Mr. Chairman. I want to proceed immediately with the debate and react to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who was the main speaker on that side in this debate. Unfortunately he is not in this House at the moment, and therefore I hope his Whips will go and call him.

In his attack on us yesterday evening, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began by saying that the department is at last achieving success, not because we were trying to explain the policy of the Government, but because we were trying to explain the change which was taking place in South Africa, and conveying this information to the outside world. He said that they had been saying for a long time that we should make changes, etc. He had a great deal to say about the fact that we are supposedly adopting the United Party’s standpoint in this regard at last. I want to begin at once by telling the hon. member that in respect of this specific matter we are not—and I deliberately want to repeat this—we are not effecting internal changes at the moment to satisfy anyone in the outside world. The object of the changes which are taking place internally, was inherent in our policy all these years. [Interjections.] It is therefore an unfolding of the policy, and I shall mention a few examples at once to illustrate this, and to stop the laughter of those on the opposite side who are laughing. On a previous occasion I raised the entire question of liaison with Africa, the entire question of détente, when I quoted from a speech made on 2 May 1957 by the then Prime Minister, Advocate Strydom, in which he envisaged that a day would arrive when this would have to happen. I also pointed out that on a subsequent occasion Dr. Verwoerd had said exactly the same thing. I said that we who are sitting on these benches should immediately take off our hats and pay high tribute to, and praise our present Prime Minister, in whose term of office this had now become reality, for the courage and the drive and conviction he is manifesting in implementing this now with such great success. However, the impression which the Opposition wants to create now, is that this is being done in an attempt to save an immediate situation here, and that it was never inherent in our policy, is the result of a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The fact of the matter is that over the years we have stated that we have a task in Africa and that we shall fulfil that task. We want to pay great tribute to, and praise our present Prime Minister for the fact that he is implementing this at the moment. However, these are not changes which were effected to satisfy someone along the way, but changes which were inherent all these years in our policy.

Like your telephone diplomacy.

The second point I want to mention, is the question of the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of colour. Once again the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had a great deal to say about this, implying that it was a tremendous change in our entire standpoint in order to avert overseas pressure. What are the facts? In 1958 Dr. Verwoerd already envisaged that if the policy of separate development were implemented in its full consequences, it would automatically lead in due course to the disappearance of discrimination on the grounds of colour, because one would at that stage be dealing with population groups on a separate basis, which is the correct basis. This has been inherent in our policy all these years. I want to repeat that we pay high tribute and convey sincere thanks to our present Prime Minister for the courage he has displayed in implementing this so actively now, and we are pleased that it has been possible, under the circumstances, to do it in this way. [Interjections.]

Is that why you are allowed to shake hands now?

But we have been doing it for a long time. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact remains that it was inherent in the policy, and that it had to unfold in due course until we had reached a stage where we could put it into operation. [Interjections.] I should like to debats this matter further with hon. members opposite, but the fact remains that I do not for a single moment wish to detract from the achievements of our present Prime Minister as far as this process is concerned. It is an unfolding of our policy, as has been inherent in it all these years. It is now coming to fruition. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make an appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a chance. If they do not do so, I shall have to take stricter action.

I know it does not suit the Opposition. They would like to create the impression that the Prime Minister has deviated from our policy. They would like to convey that impression. I can only tell them that there is no deviation from policy; this is only the normal, logical and obvious unfolding of the policy, which is now coming to fruition. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is also the logical unfolding of the Losberg speech on sport. [Interjections.]

To me the hon. member also looks exactly like “Losberg’s lost darling” of the old days. The hon. member probably means the Loskop Dam speech. It is very clear that when he became Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister adopted the standpoint—Dr. Verwoerd himself had also envisaged this, but not in that specific sphere—that liaison with various peoples and individuals was from the nature of the case of such a nature— hon. members would do well to read that same Loskop Dam speech again—that it has to take place at a specific stage. The time was not ripe for it at that stage. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh if they wish. I know what the contents of that speech are. The passage on the Maoris appeared in the Press, but the remainder of that speech was devoted in its entirety to better relations, the recognition of different people, etc. No publicity was given to the remainder of that speech. I must say at once that our present Prime Minister, immediately upon becoming Prime Minister, adopted the standpoint that as far as this matter was concerned, if another country selected its team, we accepted it in that way. That is true. [Interjections.]

Will the hon. the Minister tell us then why D’Oliveira was not permitted to come out with the M.C.C. team?

I do not want to discuss such absurd matters now. The hon. member knows very well that the hon. the Prime Minister made the position very clear at the time. He said that, in the first place, a certain team had been selected in Britain to undertake the tour. But political pressure had then been exerted because there were no non-Whites in the team. [Interjections.] This was in England. As a result of political pressure a player then withdrew so that D’Oliveira could be selected, and that was why the Prime Minister said that it was a team which had been selected as a result of political pressure, and that it was therefore a political team.

Order! I just want to remind hon. members that we are now dealing with the Information Vote. Therefore I cannot allow questions to be put to the hon. the Minister in regard to sport, which will in any event be discussed at a later stage.

Sir, I am leaving this topic, but I simply want to repeat my standpoint. What is happening here is simply a development of our policy. We are still within the framework of that policy.

Where is it going to end?

If the hon. member remains in this House, he will see where it is going to end, for we are going to carry the policy through to its full consequences.

Sir, I want to proceed to the next question of the hon. member. The cost of the advertisement in the London Times amounted to approximately R1 800 per publication. In addition to the hon. member advocated that we spend more money on internal information among the Whites to stimulate and encourage better human relations in our country.

More of the existing money.

Yes, more of the existing money. If hon. members were to go back and read the previous debates on this matter, in those days when the hon. member for Orange Grove was still the United Party’s main speaker on information, they would find that he attacked me again and again for having dared to say that we want to provide internal information for the Whites, for he immediately regarded it as being political propaganda. In every debate he objected to my regarding it as part of my terms of reference to provide the Whites in South Africa with information on human relations, or anything else for that matter.

You are doing it now.

Yes, we are doing it now. Sir, there has been a direct reversal in the policy of the United Party, for their previous main speaker on Information reproached me for doing this; their present main speaker on this matter is asking me please to do so—a total reversal for the Opposition, a reversal which I welcome because their present main speaker is right; the previous one was wrong. But in regard to this same matter, I am being attacked by the Progressive Party, that tells me that I want to disseminate National Party propaganda among the Whites. Sir, this shows you what divergent viewpoints are held by the Opposition in regard to this matter. But I shall leave it at that.

I come to another little matter which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised. He took it amiss of me for having ascribed the consolidation of Zululand to the historic context and the old colonial policy, etc. All I did in this specific interview was to indicate the historic background and to indicate how the position which we have today, arose. I did not try to get away with it and say that we were unable to proceed with the consolidation. I simply indicated the historic background and how we had found ourselves in the position which we have at present in Natal, namely that it was a foregone conclusion under the colonial régime that they believed in a checkerboard policy, under which they settled Whites and Blacks in different areas away from one another because they were afraid of Black unity. [Interjections.] No, this was done deliberately, as the hon. member will find if he makes a study of the old colonial régime in Natal. It was their deliberate policy to break the power of the Zulus in this way. As a result of the fact that Zulus and Whites had been established for years in certain areas, vested interests arose there. With the consolidation of their homeland we are now faced by the accomplished fact that White and Black were deliberately settled among one another, that vested interests arose, and that we now have to try to consolidate the homeland into a unit. That is not so easy in practice, I want to proceed at once by saying that I still believe that this policy can succeed. I believe that it is going to succeed. I want to concede at once, as we are in fact doing in our interviews, that it would be the ideal position if we could consolidate a homeland such as KwaZulu into one unit. That would be the ideal position for the Black man, for the White man, for the world and for everyone, but we are dealing with the practical reality. If we had wanted to do this, it would have meant the removal of hundreds of thousands of Whites and Zulus, and that is not only impractical, but the world will not accept it. Sir, let me also add this at once: I do not think that consolidation as such will be finally disposed of when we have now drawn the final lines. If KwaZulu ever becomes independent…

In four pieces.

In four pieces or even in ten. If KwaZulu ever becomes an independent State, it will be able to negotiate on a governmental level with the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the exchange of land to promote and benefit consolidation, and then all the emotional heat has been eliminated from the argument for the negotiations then take place on an inter-state level, and it will then be possible to take the matter further and implement it. [Interjections.] It is still practicable.

It is not.

Who says so? Let us consider for a moment the countries of the world from the point of view of this qualification territory. There are many—and I know hon. members are now going to laugh again—island territories which are scattered over an area of hundreds of miles, and yet form one State. Between these territories one even finds international waters through which ships ply, etc. Here we do not have a geographic unit. But let us take the best example of all, the mighty U.S.A. This consists of 50 States, of which a number are grouped together on the continent of North America State No. 49 is Alaska, and this is separated from the U.S.A. by almost 1 200 miles of Canadian territory, separate therefore and to one side, and if the hon. member’s arguments were true, then America is not economically viable or administrable. And the next, the 50th State, is Hawaii, which is situated a few thousand miles further away in the Pacific Ocean. Yet the 50 States together form one State, one unit. [Interjections.] In other words, the fact remains that the U.S.A., the leader of the West, is not a consolidated homeland either, but consists of various pieces. [Interjections.] What arguments do you now wish to raise against that? Surely it is a fact.

Order! I now want to make a final appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a chance to proceed.

Yes, but then he must be serious.

The next matter the hon. member touched upon, was a request to the effect that we should invite Black guests to South Africa. We have already invited quite a number of Black guests to South Africa, not from Africa it is true, but Negroes from America. We have had quite a number of them here. Of the names which appear on the list of visitors, quite a number are non-Whites, Blacks. We have also had quite a number of Black guests, guests who come to this country under their own steam and who are looked after by us while they are here. In this way we have during the past year made arrangements for 25 Black Rhodesians, and have also worked out a programme for a Nigerian journalist. He had interviews with the hon. the Prime Minister, as well as with myself. In other words, although we have not invited any official guests, we have in fact made provision for Black people who came here to this country. From the nature of the case— and similar representations were also made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central— we will certainly try to invite Black guests from Black states in future, but this has to be done on a high level after diplomatic relations have been established, so that we may invite the people and may make contact with them through the right channels. This will be done as we make progress. To date we have not been in a position to do so.

