I am afraid the department is doing exactly what the National Party does: It equates party with State.

I referred last year to the magnificent publication South Africa 1974 which purports to be an authoritative and objective work of reference. In the latest report of the Department of Information to which various hon. members have referred, we are told that this book has been welcomed “in all quarters as fulfilling an urgent need to provide an authoritative and comprehensive book of information”. I wish this were true, but I am sorry to say that a second and a third look at this book confirms my original impression that in one field of opinion and comment this book is undisguised Nationalist Party propaganda. Whether we like it or not, this is a simple fact. I do not think the hon. member for Waterberg or the hon. member for Sunny-side will disagree with a single word that appears in many parts of this publication, and that is saying a great deal.

Why should they?

I am not against South Africa.

I would say that the hon. the Minister of Defence might even agree with most of it, and that is going pretty far. In other words, the point I am trying to make is that as a result of this tendentiousness this book loses a great deal of its efficacy as a book of reference. I hope that when the projected international issue of this book is produced somebody will have a look at it with a very, very critical eye and remove some of this tendentiousness otherwise it really is not going to be accepted.

What are you objecting to?

Just read the book; I do not have the time to go into that now. Even in the non-controversial sections this book is inept. Just listen to this. In the section dealing with sports policy we are solemnly told—

That is really going to endear us to the Black people of Africa! [Interjections.] Here and elsewhere we want to tell them that part of their recreation was a little bit of faction fighting! In the name of sanity, Sir, what can we do? I can only hope that somebody is going to have a good look at this book. Who gives the Department of Information the right to say of foreign critics—

That appears in this annual report to which another hon. member has referred. This is what Nationalist Party spokesmen are telling us day and night; this is what they purport to believe. However, the Government is constantly making changes in its domestic policy. Why is it making domestic changes? Why is it doing this in the case of sport? Partly, at least, to placate foreign thinking. Why otherwise would these changes be made? Why must the Department of Information tell us that changes won’t placate these people? At best I would say that this question of making domestic changes is essentially a political dispute from which the Department of Information should divorce itself entirely. The Nationalist Party’s own propaganda machine can do this type of thing. I suggest that the department would perhaps make a few more friends and influence a few more people if it could resist some of this snideness and provocation. Why parade its hatred of the BBC by sarcasm about—

I say this particularly in the light of the success of the department in persuading the BBC to give it time to refute the Last Grave at Dimbaza. What is achieved by this kind of thing? It is a strange kind of judgment which expects justice in regard to remarks of this nature. Also, why cannot we accept the fact that at least some of the criticism in the outside world from church quarters is not always leftist of communist-inspired? What is achieved by this? What do we get out of it? It is an exercise in self-justification and very little more. One can go on in this way almost indefinitely. There is so much of it that one cannot get through it. However, listen to this. In the section on West Germany—this is really naïve—the department states—

We know that the Government has an absolute thing about clergymen from abroad and that the divines locally are not really tolerated, but to go around telling the world that we deport parsons all over the place in droves! Surely we can do a little bit better than that? Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Information might have a word with the hon. the Minister of the Interior and deport fewer of these pulpitless parsons.

In the minute that is left to me I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will please tell us a little more about the internal information division of his department. The report speaks about promoting—

It has also gone into the field of labour relations. I see that at Kroonstad its office instituted a full inquiry into the causes of labour unrest. This seems to me to be an unusual field for the Department of Information—going into what the report calls the relevant ethnic disputes. I do not know whether it has the expertise to do this; it may be desirable: I do not know. However, in this context, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us a little more in regard to the progress that his department has made in making use of the services of people of colour, both at home and abroad. We believe that there are some of these people being trained, but we have not heard much more about it. And as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, why not bring a few Black visitors to this country? The department is spending R2½ million more this year than last year and its budget is now in excess of R10 million. This is a great deal of money by any standards. However, nobody would begrudge it if we were satisfied that it was being spent in the broad national interest. I should just like to say that I am convinced that the department would be more successful—this is the point I made at the beginning—if it would only stop behaving like an arm of the Nationalist Party and would try very much harder to speak for South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown, who has just resumed his seat, cannot help being negative—subversive in the spirit of his party and his fellow-leftists. The hon. member contributed nothing that was positive here. All he said here this afternoon was food for the enemies of South Africa outside our borders. I should like to make my own speech and consequently I am not going to follow up any further on what the hon. member said.