The next question I should like to deal with is the question of what co-ordination there is between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information abroad. The hon. member asked what co-ordination there was. As my colleague and I have already stated frequently in the past, in public and in this House, we are constantly co-ordinating with one another. He and I hold talks when it is necessary, and the departmental heads also hold regular talks on various matters affecting these two departments. From time to time talks are held at various embassies abroad—under the chairmanship of the ambassadors concerned —with other departmental heads there in an attempt to co-ordinate our efforts in general. Therefore the necessary co-ordination definitely exists. The two departments each have their own work sphere, which is demarcated by their separate terms of reference, so that the two are able to work side by side. The one is complementary to the other. They are not in conflict with one another, but complementary to one another. I want to say that the efforts which have been made, and to which each of these departments has contributed, have certainly contributed to the success which is at present being achieved in the outside world. Therefore, the necessary co-ordination exists, for the two departments function complementary to each other and not in conflict with one another. I can assure the hon. member that this is the case. A hostile Press has for a long time tried to play the two departments off against each other, but the fact remains that at present there is splendid co-operation and that we shall continue in this way.

The hon. member also asked me what my attitude was to a permanent office of the Department of Information at the U.N. During the past two to three years we have already had the position that one of our New York officers is seconded to the U.N. headquarters for the duration of the U.N. session. As soon as the U.N. session is over, he returns to his office in New York and proceeds with his normal work in the U.S.A., which is his more specific assignment. Therefore, I hope that that matter is clear to the hon. member.

As regards the matter of a separate Department of Information for the homelands and in what way we are assisting them, I want to say at once that, until they are themselves able to proceed under their own steam as a separate Department of Information, we shall give them the necessary support and assistance, as we are doing at present. We have also done this in respect of two African states which asked us to do so. We were glad to assist them in this way. For a period of two years we seconded a person from our department to be of assistance in the establishment of a separate Department of Information in the case of Lesotho, and similar arrangements were made in the case of Malawi. In both cases we seconded some of our senior men to the countries concerned for more than two years, to help them to put their own information services into operation.

Finally, the hon. member expressed criticism because it had been stated in the report that our information officers were inter alia engaged in making the Zulus feel proud of their own Zulu identity. The hon. member found fault with this. I just want to tell the hon. member that our problem is not the Zulus but the fact that numerous people in this country believe and say that the Zulus as such, and particularly the urbanized Zulus, no longer have a Zulu identity. It is being said that they are no longer proud of being Zulus. The U.P. itself refers to the urbanized Bantu. They refer to them as if they no longer have Zulu tribal ties, and no longer have a pride in their own identity.

We do not say that.

It is nevertheless being said. It is being said that they have become urbanized and that they have lost their cultural ties. I just want to say that we are going out of our way, by means of publications, etc., to re-emphasize the separate identity of the various Bantu people. We single out important events which elucidate the identity of the people, and these we stress. I want to mention a single example, pertaining, in fact, to the Zulus. As far as their cultural heritage and works of art, etc., are concerned, the department has compiled a wonderful collection. This collection was exhibited abroad. For example, it was exhibited in Vienna, Austria, and it was a tremendous success. It was in very great demand. We even received a letter from Chief Minister Buthelezi congratulating us and thanking us for the exhibit of Zulu art overseas, to acquaint people with the Zulu nation as a separate nation.

Why did you not ask him to open it?

Yes, we could probaly have done that. It is a brilliant idea for the next time. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have, with this, more or less replied to the questions put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

The hon. member for Sunnyside asked me about the question of the Black information officers whom we are training for service in the Transkei. The fact of the matter is that we are at present compiling a preferential list of candidates. This will be considered, and the persons concerned, who will first be trained here for a period of eight or nine months and who will then be given further in-service training abroad, will eventually be able to take over the Transkeian Information Service when the Transkei becomes independent. As regards training in the homelands themselves, we have transferred a senior officer, who for many years was our second in command in New York, to Umtata where he will be able, with his overseas knowledge and experience, to make further information in regard to their specific problems available to the Transkeian people.

I come now to the hon. member for Parys. He mentioned an aspect about which I should like to say a few words. I would be pleased iff I could have the necessary attention from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for I should like to ask his opinion in this regard. The hon. member for Parys pointed out that a great many of our problems abroad arose as a result of distortions, or as a result of the fact that people write stories about South Africa for sensational purposes and disseminate these abroad, with which we then have problems. I want to deal fully with one specific example today, because I think it is a very good example. I should like to have the opinion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on this matter. This writer, some stringer or other, whose name I shall mention in a moment, wrote an article in regard to the death penalty and the prison population in South Africa. First I want to quote a passage to demonstrate how it is presented. The specific article puts it in this way—

Then he gives the figures here. The figure 364 000 is mentioned. I checked the figures against the annual report of the Department of Prisons. These figures do in fact come from that report, but in respect of this figure of 364 000, there is a clear footnote which reads as follows—

The footnote, which paints a completely different picture in regard to that matter, is not mentioned in this article at all. Only the total number is mentioned. I want to refer further to the specific article—

This is what is being offered in this article. I want to quote further—

What does the report state? Of those 110 persons 33 are still being detained, while the sentences of 27 have been mitigated. In respect of 47 people the death penalty was in fact carried out. However, this is not mentioned in the article, although all those particulars appear in the aforementioned report. The article leaves only an over-all impression. I want to go further and now the real nastiness follows—

Disgraceful!

This is the way in which it is presented. I can continue to quote similar passages, but in this way the article goes from strength to strength. This is bad enough, but then a further reproach is hurled at our courts. With reference to a judge, the following is said—

This is the way in which it is done. This is a reflection on our courts. The manner in which it is stated is bad enough, but now the question still remains of where it is stated and under what circumstances. I quoted this article from the Daily News of Tanzania. In other words, this report was specifically published in Tanzania. The date on which the article appeared was 7 April 1975, the day on which the foreign ministers and leaders of the OAU were discussing détente in Southern Africa. This article appeared on that very day in Dares-Salaam, and this is the effort this friend made to support South Africa’s détente effort in South Africa. The article appeared specifically on 7 April in Dar-es-Salaam, the date on which the peace efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister, other leaders and everyone in this House was to have been discussed. I can say at once that the writer of the article is a certain Mr. Stanley Uys. This is the contribution this person made to our détente efforts. Accompanying the article was a photograph of the police baton charge at St. George’s Cathedral which occurred two years ago. The caption to this photograph read—

Therefore, on that specific and pshychologically important day, when African leaders were discussing South Africa and détente, this was the contribution this specific person was able to make. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he will join me in condemning this entire action on the part of this person. I am also asking the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Sea Point, who is a friend of this person, to tell us what he thinks about it. Does he agree with me? [Interjections.] I am asking this in all honesty I am not asking it for political gain. I am asking for the sake of South Africa that the hon. members adopt a standpoint in this regard openly, so that these people can know what we feel about it. They think they can publish all this harm, and that we will not know about it. Therefore this was the attempt made by that person to try to help further détente as such.

I want to go further and refer to what was said in this debate by other hon. members. In the first place I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown. He said that the efforts of the Department of Information were failing in so far that it is acting as an agent for the National Party. I should like to make the entire issue of the National Party and the Government in this regard a little clearer. The task of the Department of Information is to convey the policy of the Government of the day to the outside world and to the people in South Africa. If the Government of the day is the National Party and the policy of the National Party is being put into operation in South Africa because the Government is able to do so, this naturally affects the lives and the essential nature of people. Of course there is also the policy of the Progressive Party, but this affects neither our people nor the outside world, because it is not being implemented. It is an alernative policy. In many of our publications we publish the alternative policies and even photographs of Opposition members. There are many publications which even contain photographs of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Houghton when she was still the only representative of the Progressive Party in this House. It is our task to publish this, but when we state what South Africa’s policy is, we naturally state the policy of the National Party, for that is the party which is in office and that is the party whose policy is being implemented at the moment. We must tell the world what we are doing here. Of course, criticism is levelled at that. The hon. member ought to be pleased that we are stating the policy of the National Party internally to the Black man, the Brown man and the Indian as well as to the Whites, for if the policy is ostensibly as wrong as the hon. member believes it to be, the voters will turn round and vote for the other parties the moment they realize that our policy is wrong. Therefore, if our policy is wrong, I am actually helping him by stating our policy in this country. Is that not correct? The people are being informed, and if the policy is as wrong as he believes it to be, the people are, according to him, eventually going to see the light and vote for his party. Therefore he ought to congratulate me and thank me for doing this. Having said this, I hope that this matter has been disposed of. I repeat: We state the policy of the Government of the day. If another party were to come into power the task of the Department of Information at that stage would be to state the policy of the new Government of the day. What is policy to us is the policy which is being implemented, and affects John Citizen very intimately. Our policy on Bantu Administration, on taxation, or on anything else for that matter, affects John Citizen intensely. In other words, it is our duty to tell him what it is, but it is not our duty to tell him how the United Party’s policy on this specific aspect is going to affect him for it is not being implemented. This is my standpoint and premise, and I make no apology for it.

The hon. member also quoted from a brochure and questioned the statement that owing to the ethnic knowledge of one of our men we are also helping various Black leaders and others on the ethnic level. What are the facts? The facts are very interesting. We have received letters of thanks from the owners and mining magnates concerned, for when one of the clashes between the Xhosa and the Sotho on the Free State Goldfields had virtually reached a climax, one of the information officers, who knows the Sotho people because be grew up with them was summoned and he went there to speak to the Sotho in their own language and in their own idiom. Within five minutes the tension had been broken and eventually the conflict ceased came to an end, precisely as a result of the utilization of the special expert knowledge of ethnical matters, such as the language of those people, as well as their traditions and customs. This was a fantastic piece of work and terrible blood-shed was probably prevented by the actions of a single official who was really equipped to take these steps. We have many such people who are experts on various Bantu peoples. They live with them and make a thorough study of their subject. Therefore I am making no apology for the fact that we are doing this. We shall probably have to do it again.

The hon. member, and the hon. member for Von Brandis as well, who apologized to me for not being able to be present here this evening, referred to the Yearbook South Africa 1974. Once again we have the same situation here. The Yearbook is written and compiled by quite a number of persons from all the various strata of the population, as I stated yesterday evening already. Among them are English and Afrikaans-speaking persons, journalists, and so on. These people all made a contribution. As regards the specific chapters to which reference was made, and of which it was said that this was National Party propaganda, the simple fact is that these articles deal with the policy of the Government of the day. Surely it is important that the outside world should know what the policy of the Government of the day is. They read what other writers have to say about the policy in books, but they want to know what the real McCoy, the actual policy is.

They want Stanley Uys to be the authority.