Our information task is a giant task; it is an enormous task, it is a mighty task. Our information officers abroad comprise a small group of 66 who, in comparison with the 6 800 information officers of a country like America, are a drop in the ocean. These people of ours fight in the front line for South Africa against fanatical militant groups, against hotbeds of leftist liberalism, against mass communication media and against Red onslaughts. They have to cope with a flood of anti-South African propaganda, with a campaign of suspicion-mongering, of misrepresentation and of condemnation. This small group, these 66 men of ours abroad, stand alone against forces of subversion and political terrorism; against double standards and against the lie. They stand like a David of old against the Goliath in their fight for South Africa. Under the guidance of a dynamic Minister and a wide-awake secretary, they are doing outstanding work for South Africa even though there are few of them. They are achieving great success. However, they are still receiving hopelessly too little support from bodies and people in this country. The time has come for South Africa’s information task to become a more co-ordinated action, a people’s action, a national effort, a demonstration of patriotism and loyalty in order to intercede on behalf of our country and defend its good name. It is really time for us as South Africans, all of us, from all strata of our population, to shake off our lethargy and come to realize fully what à great and important task lies ahead of South Africa in regard to information. Sir, it is no longer possible for any country to live in isolation today. We must pull down the barriers erected against us and we must cast our bread upon the waters. Our task of information must become the task of all our leaders in this country—White, Brown and Black. It must become the task of our business men and our industrialists, of our great and strong Press, of our sportsmen, of the close to 700 000 South Africans who tour abroad annually, but what is still more important, Sir, is that the more than 600 000 people who come and tour South Africa annually should be treated in such a way in this country that when they return to their own countries, they will communicate a favourable image of South Africa. Sir, even the boy and girl with a penfriend overseas can have a share in this regard. Each one can be an ambassador for South Africa. We have a tremendous potential. All that is needed is motivation on the part of these people, and now is the time for us to tackle this task with all our might, since a brandnew evaluation of South Africa is in progress. South Africa’s extended hand of peace and goodwill has impressed countries and leaders and has created a new climate of goodwill, towards South Africa as well. Ears and hearts have become resceptive to South Africa; everyone that returns from abroad says this. Sir, we want to pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister, who has done more than anyone else to open doors to the outside world for us. Our positive message has spread across borders like wildfire and has found favour in the eyes of nations. The Department of Information has persisted in a forceful manner in carrying this message far and wide, and now is the time for influential people in our country, people of all parties, to make a strongly patriotic voice heard to people in the outside world. While saying this, Sir, in the same breath I also want to request certain non-White leaders in this country to moderate their language when speaking in world forums, and not to call in outside arbiters to come and act as judge in regard to what we are doing here in South Africa. We appreciate the actions of some of them. Sir, there is nothing that does one’s country so much harm as when one’s own people say things that harm one’s country. The least we ask of these people, Sir, is loyalty towards South Africa. The Black and Brown leaders of South Africa can play a major role in our peace efforts because there are influential people in Southern Africa who listen to what they say. Sir, our non-White leaders must remember that they are just as little able to escape an armed conflict in Southern Africa as is the White man here.

Sir, I now want to address myself to the Opposition in this House. I want to ask the United Party and its political splinters as they are sitting here today, not to say things, in the course of their wild attempts to outbid each other, that will harm South Africa, because our enemies seize on these things. The hon. member for Durban Point, who is unfortunately not present this afternoon, flamed up at me in pious indignation when I made an appeal for loyalty here, but what did the hon. member’s leader do only a few days later? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to this House and used language which was dynamite as far as our race set-up was concerned and which was damning to South Africa’s image abroad. Sir, what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say in the debate on the Coloured Persons Representative Council? He said—

That is true.

He went on to say—

Sir, do you see that explosive language; do you see that incitement? I can tell you that as sure as I am standing here today, those things will be used against us abroad. Why does a respected Leader do such things? Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does this because he is obliged to lay it on thicker than his splinters that come here and bid against him; because those people try to outdo him in energetic, dynamic opposition at every turn, and consequently he has to outbid them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to come here and prove that that old warhorse, the United Party, is still kicking, but what is it kicking when it says these things? When it says these things, it is kicking South Africa. It is kicking South Africa in the ribs.

Absolute drivel!

You see what they think of that. Sir, I want to make an appeal here today that people should refrain from kicking South Africa for the sake of political gain. We must not make the task of our information officers, which is already very difficult, even more difficult. We must give them the opportunity to present South Africa as it is—a bright jewel of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Information devotes its energies to improving South Africa’s image abroad. Consequently I believe that people abroad must be convinced of why they ought to know more about South Africa. They must be informed as to how they can utilize and apply this information they acquire concerning South Africa, but the benefit that could accrue to them from a knowledge of South African affairs must also be pointed out to them.

There are a few factors that play a very important part in achieving this aim. In the first place, there is the information staff, who must be effective and efficient. There is the message itself that has to be put across. There are the media available to transmit this message, and then there are the people overseas themselves and their reaction to this message they receive.

As regards the first factor, Sir, viz. the ability of the information staff, I believe that we are all agreed that these people are well equipped and trained to perform this task. When one considers at the second factor, viz. the message to be conveyed, then in this respect, too, I believed there need be no difficulties. As far as the third factor is concerned, viz. the media through which this message is to be put across by the department, it can probably attested without fear of contradiction that information publications such as Panorama and our information films can compare with the best in the world. But now we come to the fourth factor, viz. the people abroad to whom this information is addressed. Here, I think, we are approaching the one matter that could impede the realization of the ideal of the department.

We in South Africa often feel that the whole world is against us. I believe that this view is unfounded and untrue. That there are anti-South African feelings and activities abroad, is true, but they do not compare in any way with the blatant ignorance about South African conditions. Ignorance among people abroad is the biggest problem that one constantly comes up against. This ignorance apparently derives from the fact that the foreign public are unable to appreciate that information concerning South Africa can be to their benefit. Evidently they feel that information concerning South Africa is of no practical value to them. When people purchase articles, then they usually purchase those articles which they believe will be of benefit to them, which they can utilize for their own interests, and in the same way people only take note of information which they believe could be to their own benefit.

That is why I say that one of the cardinal functions of the Department of Information is to improve South Africa’s image abroad by informing these people why they should be better informed about South Africa. They must be informed about the benefits for them, too, which knowledge of South Africa could involve.

A major factor which could assist the Department of Information in achieving this aim, is the world press. There are signs at present that the quality of reporting, particularly in the so-called élite daily papers of the world press, is steadily improving. On the one hand, this can be ascribed to the influence of television as a mass medium. Television reaches more people every day, but owing to the fleetingness of the television image, there is a growing demand for those events which television can only touch on cursorily to be explained and placed in perspective. It therefore seems that in the future the world press will play a more important role than ever as far as opinion-forming is concerned. Well-trained, experienced and widely-travelled editors will, therefore, by explaining events and placing them in perspective, exercise an important influence on the forming of world opinion. If we can cause the editors, who are going to play such an important role in opinion-forming overseas, to be favourably disposed towards South Africa, I believe that this could have far-reaching results for us. I therefore believe that these editors must be persuaded to come to South Africa themselves, in order to gain personal knowledge and experience of the situation here.

The efforts already made in this regard through the guest programme of the department, to which reference has already been made this afternoon, are praiseworthy. We are aware of a number of articles written by former guests of Soth Africa that have already contributed tremendously towards putting our image abroad in a better light. Since the role of the world press in this regard will continue to grow, I believe that we should concentrate to an increasing extent on bringing these editors to South Africa. With the aid of these editors, reporting on South Africa may also reach the prominent leaders of the world. News reports will then probably emphasize the building up and the development of South Africa, and they can be news reports that will not merely reflect events in South Africa as a chain of separate, dramatic events, but as a continuous process of development. Such well-founded information could then penetrate to those people who are the driving force in international politics today. These are the people abroad who are the policy-makers that we must concentrate on reaching through our efforts.