What is the actual policy? In the Yearbook there is a chapter which sets out the actual policy of the Government. This is the situation in practice. We also issued another publication which I now have here in my hand. The title is “Multi-national development in South Africa—the reality”. This sets out our Bantu policy from beginning to end. We did this deliberately, for now there is an authoritative work bearing the stamp of the Government as proof that it is the actual policy. One can read what other people wrote, conjectured or commented, but this is the real McCoy. This is how we accept it and this is the way we approve of it. People can criticize this policy if they wish, and condemn it if they wish, for this is the document which bears the official stamp of the Government. Very well, now what are the facts? Such a chapter is also contained in the Yearbook as the official policy. I want to say at once that this entire attack which was launched here yesterday by the hon. member for Von Brandis, and to a lesser extent by the hon. member for Parktown, concerned the fact that we say that the only alternative to our policy of separate development is integration. It is being said that we then immediately proceed to condemn and disparage integration, while we make no mentioned of the United Party’s policy of race federation, which lies between the two. What are the facts? Here they are being stated, and I am quoting from this specific publication—

Very clear reference is being made here to “short-term visitors”. However, this is also our experience in regard to all visitors who come here. They say at once that this ought to be the solution, until they see matters in a different light. The same applies to overseas journalists, who do not know this part of the world, and many African leaders also believe that the solution simply lies in integration in one form or another. I quote further—

We are not saying that this is the only alternative. It is said: “The policy most often proposed …” Those who wish to attack us, should at least know what we are saying.

By whom?

Foreigners. This book is written primarily for overseas consumption. We need not tell our own people these things. People from overseas say: “Your alternative policy should be social and political integration”. I quote further—

The word being used is “ultimately”. Throughout the standpoint adopted is that this is the argument which is being advanced by people from overseas who have no knowledge, and for that reason we have here analysed integration as an alternative to prove that that it is unacceptable, not only to the Whites in South Africa, but to the many non-Whites as well. There is an entire chapter on this matter, entitled “The integration model”. I could urge hon. members to read it. Perhaps it would also make them see matters differently.

Where can we get hold of it?

The book is now available. In fact, it has just appeared. This is the first copy. Within the next few days, every member will receive one.

What about the Yearbook?

There is also a chapter in the Yearbook which covers this same matter. I say at once now—and I make no apology for doing so—that in it we state on an official level the policy of the Government of the day in South Africa. If the Opposition should ever come into power one day by accident, they can also include a chapter in that publication by the Government of the day. The hon. member for Parktown went further, and attacked me in regard to the BBC. The BBC has at last presented something of ours. I am grateful that this has happened. For 20 years we have been struggling to persuade the BBC to do this. There is so much criticism at the moment that would prefer to say nothing about what is going to happen there—at the BBC, not here. In my opinion the BBC was for the first time what it says it wishes to be, namely an objective reporter. A film disparaging South Africa was shown, without any intervention on the part of anyone. They then gave us an opportunity to make a film of the same length, stating our case. Afterwards a panel discussion was held. To me this looks like an objective approach to the matter. We are grateful that the BBC has done this at last, after 20 years of effort on our part. I hope that they will continue to do so in this spirit of objectivity. In any case, in America as well as in Austria and other countries we regularly succeed in having the so-called equal time principle applied. This is how I think it ought to be presented, and therefore I want to tell the hon. member that we shall insist on this.

The hon. member made one last remark. He read from a specific publication of “Hunting, tribal dances and faction fights” as the recreation of the Black people. The hon. member objected to this. I have an agreement with the writers that I shall not disclose who wrote which article. But I want to assure the hon. member that, if he knew who wrote it, he would not attack me on this at all. Now what is meant by “faction fights”? For years it has been the practice on the mine compounds in South Africa that the Bantu—I have seen this myself, I don’t know how many times—assemble on an open space on Sundays and there hold mock fights for recreation.

Those are merely mock fights.

They are in fact mock fights, but the fact remains that this is the way these people amuse themselves. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member knows the writer personally; and I shall not go into this matter any further.

I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House for the general spirit of their contributions. Our members are fully informed of the work of the department as such, and because this is the case, they have been able to make a thorough study of the various aspects to good effect. I want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his positive contribution in respect of the Department of Information, and also for his praise of our officials as such. As I wanted to say briefly yesterday evening, my premise is that these officials are fighting for South Africa in the Frontlines. We must therefore equip them as best we are able for that straggle. They should be fully qualified and have all the necessary knowledge and information. They must be able to make perfect appearances before the television cameras, since this is the medium we frequently have to use. These people should in reality be walking encyclopedias of knowledge, who can deal with South Africa’s policies in all its facets in spite of all the pitfalls which may be dug and the snares which may be set for us. These are hand-picked people. I am fortunate that we have such people in the Department of Information, people who are not only prepared to do this, but who are capable of doing it. Many of them could probably in the private sector earn twice the income they are earning today, in the Department of Information, because they are specialists in the world of communication—particularly in respect of television and all the other things which are coming in South Africa. I want to pay tribute to this little group of officials who stand by South Africa so loyally and faithfully and who state our country’s affairs so effectively abroad. I think it is necessary that these things be said.

You should pay these officials more.

Pay them more? One cannot single out a number of officials from the entire Public Service and pay them different salaries; that is impossible. They are part of the State machinery, and one cannot favour a few over the others. That would be impracticable.

I want to thank the hon. member for Geduld for his speech and his idea that we should bring foreign newspaper editors to South Africa. It is part of our programme of course to bring opinion-formers and decision-makers to this country—that is our specific assignment. Many newspaper editors have already visited our country. We are continuing to invite these people from time to time. This year we have again invited a number of them, and I can give hon. members the assurance that the reports which have appeared were very positive, more objective in many cases than ever before.?

I come now to the standpoint of the hon. member for Florida, which he stated yesterday, and I want to congratulate him sincerely on it. I think the hon. member touched upon a very important point, namely the question of the discipline or science of information as a new direction in which we have to move and to which we have to give attention. As an authority in this specific field, he stated his case effectively. I am convinced that more attention should be given to this matter. I want to endorse the standpoint of the hon. member at once, when he stated that there was a possibility that duplication could occur over a vast area in that people were entering the country with computers on an ever-increasing scale and that this was followed by duplication in many spheres because people did not know of one another. From the nature of the case there has to be a place where information on information may be obtained. There has to be a source from which one can establish where one is able to obtain the information. The information may remain with the various sources, but someone, some central authority or other, should know where this information is obtainable. This has a considerable ripple effect in all the various facts which the hon. member indicated. I want to tell the hon. member that I cannot indicate to him at this moment precisely what the decision in this regard will be, but we shall go into this matter in full. The hon. member asked for a Select Committee on this matter. That may be the solution. I shall go into the entire matter and look into it very seriously, and I hope that we will in due course be able to make an announcement in this regard. I want to thank the hon. member very much for his contribution, and also for having drawn our attention to this.

There is only one person left to whose speech I have to react, and that is the hon. member for Preoria Central who was the last speaker, and who has stated that he will not be able to be here this afternoon. The hon. member referred to the objective itinerary which we drew up for a specific guest. This is true. The Opposition knows that when we receive guests who are in any way people of stature, we afford them the opportunity of contacting all the political parties in South Africa. In this Parliament we discuss matters regularly with members of the various political parties— our own party and the three Opposition parties—and sometimes we hold talks with them. As far as this is possible we bring them into contact with the leaders of the non-White peoples to give them in this way an objective image of what is rally being envisaged throughout South Africa and what the various schools of thought are which are represented here in South Africa by the various political parties. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank members of this Parliament on this side of the House and on the Opposition side, for the willingness they have played to make hours of their time available to speak to our guests. I realize that these are additional requirements or obligations which are imposed on them. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult for them, with their heavy work programme, to fit this in as well, but on behalf of the Government and the Department of Information I want to thank them very sincerely for being prepared to speak to these people, have dinner with them, keep them company and inform them in full. This applies to all political parties, and my sincere gratitude and appreciation go to those hon. members who are prepared to do this in the interests of South Africa. This affords the person concerned an opportunity to make an objective judgment eventually on what is important and what is not important.

I think that so far I have now replied to all the questions which have been put up to now, and I shall now resume my seat so that the debate may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I immediately want to pose the question: Who is the greatest enemy of the Western world and who is the greatest enemy of the Republic of South Africa? I want to reply to this question myself, and say that it is Communism. In reflecting on this enemy of the Republic of South Africa and all the methods it employs, I see clearly opposed to that the Department of Information and the laudable task it is performing. This department was established to deal with the confusion created by Communism, and to remedy the ignorance existing among many people. That is why this department is worthy of our greatest appreciation. It is this department that wants to introduce the Republic of South Africa in all its facets to the people in other countries and that wants to take more knowledge to these people. Therefore it is very interesting that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made mention yesterday afternoon in this debate of a wrong method which had been used in the past. More particularly, he stressed the factor of change, as though the Republic wished to conceal certain aspects of its policy. The Republic of South Africa is not ashamed of being what it is nor does the Government have a hand in concealing certain aspects to other countries. On the contrary. When we study the guest programme of the department, we find that the whole image of the Republic is presented to foreign guests or visitors. I find the contact made in this regard with our Bantu homelands, with politicians, with people of the Coloured community, with people of the Indian community, very interesting. Every facet of the Republic is shown to these people. The department should in fact be congratulated, and here I include the hon. the Minister as well as every member of the staff of this department which is achieving great success in inviting foreign guests to this country and in receiving them here. I was surprised to learn from the report that the itinerary of a particular visitor, which extended over a period of 19 days, included no less than 93 points of call. An analysis of these points of call and all they embraced, compel me to describe this itinerary as a wonderful set-up. It is indeed an illuminating experience for the visitor to have so many things to study on a tour. That is why we may describe this department as a body which is fulfilling a key function in the existence of the Republic of South Africa. Consequently it was amazing to learn in this debate from the hon. member for Parktown yesterday afternoon, that he regards this department as an agent of the National Party. The hon. member branded this department as an arm of the National Party allegedly propagating the policy of the National Party alone. Sir, there is no need for this department to do so for we as a party have our own information organ, our own information organization, which does not hesitate to propagate the policy of the National Party. Sir, when I think of the hon. member for Park-town and the people on that side of the House who think as he does, I have to describe that hon. member as nothing but a teaser, a teaser who tries until he is blue in the face, but who achieves nothing. It is indeed a fact, Sir, that those hon. members are forever concentrating on presenting the Republic and its people in a poor light. That is why I have no alternative but to describe the hon. member as a teaser. Our Department of Information is going ahead with this extremely successful programme of introducing our people to our guest visitors. It is very striking that guests from no fewer than 16 countries abroad where drawn to this country, and that 1 100 guest visitors were invited here to come to know our country in all its facets and to come to know its peoples. It makes one happy to learn, Sir, that one very important guest, after he had returned to his country, wrote to the Secretary of the Department, “I cannot get you out of my mind.” This shows one what an impression the experiences of those people in our country make on them, and the very reason for this is the first-hand knowledge they gain here. Imagine, Sir, what it could mean to us if 1 100 people could upon their return to their own countries after a visit to South Africa, convey this information to large numbers of people in countries abroad on the basis of the first-hand knowledge they have gained here, and if they could do this on television and with the assistance of films, the Press, etc. Consequently I am of the opinion that this programme of the Department of Information should be expanded apace. In this regard I refer to Mr. Brian Merriman of New York who asked in a document for more tours to be arranged to the Republic of South Africa for well-known and influential people from abroad. He also asked for more visits to this country by authors of travelogues. Sir, I believe the results which this arm of the department is going to achieve in future will be outstanding for it is this department which is encouraging détente and which is creating the proper climate for détente. It is this arm of the department, which is responsible for people from abroad gaining first-hand knowledge, which is creating a climate which can only be to the advantage of our country and its people.