The giant task at present being performed by the Department of Information as regards the building of the image of South Africa abroad is a praiseworthy achievement and I believe that if we can prevail upon the editors of these élite daily papers to cause the world press to take a greater favourable interest in our case, we should be able to give these great efforts an even greater driving force.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down, on his very constructive and critical approach to the problem of overseas information. He is in fact the only member on that side of the House who approached the matter critically. It would be very easy to participate in the paeans of praise which are being sung on the Government side. However, I cannot share in this glad rejoicing, because the time is so limited to adopt a critical approach to this Vote in the debate. When one visits the Parliaments of Germany or France or England or America, one finds that not only the Opposition, but also the members of the Government, use the discussion of votes to approach matters critically, to make suggestions and to lodge complaints. In this way they participate in the debate in a constructive manner. However, one does not find this here, and I must say that, in the circumstances, the Opposition has no choice, although I should like to participate in the songs of praise myself because the department is indeed doing good work. However, my time is limited to certain remarks.

†Sir, I should like to begin by referring to the annual report of the Department of Information, in which they say, amongst other things—many of which I approve of —that training courses and back-ground seminars have been arranged on various subjects including inter alia the policies of the United Party and Progressive Party. We are delighted that some attention is being given to those policies by the Department of Information, but to judge by the quality of the information that is put out about the policies of these parties, those policies are not yet properly understood. One would like to know where this information comes from. In other words, one would like to know which policy is actually being studied, because I have made careful inquiries and there is no senior person in the United Party, no person in an official position in the United Party, who has been consulted about these policies by the Department of Information. This is a fact. Let us look at the consequences of this particular approach. If one looks at South Africa 1974, the official yearbook, which, I suppose is as good a criterion to go by as any, one sees it to be an extremely expensively and, in part, well-produced book, but one finds that there are two chapters dealing with internal policies, the domestic dispute in South Africa. On chapter, Chapter 13, deals with the policy of multi-national development, and Chapter 14 deals with the Black man outside the homelands. Sir, these chapters have to be read to be believed. I should like, in the brief time available to me, just to show exactly how the problem is approached.

In these chapters multi-national development is dealt with on the basis of six “realities”. Six statements are put forward as realities, and on these an attempt is made to justify the policy of multi-national development. This is fair enough. There then follows an attack on what they call the only alternative to multi-national development, namely integration, and this is attacked on 21 separate grounds. There are 21 separate arguments used against it. In the Yearbook these arguments are tendentious. They consist of special pleading. There are omissions and there are contradictions, and there is a highly selective presentation of facts. Sir, I use this language deliberately and I will now prove my point.

Let us first of all look at the question of integration itself. It is stated baldly that you either, have multi-national development, or you have integration. Integration is then said to include all alternatives to multinational development, federation, for example, amongst them. In fact, on page 273 it is stated—

That is the only alternative, “arbitrary and artificial integration”. That is how it is seen. [Interjections.] In dealing with the Black man outside the homelands, the following statements are made on page 271—

There is a short-term integration as well as a long-term integration—

That is one consequence of integration as allegedly advocated by the majority of African states. On page 272 we read—

They cannot have it both ways. They say: “It is advocated by the majority” and yet it is also “rejected by virtually every African state”. A little further on, on page 272, we read—

However, on page 260 we read—

Here there is praise for the fact that the Western democratic system has been introduced in the Transkei. Let us look at a few more examples. There are so many that I had trouble in selecting them. On page 272 we read—

It may be that they have opted for a separate existence, distinct from the Black groups, but this argument is used to explain that the separate groups or communities or nations in South Africa all want a separate existence. However, what they do not say—this is where the halftruth comes in—is that the Coloured people are actually seeking a common identity with the White people. Why is this not mentioned? Why is only one side of the case put? Let us look at an example of tendentious reasoning. On page 273 we read—

This is the Department’s view—

In other words, the policy of integration, which people on this side of the House are alleged to pursue as the only alternative to Government policy, is genocide. [Interjections.] It is a pure and logical deduction from the way this is stated here. There are reckless statistics and inaccuracies all over these chapters. When the authors of this book defend the Government’s attitude to the urban Bantu, they say on page 281—

They say this in defending their attitude to the presence of the Black man in the urban areas; they say that he enjoys a standard of living better than he can get anywhere else. On the contrary, when they defend homeland development, they say on page 278—

which are a long list of statistics to prove that Black men are flocking back to the homelands—

You can have it one way or the other. Let us look at their attitude to federation. As I have said, the yearbook makes no bones about it that integration, which is allegedly the only alternate to Government policy, includes federation and then it goes on to say on page 273—

To negotiate what?

In other words, the Government is maintaining separate development with a purpose; it does not want them scrambled. What is wants them to do eventually, is to be independent so that of their own accord, of their own initiative they may negotiate a federal type of government.

To scramble themselves.

Where are we going? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the technique applied by the hon. member who has just sat down, namely the snatching of a few sentences from various sources in an effort to discredit the work of this department, is not only ineffective, but, I think, also borders on irresponsibility. I cannot resist the temptation to comment on his denial that the only alternative to our policy of parallelism is one of integration. I think it is time for these people to face up to the facts. By artificially reducing the numbers of Black voters, either at voting level as the Progressives do, or at a national federation level, as the United Party does, is nothing but an attempt to reduce the rate of integration temporarily. Until such time as these hon. members realize this fact and face up to it, and until such time as they face the electorate with this as the only alternative to our policy, they will continue to be reduced in number.

*I should like to speak about something else. The success of the Department of information is rooted in two things. In the first place they have the right people with the right know-how, and in the second place they have the right information upon which they are able to lay their hands at the right time.

I want to draw the attention of this House for a moment to the ordering of all information activities in South Africa. I want to stress the importance of the science of information in South Africa. I am doing this under the Information Vote with the knowledge of the hon. the Minister because I believe that this matter belongs under this Vote.

The science of information deals with the collecting, the processing, the storage and the retrieval of all relevant information in a country. One may think it unnecessary to want to create another activity in the State machinery, but the availability of the correct information is not only important for a department such as this which deals with a particular facet of information, but also of the utmost importance for various other reasons, of which I want to bring only a few to the attention of this House. Information is, in the first place, necessary for good management. It is very interesting to take cognizance of the fact that in the business world today a definite distinction is drawn between the collection of data and the ordering of such data into proper usable information. Readily usable information is being regarded in the business world today as a major capital asset because it can be used for determining trends, for making projections, etc. As it is an asset for a business to obtain the correct information, so a State which wants to have an effective administration certainly need to be able to do so too. I believe the ordering of the science of information in South Africa—its establishment, its promotion and its development —is of the utmost strategic importance. If one considers the development of hand-operated information systems into electronic systems today, it is a shock to realize that the State machinery, especially with regard to the revenue of the State, is utterly dependent on the handling of information by a small group of people with the aid of a few machines. What is more, this information is handled by people, most of whom are still young. It is mainly young people who are working on the development, operating and maintenance side. In times of emergency they are the people who will be called up for national service in large numbers. I am trying to point out that not only the collection and ordering of this information are of the utmost strategic importance, but also the people who are involved in those tasks. They are people who are particularly vulnerable in various circumstances. These people are all highly trained people who are not interchangeable. These jobs differ from a clerical job in which people can indeed be interchanged. The work of these people is highly specialized. The capital expenditure and the manpower involved in the practice of the science of information is phenomenal. Already hundreds of millions of rand are spent on this profession annually. It is, however, an art and science of precision to direct the development of information correctly, in other words, to get the development of a particular system of information on the correct basis. Also its maintenance is of the utmost importance. It is becoming impossible for the authorities to carry out audits in bodies which are subject to statutory control when all their information has been computerized. Therefore, as far as exercising statutory control is concerned, we are highly vulnerable, except if we have a particular and centralized source of knowledge which is available to the State as far as these matters are concerned. As far as the tremendous information explosion in countries abroad is concerned, I want to say that we cannot liaise with them unless we are organized ourselves. I believe that this matter is of such strategic importance—there are still other reasons I can mention—that I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to refer this matter to a Select Committee or to some body which can investigate the matter in detail. I can give the assurance that it will take a year or two to get anywhere near an ordering of this matter.