Mr. Chairman, I will come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Somerset East a little later, but I immediately want to deal with two matters raised by the hon. the Minister. The first is in regard to the report he read in the Tanzanian Daily News. He asked what the opinion of this side of the House was. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to say that from this side of the House we are opposed to any report by anybody in any paper anywhere if it is false and not according to fact. In so far as this particular report is concerned, I think the hon. the Minister has a duty to see that the report is checked to ascertain whether or not it is as submitted by the correspondent, without any sub-editing or editing by the newspaper concerned. The hon. the Minister knows how much sub-editing and editing does go on in regard to reports submitted by reporters. If the report is false, if the report is in fact as submitted, then the hon. the Minister knows what procedure is open to him and that this is a matter eminently suitable to be examined by the Press Board. I trust that is the action which the hon. the Minister will take.

I want to say something else to the hon. the Minister, namely that it was a revelation to me and I am sure also to South Africa to know that “verligtheid” was always inherent in the policies of the Nationalist Party. You know, Sir, I am reminded that in 1966, in my first year in this House, I had the temerity—and the hon. the Minister was then just the hon. member for Randfontein—to ask the then Minister of Finance why it was that no attempts were being made to extend our trade relations in Southern Africa as a prerequisite for us to be able to establish diplomatic relations. The reply of the hon. the Minister to me was: “How do you suggest increasing exports to countries which are boycotting you?” My hon. leader made a very good suggestion: “Get a new Minister.” However, the hon. the Minister went on to say that as far as the Government was concerned, it saw no opportunities or means of doing anything in Southern Africa. Finally, if “verligtheid” was so inherent in the policies of the Government, why was it that this Nationalist Party’s own organ, Die Burger, had to come to the conclusion that South Africa had become “die muishond van die wêreld”, because of the policy of apartheid of the Nationalist Government?

One realizes from the past that the Department of Information—and nobody disputes it—has a very important and difficult task to perform. That was emphasized by the hon. member for Parys. Sir, I believe that each one of us has a part to play if this department is to be effective, because, we must realize that this department is in fact charged with reclamation work, reclaiming the position of South African after 27 years of Nationalist Party rule. I want to suggest that if the efforts of this department are directed towards countries and to organizations and people who are hostile to South Africa because of ignorance of the conditions and of what is being done in this country for the people of this country, then I believe that the department can succeed. However, if those efforts are directed, as they are, also towards selling the policy of multi-national development or separate development of this government the position will be vastly different and it will be very much more difficult for the department to sell that policy. It is evident from the report itself that the department itself refers in one breath to those hostile to South Africa and to the policy of separate development, but the two are divisible. Sir, I want to agree with the hon. member for Parktown. What he says in effect is that this department is attempting to do a package deal overseas. It wants to sell South Africa but it ties this up with the separate development policy of the Government at the same time. This is the cause of most of the problems. I have not found that there are difficulties in convincing people, either when one sees them overseas or when they come to this country, that South Africa is a most acceptable country for investment opportunities and for tourism; that it is a most acceptable country to immigrants seeking economic opportunities and an employment future.

But, Sir, the most efficient Department of Information cannot sell to the outside world this policy, because the outside world knows that the political aspects of the policy of separate development are rejected by the Black leaders of South Africa, with one exception. [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Minister name me one homeland leader who wants independence, other than the Chief Minister of the Transkei? What the Government is using this department to do, if I may put it again in commercial language, is to attempt to export a home market reject into the foreign market.

There are many people who are putting South Africa on to the map and who are helping to overcome what I say is opposition through ignorance. I want to refer very briefly to the work which is being done by the S.A. Foundation. I believe it is doing work of inestimable value. It is doing a lot to put right certain misconceptions. I think, however, that we should also take note of what is said by the Foundation in its latest newsletter. It says—

We all agree that that is the right approach. Hon. members opposite are continually suggesting that what we say on this side of the House when we debate internal policy with the Government, is the fuel to the fire of this hostility overseas. But what is being done in South Africa is a far greater contributory factor than anything which is said by any of us in this House in so far as the conditions of South Africa are concerned. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in this regard. I know there is a question on the Order Paper, but perhaps it is an opportune moment for me to mention this. I should like to refer to a report in the Sunday Tribune on a Rhodesian schoolboy basketball team which was to visit South Africa. The report reads—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is a correct report. Is it correct that he did in fact interfere in the composition of this team coming to South Africa? Perhaps he will reply to me at a later stage if he does not reply now.

I shall reply to you.

If the report is false, has the hon. the Minister referred it to the Press Board? Has he taken action? Why has he not done anything about it? I want to read what is said in this newsletter of the Foundation to which I have referred—

This was the case of the Black nanny who did not have a pass and who was taken off. The newsletter goes on to deal with other matters. Talking about these powerful forces which are hostile to South Africa, it has this to say—

These are the incidents, Sir, that cost this country hundreds of thousands of rands’ worth of propaganda and information to try and overcome. And, Sir, what are they caused by? They are caused by the actions following upon the policies of this Nationalist Government.

In the short time available to me, I want to deal with the question of the official guests who visit this country. I do want to say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the opportunity of having been able to talk to quite a considerable number of them. There is one question which I get asked every time: Can you set out clearly the differences in the policies of the different parties?” Sir, I am not asking for a propaganda news-sheet. I am thinking of something brief, to which parties can contribute. I know that in the case of some parties, when courtship has not yet reached the stage of marriage, there may be a delay in getting a policy statement. In the case of those who are holding commissions to decide policy, we may have to wait until the commissions have finished their investigations. I do believe that an opportunity should be given to parties to contribute to a short publication of this sort. The second one is to ask the hon. the Minister whether the department should not take over the issue of an information digest in the form of the one which is prepared by the South African Foundation. It is a handy pocket digest and I find it exceptionally useful to hand to people overseas. One cannot travel overseas carrying a book like South Africa 1974 in your air baggage. I do believe that this is something which the hon. the Minister could do to the advantage of the department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate we have heard on various occasions what the assignment and the task of the Department of Information is. I am going to try to summarize it in my own words. It is its task to reach opinion-formers and decision-makers over the whole spectrum of public life, in all countries which are of importance for us and to convey information to them about South Africa; about the place South Africa can occupy in the world in view of its stability in every sphere: and to inform the world what the aims of the Government are with regard to the various peoples placed under its responsibility. This is a very extensive task and without there being any directives. I think the department and its officials feel that whatever they write, do and say, has to be presented in such a way that its credibility will never be questioned. The test which often applies is its credibility in respect of that which is happening in South Africa. In its actions, the department has to acquaint itself very thoroughly with the methods which are achieving such great success in these times, for example the sowing of suspicion, undermining, indoctrination and distorted presentation of the truth. South Africa must defend itself against attacks of this nature. For that reason it must be encouraging for the department to be able to receive the great number of letters which are quoted in its latest annual report. There are obviously many more than those which are published in it. The department also refers to certain quotations of The Guardian from which I just want to read a single sentence—

The question now arises as to the reason for this success which The Guardian perceives. Then the question arises of whether it is really “white-washing”. The major problem the department, and more particularly the Government, has is that we have in South Africa a number of people—I am speaking now of the Whites and more specifically of the opinion-makers—who do not want to believe that separate development is succeeding or can succeed. Our struggle, in reality, is against the people who do not want separate development to succeed. We have heard various speeches during the course of yesterday afternoon and this afternoon, from which it is clear that the people do not want separate development to succeed. These people are so over-eager about causing separate development to fail, that we have 3½ parties on the other side of the House at the moment who propose the alternatives, and then they still suggest that we include these alternatives whenever publicity is given to South Africa’s case in the outside world. In their eagerness they do not care what they say about the Government or how repulsively they present separate development. This attitude makes it necessary for us to have a Department of Information to present South Africa to the world as South Africa really is. In the midst of this, The Guardian comes along and refers to the notable success which has been achieved.

We know that there are many factors which can contribute to this success, but one thing we cannot escape from is the fact that this progress is the fruit of the continued efforts of the Department of Information over quite a number of years. These efforts have been made by means of a variety of methods and techniques. One wishes that one could give a statistical picture in this report of what the department really does.