I wish to emphasize only one more very important matter, and that is the vulnerability of South Africa as a very attractive market for any equipment which is used in connection with the science of information. We are one of the only countries which have shown proper growth last year. It is not difficult for any foreign company manufacturing small apparatus to give 10 million dollars to somebody to establish an industry in South Africa. He would then come with $10 million in his pocket and recruit his staff, who would be strategic and highly trained people, in South Africa. I think it is necessary to tell those people that they may come if they want to, but that we then want guarantees from them in terms of the maintenance of their equipment as well as their not appointing our people but bringing their own experts to this country for a period of three years, for example.

However, such steps have legal implications. A body should be established, one which reports to the highest authorities, as is the case in other countries. In the top 20 countries we are the only one which does not have it as yet. This body should advise the highest authorities, and the practical arm of that body should be in the hands of a ministry such as the Department of Information with a separate secretariate for the science of information, or something of that nature. These powers to be established, should extend outside the State machinery, wider than the Civil Service Commission, over provincial borders to local authorities. It is necessary for us to organize this industry up to that level. Seen from the strategic and economic point of view and with a view to the proper ordering of manpower and having proper control, it is undesirable for South Africa to continue for one single day without the establishment of a body such as this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Florida started off by criticizing me for using what he called “selected passages” from the S.A. Yearbook, 1974. I assure him that if he would take the trouble to read those passages, he would find that these inconsistencies and half-truths do in fact exist. In fact, they abound in this book. It is right that one should criticize this book because according to a reply to a question in the House, the cost of compiling the information was R220 000, nearly R¼ million. The cost of printing was R150 000—a total of R370 000 in all. The number of books printed was 7 450; so that the average cost per book was just under R50. When one produces a publication at that cost, one can he expected to produce something of very high quality. One is therefore justified in looking very critically at a book that cost nearly R50 per copy. However, apart from that rather silly remark, if I may say so, by the hon. member for Florida, I thought that for the rest he talked a good deal of sense.

I want to come now to some constructive suggestions about the activities of the Department of Information. I believe that the Department of Information can in regard to its internal task, play a very important part and make a very important contribution in this country. I want to suggest a few examples of what can be done. These examples are taken, in part, from what I have seen done in other countries. I have seen departments of information working for the internal benefit of those countries and for the general education of the people of those countries. I should like to quote a few examples. I think that it must generally be admitted in South Africa that the slaughter on our roads has become practically intolerable. We have, in South Africa, one of the highest death rates on our roads of any country in the world. In fact, according to some statistics I have seen, our death rate on the roads is the second highest in the world. This entails a loss of life, a loss of talent and a loss of skills which South Africa, with its small skilled population, simply cannot afford. One has seen that in certain other countries a campaign has been conducted—in the case of Britain, by their Department of Information, and in the case of other countries by organizations co-ordinated by their Departments of Information—to teach people road manners, traffic control, road courtesy and all those elements that go into safe driving and a reduction in the loss of life and material loss on the roads. I believe that this matter is so important that the Department of Information, if it will take a little time off from dealing with topics of internal political controversy, could by concentrating on a matter of this kind make a major contribution to the benefit and the welfare of this country. I want to mention another example. In this country we are faced with certain aspects of the fuel crisis and we have a great need to conserve energy. I have previously criticized in this House the tendency on the part of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to use punitive measures to persuade people to save petrol. I do not believe it can work and it is in fact evident from what has been happening on our roads that it is not working. In such a case one has to gain the co-operation, the goodwill and the enthusiasm of people, and I believe that no department other than the Department of Information is in the position to mobilize psychologically the minds and the will of people to co-operate with the Government in a matter of this importance.