In the first place, I want to refer to the publications of the department. There are two kinds of publications. Firstly, there are 24 publications in 14 different languages with a circulation of 1 017 000 which, although they are circulated internally, obviously also have readers abroad. To me the importance of these publications lies in the fact that they do reach foreign countries, that they do not contradict each other and that they do not in the least contradict the foreign publications. For foreign consumption, there are 28 publications which have a circulation of 405 000 in nine different languages. Altogether, therefore, there are 52 publications which appear in 23 different languages, with a total circulation of almost 1 250 000. What is important about these figures which I have given, is the fact that these publications also reach the visitors. We have already heard that 1 112 visitors visited our country over the past year with the co-operation of the department. These people also see those publications. Millions of people see the publications, but it is particularly important that these specially selected 1 112 policy-makers of different countries should also have seen them. If there was any danger of a lack of credibility, one would expect the Opposition parties to point it out very quickly. Because this has not happened, it is very clear to us that the information which the department provides is in fact thoroughly credible. To this list we can add numerous other publications, such as occasional publications. Then there are also films and exhibitions, which the department has organized in more than 30 countries These include the visits of our hon. Ministers and especially the visits of the hon. the Prime Minister, who has said repeatedly here in the House and also outside, that he does not tell one story to one country and a different story to his own people, or vice versa. The Department of Information follows the example of our hon. the Prime Minister and of the other hon. Ministers, of showing the world that what it says and writes is credible. Therein, I believe, lies the success which The Guardian perceives, therein lies the progress which this department is making and therein lies the blow sustained by the Opposition, viz. that they are not making any progress abroad with propagating their own policy. One asks oneself what would happen if, for example, the policy of the Progressive Party was advocated in these publications. It would be a different story from the story which the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission is going to announce soon. In that case, they would be able to reproach us for publishing incorrect information, The task of this department is to present South Africa as it is to the outside world. As soon as the Opposition parties can tell this House who and what they are, the department will also be able to take note of them to a greater extent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is an old English proverb which says: “You can’t keep a good man down.” I can imagine that with two such good men, it will surely be even more difficult to keep them down. To my mind, much of the success of the Department of Information is due to the fact that this department has a brilliant Minister and a knowledgeable and energetic Secretary leading the department’s team. I believe that even our most vehement opposition will have to agree that we have a winning combination here such as we have not had on the rugby field for a long time. We need only look at successes such as those in the United States and the latest in France. Perhaps it is not always easy for this department to state South Africa’s case. What is of importance, however, is that we get results. These are positive results, and on that we should like to congratulate the department and the Minister. We know that South Africa’s relation with the rest of Africa is very delicate at the moment and that one does not want to tell the world about these things. Also, we know that Radio RSA sets aside approximately 160 hours a week for broadcasts to foreign countries, inter alia to Africa north of us. These programmes consist mainly of news and information programmes. In general, these programmes are aimed at introducing South Africa to the rest of the world. Africa has become important for us because recently our thoughts and actions have become more Afro-centric than Eurocentric. Therefore, I believe that it is also one of the primary tasks of the Department of Information to introduce South Africa to an increasing extent to States to the north of us. Our hon. Prime Minister has said on occasion that we do not actually know enough about Africa, because in the past, it was only missionaries and hunters who penetrated into Africa and, as experts, took notice of Africa as it really is. If this is true of South Africa in respect of the rest of Africa, how much more is this not the truer of Africa’s knowledge of us? What does Africa know about our country and our circumstances? Through the broadcasts over Radio RSA, we reach thousands of people, but there are hundreds of thousands more in Africa who can read and write, who watch films and television. The question arises as to what extent we follow up the radio programmes, especially in Africa, by means of the written word, films and television.

It is perhaps the task of the Department of Information in the first place to try reach the opinion-formers of nations. However, I believe that one should not ignore the man in the street, especially the child who is going to be the opinion-former of tomorrow. I can remember quite well that, as a primary school pupil, I saw a film on Austria as part of a geography lesson. I can still remember it even today. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us to what extent we make films on South Africa available to schools in other countries.

I we look at page 13 of the annual report of the department for 1974, we find an impressive list of names of countries and cities where the department was represented during 1974. However, I do not see countries such as Japan, Taiwan and Sri Lanka being mentioned there. These countries have a very favourable balance of trade in their trade with South Africa. These countries are visited by thousands of our people every year and where a reasonably large amount of money is spent as well. We still buy a considerable amount of tea from Sri Lanka, the old Ceylon. However, we also have something else in common with Sri Lanka in that we have the same legal system as they. Sri Lanka, just as South Africa, uses Roman-Dutch law. From time to time discussions take place between their jurists and ours, and this may possibly be a good point of contact.

A good salesman and a good marketing man should make maximum use of everything he has in his favour. Every year there is a Miss World competition. Some of our most attractive females participate in this competition. Last year we succeeded in getting a Miss World crowned for the second time. The question occurred to me whether our Department of Information should not make greater use of the advantage we have over other countries. I am sure it will be successful. When Miss World visited Parliament last week, it was quite clear that she had no difficulty in winning affection of some of our doughty patriarchs. It took the hon. member for Boksburg only two minutes to find out that he was a distant relative of hers. I believe that such power of persuasion should be used by the Department of Information. I can imagine that once the experts of the department have put such a Miss World through her paces, she will know, in the first place, how to behave in front of a television camera and, in the second place, she will know all the answers. If there is any information the department does not have at its disposal, the hon. the Minister can refer the matter to us young M.P.s here in the backbenches. We should like to be of assistance and would offer services free of charge. I can imagine that the Opposition will immediately say, “No, if that happens, the ideology of the National Party would be propagated again by someone who is not supposed to participate in politics.” I do not think the hon. the Minister should allow himself to be put off by that, because even for the blindest person overseas, it should be very clear that this young girl is far too attractive to be a United Party supporter and also too clever to be a supporter of the Progressive Party.

Mr. Chairman, broadly speaking there are two methods of approach to this Vote. The one way is to forget largely about the department, its staff and the internal efforts that it makes and to discuss and criticize the product it is attempting to sell by working on the basis that only radical change or improvement in the internal policies of South Africa will make the task of the department capable of success. This aspect and this method of approach has already been debated in this Chamber under this Vote. For the purposes of this debate the other method of approach is to ignore for the moment the various differences that exist among the various parties in this House and to discuss the department and its work exclusively. In choosing the second approach I want to say that there have already emerged several good and very positive suggestions in regard to the possible improvement of the working of the department. I think, for instance, of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Florida and others.

In the first instance, I should like to refer, Sir, if I may, to the quotation from the well-presented annual report which was made by the hon. member for Sunnyside. He drew attention to the desire of the department in these times, as he put it, of stated psychological warfare, to greatly curtail its public reporting by way of this annual report. I accept that there are difficulties facing this department in performing its duties. I am however, not at all happy at the prospect of the reports and other announcements being curtailed or restricted. I do not believe that any State secrets have been or are contained in the report or in any of the annual documents brought out by the department. The methods used by the department are set out in the report and these methods, as they are printed, reflect, as I see it, an open, an honest and a sophisticated approach to the techniques in the art of communication with people of other races and of other countries. In any event, I am not at all certain what it is that it is contemplated may be deleted from the report. Perhaps we should be more enlightened on this aspect. I do, however, believe that we should retain as far as is possible, an openness in our affairs and in our activities as this engenders confidence at home and, I believe, engenders respect and understanding of the work that we do abroad. The prospect of running the Department of Information as a sort of minor secret service does not appeal to me at all.

Mention has been made of the many visits that have been arranged and visitors who have been assisted in seeing South Africa and in meeting South Africans. This facet of the department’s activities is, I believe, most valuable. It is clear that the contact tours arranged by the department for some 1 100 guests annually serve us well and help enormously in the projection of the Republic in a positive light among some of the most influential sectors overseas. From the report it is clear that, in doing this work, the department is, and I quote, “approaching the optimum use of its manpower”. The report goes further—

The problem in the first instance as I see it is budgetary. The sum of R500 000 which I find is reflected as being spent on this contact tour service could, in the light of the return being enjoyed as a result of these visits, be increased considerably. Quite frankly, while a total budget of R11,8 million for this department seems a huge sum of money to us, it is in fact a small sum when one considers the expanding fields of endeavour covered by the department. I would favour further investment in this area thus ensuring a bigger establishment and more people available to do the actual contact work.

I can only agree with what I have just read, viz. that the department must co-operate far more closely in the future with private enterprise. The contact presently enjoyed is far from adequate. There is limited contact, for instance, with our businessmen who travel overseas. It is nowhere near good enough to have little booklets standing at an airport waiting to be picked up by those who wish to take them with them. There is also very limited contact with the vast majority of foreign industrialists and entrepreneurs coming into South Africa as guests of South African concerns. I believe that the department should, through major organizations, through chambers of commerce, through other bodies and persons and by closer liaison and co-operation with such concerns and persons, build up, inexpensively, a far bigger contact list which will enter into a far wider field and spectrum in using the resources and energies, not of the department, but rather the goodwill of South African businessmen and entrepreneurs who are properly briefed at home and abroad. In two aspects I must differ from the hon. member for Pretoria Central with regard to the selection of guests. More often than not they seem to be persons who are already reasonably well disposed towards South Africa. While we obviously do not wish to invite enemies to this country, we should not hesitate to invite known critics—those whose friendship is perhaps in doubt. I think we should do that on a greater scale. Secondly, I realize that guests in some measure detail their own itineraries, but I do not think that the Government—and here I differ from the hon. member for Pretoria Central—should be afraid to expose foreign guests on a greater scale to interviews and appointments with persons who are not necessarily establishment-orientated. I know that Opposition politicians are seen by guests, but I do believe that guests should see more industrialists, businessmen and leading figures in the community who are not known for their Government-orientated political views. There is no danger in this for South Africa, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we can only gain from this.

I believe that little is being done about making contact with a ready-made market in South Africa, and here I talk of the immigrants who come here and the tourists who enter our shores. Far too many immigrants do not stay here permanently. I think it is time we found out why we are losing so many immigrants, I believe that this is a task which the Department of Information could tackle fruitfully. Mr. Chairman, then there are tourists. They are already In South Africa. They are interested in South Africa and that is why they are here. They are receptive, and after spending some weeks in this country they disperse to the far corners of the earth. We can only profit by it if the department liaised with travel organizations, with travel agencies and with people who arrange tours. The department could perhaps assist them to arrange functions, films, visits, etc., for those who would like to participate. The crux of the message, Mr. Chairman— and I am not dealing at all today with the political aspect—is that of communication. I believe that where it is in the interest of South Africa to put a message across to the world, more money should be spent, and having spent more money I believe that it is necessary for the department to look at even further avenues of communication which have not yet been fully utilized.

Sir, the hon. member for Sandton made quite a positive contribution to this debate and I am grateful to him for that. However, there are one or two aspects to which I just want to refer briefly. The hon. member asks that the department should try to build up contact, on a wider basis, with visitors to South Africa through other bodies in the field of industry and in the business world. Although that is a good idea, I want to tell the hon. member that there are limits to human material and to funds. But what the hon. member has in mind in this regard, is certainly an object which is being pursued by the department as far as possible. He asks that a larger number of recognized critics of South Africa be invited here. In this regard too, a balance must be maintained. One does not want to invite only the most violent critics of South Africa here, while one can invite other people who, although they may be critically objective towards South Africa, produce far better results for South Africa upon their return to their own countries. Sir, the aim of the department’s guest programme is to bring opinion formers in various spheres from other countries to South Africa and to bring them into contact with opinion-formers here in South Africa so that the results of their visits may be that when they leave South Africa, they can form their own opinion and comment accordingly in their own countries. That, in essence, is what it amounts to.

Sir, I am pleased the hon. member for Green Point has returned to the Chamber, because the hon. member told us this afternoon that our Department of Information could simply not succeed in gaining acceptance for the Government’s policy in countries abroad, because the policy was not accepted by a single Black leader in South Africa, is that an argument?

Only one Black leader.