I believe that there is another field and a very fertile field to which the department might direct its attention. Another example which goes without saying is the protection of the environment. This should be done for a number of reasons but, mainly because the nature of a waste economy is to waste and to throw things away, I believe that our environment is suffering severe damage. There are also developments on our coastline, our mountains and our rivers which are destroying a great heritage in this country. I believe that in this field the Department of Information could play a major part in mobilizing public opinion and in creating a mood among the people which would tend to preserve these things for posterity.

Another of our problems has been the lack of adequate communication with our non-White people. We sometimes tend to behave as if we were just a lot of White people talking to White people. When we talk about petrol, conservation, road safety or whatever it is, we tend to use language and images which are only directed at White people. Our Black and our Brown people are part of this country and they also have a contribution to make. It is most important that the campaign of publicity—psychological warfare if you like— should be extended to those fields so that the Blacks and Browns may also make their contribution which they are well capable of making if their minds are properly mobilized for this purpose.

Lastly, I come to the question of better race relations which is obviously the key to the future of this country. Whichever policy is adopted, whether it be separate development, federation or whatever policy we have in mind, it is essential that it should be based on good race relations, that is to say on goodwill between man and man. We are all conscious of many ancient inhibitions and old habits as well as old kinds of hostility which still exist in our private lives in this country. I believe that the Department of Information can make a major contribution not only to its own policy but to any policy that may be adopted in this country for the improvement of race relations. Fundamentally we have to appeal to people—from small children right up to old people—and teach them that we can no longer afford discourtesy in this country. They must be taught that we can no longer afford ancient forms of indignity and verbal forms of contempt which are still heard on our streets every day. I believe that the Department of Information, as a department of internal information, has a major duty and a major obligation to perform in these fields. There are examples which crop up every day. Earlier the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned the hon. the Minister’s rather unhappy analogy quoted by Mr. Giniewski about the black bull and the black snake. There, unconsciously, one has the kind of language which I think is most unfortunate. All of us have to get out of the habit of talking in these terms. The words “black snake” are going to be observed by people. They will say: If the Black man in White South Africa is “a black snake”, what on earth can the Minister’s fundamental view be? I am not saying that he intended to call the Black man a black snake, but I am saying that the reference to a black bull and a black snake is an analogy into which he fell quite naturally because he was not sufficiently sensitive to the kind of effect his words might have. I do not say that the hon. the Minister is the only sinner in this regard. I believe it is only too common throughout South Africa that we use words, forms of expression and analogies which in fact do real harm. I believe there is a great educational task to be performed in this country. I believe that no racial policy, separate development, federation or any other, will succeed in this country unless it is laid on a foundation of goodwill, good manners and, generally, good human relations. I believe that nothing can succeed if that does not succeed. I believe there is an enormous gap to be filled and that there is a great deal to be done. I believe that the Department of Information in its internal programmes in this country should give a great deal more attention to these matters. If it does so, it might even, who knows, succeed in curing the HNP of some of its worst excesses. Even if I am now putting my targets too high, the task still remains and must still be tackled, if the Department of Information embarks on this, which I consider to be one of the major tasks of internal information in this country, it can count on the full support of this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the Information Vote has now being discussed here for a few hours and in the seven minutes which are left, I just want to express a few thoughts. The adjournment of the House will then give me an opportunity to reply fully tomorrow on the attacks which have been made here.

I want to start oft by thanking hon. members in general for the spirit in which this debate has been conducted this year. From all sides, real attempts have been made to express constructive criticism and make positive suggestions which can help the Department of Information in its attempts to increase its effectiveness even further. I appreciate the spirit and attitude in which the debate took place.

I think it is necessary that we should pause for a few moments at the concept of what the task of this department really is. We, and not only we, but all the countries in the world, are in reality involved in a war of words. At the moment the world is fighting not only for financial advantage or the conquest of countries, but to conquer the minds of mankind for various philosophies. In this struggle which is being waged between different countries and different world tendencies, attempts are made from all sides to conquer the minds of people by influencing them with subtle or blatant propaganda or by any means whatever. It is in this propaganda war that the Department of Information and its officials are fighting in the very front-line on behalf of South Africa.