Ater all, Sir, it is not the Black leaders who have authority over our policy. What is more, there is only one Black leader who does not accept it, and that is the Black leader who that hon. member and other hon. members on that side are always so keen to quote here. That is the Black leader who the hon. member and other hon. members on the opposite side always want to hold up to us, Mr. Buthelezi. [Interjections.] There is not one other recognized Black leader of the other homelands who does not accept the basic premises of the policy of separate development. The hon. member tells us we should bring out a publication in which their policy is published. I just want to ask them: Which policy? I want to tell you, Sir, why I ask the question. The hon. member for Von Brandis adopted the same standpoint as an hon. Senator recently did in the Other Place during the discussion of the motion on this department. To be specific, the accusation which is made against us is that senior members of the United Party are not consulted in regard to the composition of the document. Now I ask the hon. member whether we are to accept that the official documents of the United Party are not reliable, and whether a researcher should first go and test official documents by means of talks with the persons who drafted them, before he may attach the necessary value to those documents. Does the United Party have one policy which is on paper, in its officials documents, and another policy which is expounded orally by the United Party, and which one of those two policies should we publish in an official document? Our problem with such a publication will be that we shall have to supplement that document from session to session, because the United Party’s policy has changed from session to session in the past few years. Surely hon. members cannot expect of us to waste public funds on that basis.

I should like to mention two or three other aspects. One of these relate to our guest programme. We invite people to South Africa who are also opinion-formers in their countries, and I should like to point out two of our fine achievements after years of hard work, through our programme of inviting visitors to South Africa. We had the opportunity of inviting a recognized journalist from Austria to this country as our guest. Upon his return he wrote 35 different articles over a period of about six weeks, which appeared in newspapers and /or publications in Austria, articles which were objective and favourable towards South Africa and its people. If that same space had had to be bought, we would not have been able to buy it even for R200 000. I want to mention another example. One of the results of years of careful planning by the department and its officials concerning the type of visitor who should be invited here from a country such as France, is that there are daily and/or weekly publications in two-thirds of the provinces of France in which favourable and objective reports appear about South Africa. The position is that even at this stage 2 600 000 copies of those publications are published, which are read by approximately 11 million people in a country such as France. This is the result of planning, as far as inviting guests to South Africa is concerned. These are the results which have been achieved, and these guests put interesting questions during interviews with these people. They ask interesting questions about the Opposition, and they have the opportunity of liaising freely with the Opposition and of having talks with them. As many interviews as they want are arranged for them. But I do not want to join issue with the Opposition in this regard this afternoon. I should like to say, Sir, that it is becoming conspicuous that more and more of these foreign visitors are asking us questions about the role of the English-language Press in South Africa and are saying to us in ever-increasing numbers, “But is this Press not an embarrassment to you?” Our defence is that we have a free Press and we tell our guests that they can read the newspapers themselves, because virtually all of them can speak English and then the guests look at us in a quizzical way. I have had the experience of their looking at me half cynically and say, “But are you really trying to convince us that this Press can be positively South African?” I want to give an example of this. Recently we had the inauguration of the State President. Such an inauguration ceremony every seven years, is certainly one of the great occasions in South Africa. What patriotism is shown in this connection by a newspaper such as the Sunday Times? On the Sunday of 20 April, i.e. the day after the inauguration, the front page of the Sunday Times carried almost a full-page photo of a young woman competing in a beauty competition. There is not a single word about the inauguration of the State President. This newspaper is so friendly towards the State President that only a small report about the inauguration appears on the third page of the newspaper.

Then they speak of patriotism!

That is the only report which appeared about the inauguration, while at that time, 50 of the most select financiers in the world were in South Africa as guests of Dr. Diederichs. What else did the newspaper do? It devoted exactly three-quarters of this feeble little report to the seat allocation on the Parade, and pointed out that the Whites had the best seats, while the Coloureds and other non-Whites were pushed into corners and behind pavilions, so that they could not see the proceedings. They mentioned the names of people who supposedly had to endure this inconvenience, while rows and rows of seats for White were empty. This newspaper, whose material prosperity is ascribable, inter alia, to an absolutely brilliant Minister of Finance over the past seven years, was not even friendly enough to address a kind word in its leader, or on the editor’s page, to the new State President. So responsible guests from abroad ask, “Mr. Deputy Minister, are you really serious in wanting to tell me that the English-language newspapers in South Africa also show patriotism towards South Africa?” I do not want to lump them all together, but I mention this one example. I think this is the sort of thing to which our English-language Press could give attention. They should ask themselves whether they are making a contribution. I say this in general, and I do not want to offend everybody, but the question is whether some of them are really making a contribution to the improvement of South Africa’s position, in the light of the efforts of the Department of Information. This is the sort of thing which is flung at us. We are told that we should not talk about patriotism; we should rather look at the examples which we find in our Press.

I should like to touch on another and a finer aspect. I want to congratulate the hon. members on this side of the House on their spirit of enterprise. They arranged a course which was offered over the past 14 days and in which they received training in television.

We do not need that.

Hon. members on this side need it, because they represent the large majority of the voters. They really showed enterprise, and I should like to make use of this opportunity to thank the team of experts who undertook the training, for the trouble which they took. This morning there were also two members of the Reform Party who came to participate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the discussion of this Vote I wish to stress again that the hon. Minister and his department indeed deserve the gratitude and appreciation not only of hon. members of the House, but also of every South African for the particular way in which they have served South Africa this year. Since we have such a dynamic Minister, assisted by such a dynamic Secretary, who in turn is supported by a staff, every man and woman of which bubbles over with enthusiasm and purposefulness to serve the cause of South Africa abroad and at home, their work must of necessity meet with success. Their work has met with considerable success during the past year.

As far as foreign services are concerned, there were especially three outstanding events which contributed to the fact that a favourable image of South Africa could be created. The department should be congratulated that they took advantage of this more favourable turn in a purposeful and effective way and availed itself of the opportunity when it presented itself. I want to deal briefly with the event I have referred to. Firstly, we have the fact that the South African Government adhered fully to its policy of non-intervention and non-aggression when the Portuguese régime in Mozambique collapsed. Hostile sources predicted that we would take over Mozambique. The fact that we acted correctly by not doing so and by maintaining strict neutrality lent a dimension of truth and trustworthiness to our actions. People started to realize that we are sincere when we say that we have no aggressive intentions as far as our neighbouring states to the north are concerned. Everybody realized how strategically important Mozambique was for South Africa. Everybody realized that if we wanted to, we could take over Mozambique before breakfast, but the fact that we did not do so, and that we offered aid and food, instead of launching a military attack, enhanced our credibility and esteem in the world, and this the department took advantage of. The second event which turned the scales to our advantage with many decent people throughout the world, was the fact that South Africa was excluded from the General Assembly of U.N. in a cowardly and illegal manner. Even the liberal Press in the U.S.A., newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, commented on this and point out the atrocities and the outrageous deeds committed in Africa in contrast with the peace and prosperity South Africa enjoys. Our men abroad took very great advantage of this favourable turn of events among opinion formers.

If I may express one wish today, it is that the Department of Information should be enabled financially and otherwise to increase its endeavours considerably to expose the false propaganda the U.N. belches out against South Africa. The majority group of U.N. has declared war against South Africa, but up to now it has only been a war of words. They are absolutely unreasonable and reckless as far as the misrepresentations and untruths are concerned they use as propaganda. They do not only seek the downfall of this Government, but also the annihilation of the White man in South Africa. In their endeavour to accomplish this and to make us the outcast of the world, they spend thousands and thousands of rands every year on publications which are aimed at South Africa. When one visits their library, one sees that almost half the publications there consist of anti-South African propaganda. When one listens to a speech in the General Assembly of U.N. or in the committees of U.N., one has to listen to this propaganda, and when one reads their publications, one is struck by the distortion of the image of apartheid there. To them it is “apart hate”, as they pronounce it. They pretend that the homelands are nothing but concentration camps, or as they put it: “Veritable concentration camps where these people languish in terrifying misery”. This is how the homelands are described. I do not doubt for one moment that the distorted image U.N. presents to the world, has had its origin in South Africa. It originated from the English Press and from the benches on the other side of the House. If one reads the Hansard speeches of the early ’fifties, it makes one’s blood run cold to see what members of the United Party have told the world. The Department of Information has to try and rectify these distorted images, which have been presented to the world through the years, and to try and put them in their true perspective. This has not only become an enormous task, but also a very essential task for South Africa. We have to declare war against the untruths and the misrepresentations of South Africa by U.N. We have to convince the world that apartheid, as interpreted by the enemy, has never existed in South Africa and does not exist at this stage either. When this party came to power 27 years ago, the term “apartheid” was used to give a name to a policy which was aimed to sort out and rectify the chaotic conditions which had been allowed to develop in 300 years of colonialism. It was essential in the formative process of this nation, of not only the Whites, but also of the non-White peoples. We do not want to run away from the policy of that time, but I want to make it quite clear today that apartheid was never meant to do people or groups of people an injustice, or to place them in positions of subservience permanently. I quote from the 1948 election manifest of the Nationalist Party (translation)—

If words mean anything it is quite clear that it was never intended that it should cause race discrimination and suppression. But because this party is a dynamic party which moves forward, apartheid was only the first phase of our long-term policy, as it was recently spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister. Apartheid has been replaced long ago by a more positive second leg of our policy, namely autogenous development, and we are rapidly approaching the third and final phase, i.e. independence and self-determination. I think it is essential that this be said here today, that the term “apartheid” is only being used by South Africa’s enemies, because, in the language of U.N. it has become synonymous with suppression and discrimination. In South Africa, and especially in the National Party, this word has fallen into disuse long ago because it simply does not exist any longer. I want to plead that the hon. the Minister should consider the establishment of a special section in this department which will concentrate on analysing U.N. propoganda and revealing the real facts. Every speech and publication should be dealt with in this way and attention should be focused on the particular facts and misdeeds revealed in the country of the particular speaker or author. A comparison should be drawn between what happens in South Africa and that which happens in the country of the speaker or author concerned. This may perhaps not be good tactics, but it could work, because people would then be more careful. I believe to obtain expert staff for a task of this nature would probably create problems, but I think that we could perhaps make use of people from our universities on a part-time basis to do the necessary research, because in such a campaign objectively and factuality would definitely be essential. I appreciate that this will be a difficult task.

The third event which caused a favourable turn of events, was of course the attempt of our hon. Prime Minister to bring about detente in Africa. I believe that this department and its officials played an important role in this regard as well. We should, however, also bear in mind that there are people who want confrontation and bloodshed in Africa. These are people who know that the chaos caused by war will be to their advantage. These people are not interested in Africa and the peoples of Africa, but their gaze is directed at the mineral wealth and the strategic benefits South Africa has to offer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the appreciation which has been expressed with reference to the standard of the annual report of the department, a report which has certainly been particularly enlightening and interesting to all of us. Furthermore, one naturally wants to associate oneself with the appreciation which has been expressed for the truly valuable work being done by this department and its officials in order to create a more favourable climate abroad. As has been said here earlier on, we have taken cognizance of the fact that the climate has improved in quite a number of respects for South Africa. This department has certainly had a fairly large part in that. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Algoa and I shall come back to that in the course of my speech, especially with regard to certain fundamental statements which he made here, also with reference to what the hon. the Minister had said in this regard. All of us who have dealings with the officials of the department, from the highest to the lowest ranks, are very impressed by the calibre of those people and by their diligence.

There is no doubt that South Africa is facing the problem of there being a tremendous amount of ignorance, deliberate misrepresentations and attempts at isolation. Any work done in this regard, could only redound to our general benefit. I have, however, a problem in analysing the actual resistance being directed against us by the outside world. In this regard I am not speaking of the communist countries and other countries which, as I have indicated on more than one occasion, are certainly beyond redemption in this regard. In the annual report—and this links up with what the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Algoa had said—the following statement was made—

In, other words, they suggest that the basis of the resistance from the outside world is to be found in the misconception people have of the policy of the Government, the policy of separate development, of course. I readily concede that there certainly are people in the outside world who do not understand that policy in full. In all honesty I have to admit that I myself sometimes have problems in understanding that policy in its full consequences and implications.

We cannot help that.

However, I shall come to that later. Now is not the time to have a debate on that. What I wish to put very clearly, is that our pattern in South Africa cannot be seen and analysed only in terms of the policy of separate development. Can somebody explain to me how job reservation, the prohibition on using Black people as skilled workers, the Immorality Act, separate taxis, separate counters, separate windows …

Oh no!

… have anything to do with separate development? Those forms of outright discrimination have nothing to do with separate development. [Interjections.] It may have something to do with the concept of separatism, but it is totally obscure to me where development fits in. [Interjections.] I am just trying to help. There is no point in our proceeding on false premises to create an image which is going to land us in trouble afterwards. Suppose the Transkei were to become independent tomorrow.

The same old question.

In what way would the position of the Transkeian citizen change in any single respect with reference to the aspects which I have mentioned? That is the problem. In my honest experience these are the things the outside world asks time and again. In the report of the department the following is said on page 4—

In other words, the department itself realizes that these are the things which receive most attention in countries abroad. We all know that we have to contend, with a very difficult situation in this regard. We shall have to get away from the kind of situation which this Nigerian, to whom reference was made earlier on, experienced at the East London airport. We shall have to get away from the kind of situation which I experienced a month ago when I was unable to take a well-known homeland leader—and he was not Mr. Buthelezi—to have a cup of tea at Jan Smuts Airport. That is the problem. I am not saying these things in a spirit of hostility; I only want to say that as long as we are not able to solve those problems, we shall never be able to influence foreign countries in a really effective way and we shall never be able to change their point of view purely on the basis of putting forward as a defence the implementation of our policy in respect of the homelands. That is the crux of my argument, and I want to say in all honesty that it seems obvious to me—and now I am grateful because the department itself is realizing this—that it is only the stressing of these positive things which is instrumental in removing that ignorance in and hostility from the outside world. When we look at page 3 of the report and the things which are quoted there as having brought about the change of climate, then we see, apart from the reference to discrimination in other countries, the following in the third paragraph—

Surely it is very clear what I want to say; we should be able to convince the outside world that we are engaged in practice in removing discrimination in those things I have mentioned, and that we are doing this in a positive way and not only by way of oral declarations. Now I am not speaking of discrimination in terms of a philosophic-theoretical possibility, in terms of which, when the homelands are independent one day, these problems will vanish as darkness makes way to the sun. Even if the Transkei were to become independent tomorrow, when would all the other homelands become independent? Do all the Bracks have to wait, also those in the urban areas, before they will be treated as ordinary people as far as these things are concerned? Do they have to wait until that indeterminable date in the future before they will be treated as ordinary people like you and me?

Surely you can discuss that under the Bantu Affairs Vote.

My argument is very simple. If we really want to create a change of climate abroad, then these are the points we have to stress. That is the removal of these forms of discrimination, discriminative action and a treatment of people which will always remain unacceptable to the outside world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the last few speakers in this debate. Two members spoke on the United Party side, viz. the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Edenvale. In a certain sense both these members sketched the same picture, viz. that we cannot sell our policy and that we are therefore being forced to sell all kinds of other things. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point at once that the policy of the National Party is not an export product, and that we are not trying to sell it. Nor are we saying that it will work for other countries. But the voters of South Africa proclaim at every election that it is the only policy which works for South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a local product for local consumption and therefore we are not trying to sell it, but to those who do not know what it is, who do not know what we are envisaging with it, who do not know where we are going and who in addition, have to deal with a considerable amount of malice, we are trying to explain what the policy really is, what it really envisages, and where it is really going. I want to repeat what our hon. the Prime Minister has said to foreign journalists on numerous occasions, when I was also present. He said: “If necessary I am prepared to be hung for what my policy is, but I am not prepared to be hung for what other people think my policy is.” That is our problem. Other people think our policy is certain things which it is not. The task of the Department of Information is to explain what the policy really is— hence the publications, the books, our standpoints, etc. I repeat: It is not an export product.

The same applies to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Edenvale. He asked: “When will the Black people be treated like normal people?” Our entire policy is aimed at it being possible to treat them like normal people. That is what we are working on. I want to test the hon. member’s integrity as well as his policy in this regard. He asked when we are going to do away with the Immorality Act, with the Mixed Marriages Act, with laws prohibiting mixed taxis and laws prescribing separate buses. However, the hon. member should continue in the same spirit and ask when we are going to do away with laws prohibiting mixed schools, with provisions preventing mixed residential areas, or with a district Parliament for Whites. The hon. member should be consistent and carry this further. When he has carried this further to its final consequences, he is dealing with pure integration in its worst form. Eventually that hon. member’s policy then leads to integration, but the hon. member takes it amiss of me if I say this. However, the hon. member should explain to me where the line should be drawn. If mixed marriages are allowed, as the hon. member is asking, and mixed taxis and buses, then mixed swimming baths should also be allowed. Is that the policy of the United Party? Are mixed swimming baths part of the United Party’s policy? Are mixed community facilities the United Party’s policy? Are mixed primary schools the United Party’s policy? Are mixed residential areas the policy? I think South Africa is waiting for answers. When the hon. member sets off on a course, he should say where it is going to end. These are all forms of a social separation, some of which he wishes to apply, while he avoids others. This is the problem we have. The United Party should first adopt a standpoint in that regard, and state a clear standpoint to us.

The object of the measures which still remain is to guarantee an orderly community. Each of the provisions of this nature which still remain, remain there and will continue to remain there as long as they are necessary to ensure three things, things which are the foundation-stones of this party’s policy. Firstly there is the question of the retention of identity. Secondly there is the refusal to share political power over one’s own people with anyone. The third corner-stone is the elimination of areas of friction, and the maintenance of an orderly community. These are the foundation-stones of this party. No one anywhere can take this amiss of us. I explain this policy throughout the world and I am getting through to people with it. Eventually they agree with me that it is a practical means of handling the situation. I have no problems with this because these are our fundamental principles. Who can object to preservation of identity? After all, it is included in the charter of the U.N. in which the self-determination of people as well as the maintenance of identity is respected. This is the essence of our policy and what the hon. member is now saying means doing away with it and eradicating it entirely. Therefore I cannot, under any circumstances, accept the hon. member’s policy and standpoint.

The hon. member for Green Point said with great pleasure a moment ago that he did not find it difficult to sell South Africa as a progressive country, a rich country, a country which is good for investment and tourism, a good country for immigrants to live in. But he said he was unable to sell the policy of separate development. I am not asking the hon. member to sell the policy of separate development. I am only asking the hon. member to tell these people, when he is discussing the matter with them, that this fine country owes its wonderful progress and opportunities which exist to the stability and orderliness prevailing in the country as a result of the policy of this Government. [Interjections.] If it had not been for this, we would have had a completely different picture. I want to make it clear that this is the approach of the National Party and that we will not deviate from this standpoint. Sir, I want to go further with the hon. member for Green Point. I want to thank him for his assurances in regard to the standpoint of the United Party in regard to this report, but I should really like to have the assurance a little more clearly. The hon. member again said here that I should check the correctness of the report.

As the hon. the Minister knows, any article submitted by a reporter to a newspaper is subject to editing. My point was that before taking this matter any further, an attempt should be made to check with the sub-editor concerned.

The hon. member realizes of course that it is almost impossible to check with a newspaper in Tanzania how the original text read. Sir, this article contained an allegation which was in my opinion a direct reflection on the courts of South Africa. It appeared under the personal name of Stanley Uys. He put it in this way—

the South African courts

Sir, surely one expects a South African, if he is in any way deserving of the name “South African”, to say immediately in such a case: “Of course it is not true; we as South Africans know that the courts do not discriminate in this way?”

It is true.

That is my question, and for that reason I am asking for an unconditional repudiation of this article. I know that the Progressive Party did not have any more opportunities to speak, but I should at least like to hear by way of an interjection what the attitude of the leader of the Progressive Party is.

He is not prepared to reply.

[Inaudible.]

The main caption to the article reads: “Death Row South African style,” and then this follows—

Sir, is there any upright person in South Africa who does not regard this as high treason in another form? I am asking for a condemnation of this. This political writer is a friend of your party. One need only read the newspapers, in which he is constantly trying to build up that part in all respects. [Interjections.] My problem is that this person writes these things under his own name, and that he becomes wealthy as a stringer by disparaging South Africa in overseas newspapers.

And Colin does nothing about it.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point drew my attention to the good work being done by the South African Foundation. I want to agree with him at once that this body is doing excellent work in the interests of South Africa. They are in no way associated with us. We are grateful that they are in their own way, with the capital at their disposal, doing this wonderful work in the interests of South Africa. I want to pay tribute to their actions in this regard. In addition the hon. member referred to the short report in the Sunday Tribune in regard to the basketball team from Rhodesia. I did not read the report; I do not read that newspaper. According to this report I allegedly overruled the decision of the Minister of Sport in this regard. Sir, I want to state here in public that there is not a word of truth in that entire report. That matter has up to this moment not yet been brought to my attention. The report is a lie, as usual. This matter was never brought to my attention; I know nothing about it. The matter can be discussed fully under the Vote of the Department of Sport. I deny every word that appeared in that report.