Therefore I want to avail myself of this opportunity—I think it is essential that I do it at the beginning of the debate—to convey my special thanks and appreciation and to express my congratulations to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretaries of the department and to the officials in general, abroad and at home, wherever they may be for their diligence, for the tireless task performed every day, for the fact that they never spare themselves and that no demand is ever too great, and for the fact that we really have a group of dedicated officials here who will give their utmost to serve South Africa well in the struggle in this connection. I think it is necessary that it be placed on record that we thank these people on behalf of all the parties of South Africa for the great task they are carrying out. I want to say tonight, to the credit of the Opposition. That practically every member of the Opposition who has participated in the debate so far, has paid tribute to the work which is being done by the Department. They have recognized that good work is being done. However, virtually no one could refrain from expressing criticism afterwards, and I welcome that very sincerely, especially the spirit in which it was presented. Tomorrow I shall reply on the whole matter more fully. For the moment I want to conclude by commenting briefly on what the hon. member for Von Brandis had to say in his last speech —the positive one; the one before that was a little different, but the last speech I appreciated. He described the cost of the Yearbook as a little too high. It is true that the cost of the Year-book was tremendously high, but the hon. member must bear in mind that the Yearbook had to be built up from nothing. There was nothing we could use as a basis; everything had to be started from scratch.

Why?

From the nature of the case, we had to start from scratch. We involved a cross-section of practically the entire population as contributors to the Year-book—if the hon. member will look at the Year-book, he will notice that: Journalists from different newspapers, Afrikaans and English, people from the academic world, people from different regions and the department’s own people—a composition, therefore of all available resources to produce the Year-book. To produce it for the first time, therefore, involved tremendously high costs. As far as the future is concerned, we will obviously proceed on the basis of the present Year-book by only keening statistics up to date, in other words, supplementing them from time to time. In other words, the costs will obviously be spread over a number of years, and, on average, amount to less per book. I hope that this explains the position. We had to start from scratch and the cost involved was, therefore, high.

I hope that a few chapters will be revised.

We shall look at those chapters Tomorrow I shall answer the allegation that we are supposedly preaching National Party propaganda in the book, as was suggested by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Parktown. I shall take the time tomorrow to deal with that fully.

Have you read the Yearbook?

I want to say immediately that I agree with the hon. member about the question of a road safety campaign, and that we cannot afford to lose valuable human lives on our roads. The question is whose task it actually is to launch an information campaign in connection with road safety. The hon. member said that this falls under the activities of the Department of Information. The fact is that a Road Safety Council was specially established and that funds were appropriated specifically to do just that. The Department of Information have a representative in that council, who advises them, with his expert knowledge, as far as is necessary and as far as he is able to do so. In any case, the Government has definitely taken cognizance of the problem and established a specific council to which funds are provided to do the work.

By propaganda experts.

That is what it amounts to. I do not think the Department of Information should take over the work of all the departments in a co-ordinating capacity, which will mean that the fuel crises information service will also have to be undertaken by the Department of Information. The hon. member wants the work of the Department of Planning and the Environment in connection with environmental conservation and the question of pollution to be transferred to the Department of Information as well. He also wants the Department of Bantu Administration’s task in respect of human relations to be transferred to the Department of Information.

We cannot do it in this way; it cannot work that way either. I want to tell you immediately, Sir, that specific departments are charged with all these tasks and are at present dealing with them. Where the Department of Information, as the professional department which avails over expert knowledge, can be of assistance, its help is called in and we do, in fact, help. For example, we help with publications of all the other departments when we are asked to do so. I can also tell the hon. member that last year at the Rand Easter Show we had environmental conversation as our theme and won a gold trophy for that specific exhibition. We made a special film Who cares, about the subject—some of you have perhaps seen it—which cost us R14 000 and which was circulated throughout our country to draw attention specifically to that issue. That is our contribution. However, there are other departments which have specific instructions and tasks. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that I agree in general with his idea that the expert knowledge of our department should be available to others. At the same time I want to tell him this is, in fact, happening in practice, and that they do in fact make use of it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.