Finally, the hon. member asked me whether we were not also able to publish a little brochure as the S.A. Foundation was doing. I just want to say that because such a good brochure is being published, it is really not necessary for us to publish another one in that form, for they are already publishing one. But we are in fact publishing information in general. It is in a special form and it contains certain basic information. Ours is of course of slightly larger size—for example, This is South Africa. I know that this is a little larger, but with the wealth of information which we include in this publication, we were not really able to compress it into a smaller publication. If we had done that, the print would have been so small that it would have been worthless. But this brochure, This is South Africa, is available in ten languages. We make it available free of charge to anyone who is interested in it. This is our reply on this specific point. Unfortunately, because of the wealth of material contained in it, we are unable to make it available in a smaller size. [Interjections.] No, it is only published once, and is then adapted from time to time. Apparently this publication appeared a few years ago. However, it is being adapted from time to time, as circumstances change, and as new statistics become available.

In regard to the policies of the other political parties, I have in front of me here a booklet entitled History of South Africa, which we also make available. In it we give an exposition of all the pamphlets of the United Party, and it even contains photographs of Sir de Villiers Graaff and Mrs. Helen Suzman. [Interjections.] The publication is a little older than the present state of the parties, for it still presents a photograph of Mrs. Suzman as the only member of the Progressive Party. Therefore I can only say that we will simply have to proceed on this course and serve the various political parties in this way.

I want to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member made a very positive contribution, and I should like to thank him for it. [Interjections.] Yes, I acknowledge something positive when it comes. I wish the United Party would learn this. The hon. member for Sandton referred to the report of the Secretary which suggested that the report should not state matters in such detail in future. The idea is not that we should do away with the report, but that we should present the actions of the department more succinctly, and more in the form of statistics. We do not want to refer to specific actions and methods, for it has been our experience that our enemies use the details which we make available in that manner as a basis for a counter offensive against us. Therefore we think that, with a view to the sophisticated war of words which is being waged at the moment, we should not lay our cards on the table for them. We do not intend concealing this from hon. members, but we shall present the report in an altered and abbreviated form, more detailed and specified, with fewer particulars than at present.

The hon. member also requested that the guest programme be expanded and said that R500 000 was not sufficient. Our problem is not only the R500 000. The real problem is the internal manpower position. We need persons who can accompany these guests in their visit to this country, and the programmes of these officials are really so full that it is almost impossible for us to cope with more guests. We want to expand the programme even further, but unfortunately we are not able to do so at the moment. We also believe that approximately 50% of our guests are people who have a critical attitude to South Africa, not an exaggerated negative prejudice, for that serves no purpose, but who have a critical attitude and desire to be able to form an opinion for themselves and then return and convey their objective impressions. I want to thank the hon. member for Sandton for the positive speech and the positive contribution he made.

Then a few members on this side spoke, and I want to thank the hon. member for Somerset East for his contribution, in which he praised the guest programme in particular, and the manner in which it is being handled. I want to assure him that we shall continue in that spirit. The hon. member for Westdene devoted attention to publications. I just want to say that those who say that the National Party is using the Department of Information to state its case, are wrong. The hon. member for Westdene is the chief information officer of our party, and he has an assistant. The party therefore has its own information service, and therefore does not need to make use of the machinery of the Department of Information. The party has its own information service, which concentrates specifically on politics, a task which is being performed with great success. The hon. member for Pretoria East requested that we should say more about information to Africa. The fact of the matter is that as we make progress in Africa, and make breakthroughs to the various countries, we will of course disseminate information in those African states, where it is possible and necessary.

The hon. member also referred to the matter of making films available to children overseas. Our information officers quite frequently receive invitations to address school groups. When such a discussion is arranged, it probably happens in many cases that films or slides on South Africa are shown, and that brochures and pamphlets on South Africa are made available. A discussion is then arranged, and in the lives of those children that day actually becomes a South Africa Day. My department informs me that we are making thousands of books, hundreds of thousands of brochures with colour photographs, and numerous film strips and films available for that purpose. Consequently we are already meeting the requirements.

As regards the question of Japan, Taiwan and Sri Lanka, it remains a fact that those countries do in fact have to be informed about us. I am going to visit some of those countries soon, when I go overseas. Naturally, I shall then try to establish what may be done there from an information point of view, and how we may make progress there. It is part of my task to do this.

I shall prefer to avoid the temptation of adopting an official standpoint in regard to Miss South Africa. As I know some of our young members here, I shall never entrust her to them! On the other hand, however, I want to give hon. members the assurance that although she was not elected for political reasons and has nothing to do with politics and has fortunately adopted the standpoint overseas, where she is constantly confronted with political questions, that she is not there to talk politics, but is there in a completely different capacity—I think her attitude was the correct one—she eventually became a credit to South Africa overseas. We are all proud of her, and we thank her for this.

The hon. member for Algoa referred to a special division to study U.N. propaganda and react to it. From time to time we take cognizance of all the documents compiled by the U.N. However, the hon. member must remember that the U.N. has a special research team and an Anti-Apartheid committee which deals exclusively with research into documents relating to South Africa. The presentation of their progaganda material is of course such that it constantly presents us in a bad light. They have almost unlimited funds and manpower at their disposal. We react when we think it is necessary, but we do not react in all circumstances.

I should like to express a few other ideas. I want to give an example of how information is being utilized against South Africa. The film “Last Grave at Dimbaza” was shown in Britain, and we had the opportunity of reacting to it. We were very grateful for having been granted that opportunity. The same film was also shown in the Netherlands, where a Dutch sound-track was used. The entire film of 40 minutes was shown there and we were afforded no opportunity of reacting to it. In the commentary after the film the compére said (translation): “During the 40 minutes you have been watching this film, 30 Black children died from hunger in South Africa.” So obviously blatant and mendacious was it, that the Netherlands newspaper De Telegraaf reacted as follows (translation): “If this were true, the average Black woman in South Africa would have had to give birth at least twice every year to maintain the population growth.” So blatant and openly were these lies presented that even their own newspapers reacted to them by saying that it was far-fetched and simply could not be true.

In addition, I want to say that recently the position abroad as far as the Department of Information is concerned has definitely improved, for various reasons. In my opinion one of these reasons is the fact that the implementation of our policy of separate development is now approaching a stage in which the general principle can be carried through, the principle of independence, for example in the Transkei, which may be established soon. For many years, and perhaps even now, there has been the belief in the hearts of many people overseas that the policy of separate development is not really aimed at creating independent, sovereign States. Constantly we have had to explain that this was in fact our policy, but then this question was asked: “When?” They want a timetable. The fact of the matter is that if an independent Transkei is going to become a reality within a reasonable period of time, the entire argument which we are now advancing to prove that this is our policy, will be demonstrated in practice. Seen from that angle, this will facilitate our task considerably, for then the policy will have proved itself. I want to say at once that the Transkei, as far as its population is concerned, is considerably larger than a number of States which are present members in full standing of the U.N. The same applies to its surface area as a geographic unit. The degree of literacy of the people of the Transkei is greater than that of quite a number of U.N. members in full standing, and the per capita income of Black people is also considerably greater than that of the citizens of quite a number of African States which are members in full standing of the U.N. My question is what the attitude of the U.N. and the world is going to be when this area qualifies for all practical purposes for full acceptance as a State. Is it going to be accepted or rejected simply because it became independent through the process of separate development and not through the process of decolonialization or emancipation? Are they going to discriminate against the method and that way against the state as well? These are questions we ask ourselves. When the Transkei becomes independent, and the Transkeian leaders begin to act in public as leaders in full standing of a full-fledged State, our task will be even easier, for then the policy has proved itself as a result of a positive pattern of development.

What about the civil rights of their citizens who come here?

Their citizens will have the same rights as any other citizen has.

The same rights as foreigners have?

In so far as it is a practical necessity, we can form the nature of the case … [Interjections.] The fact remains that for the sake of internal law and order certain things will remain until we have granted them full independence.

My second reason for believing that our task will become easier is that there are other parts of the world which are to an increasing extent beginning to appreciate the problems which they are experiencing in mixed communities. With mixed communities I do not only mean coloured communities, but also communities which are mixed in other spheres. The question I ask myself is why there is so much emphasis in the world, and here in our country as well, on racial difference as if this were such an important difference.

Colour differences.

Yes, very well, colour differences with their emotional content. Other differences lead to many more problems, and far more bloodshed than race differences in fact do. Let us mention a few examples. How many persons have not already fallen victim to tribal clashes, which have nothing to do with race relations but which take place even within one and the same people. The entire situation in Biafra is an illustration of this. How many millions of people do not fall victim to political suppression where ideologies are simply forced upon others who then rebel against this, and which eventually leads to suppression? How much conflict and bloodshed is there not in the world today over religious differences? As a result of religious differences more than 1 200 people have already been killed during the past three years in Ireland, which is a civilized State. There are also language differences which could lead to conflicts and problems. Why should we constantly place such a tremendous premium on the question of racial differences, as if these were the only culprits? I think that we should see this matter in its context, and that we should allow the emphasis to be placed where it belongs. We should simply adopt the standpoint that racial differences exist, and we should accept that it is diversity in unity. However, the racial differences are singled out and stressed out of all proportion as a result of the fact that an emotional content is associated with it. Numerous other differences between people also lead to bloodshed, friction and conflict, but these differences are deliberately played down, because it suits the political goals of certain persons. Think of the suppression by communism of numerous States in the world in which millions of people are being suppressed and where bloodshed is taking place. Just think of what is happening at the moment in South Vietnam and in the Far East. Why should the emphasis constantly fall on race, as if this were the source of all evil? I think that we should once more regard this matter in its correct perspective.

A third reason for my thinking that things will go better with us in future, is the dialogue which is being conducted by our hon. the Prime Minister, and the détente which we are seeking to achieve. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information are playing a special part in this, I am grateful for the contribution this department has been able to make, but I do not want to say any more about this. Of course we are also, from the nature of the case, grateful for the special contribution which the Department of Foreign Affairs is making. We want to pay the greatest tribute to, and praise our hon. the Prime Minister for his personal contribution and interest. I think that this, after all, is the fruit of the sustained, permanent and constant efforts which are being made by the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs to state, time and again, the case of South Africa abroad. I think that this is the reason for our success. Unfortunately it is frequently not possible to, for the sake of decency, to use one of our strongest arguments. This is that open discrimination on the basis of race and colour occurs in many other countries. However, we are too decent to use this because we do not want to hurt those countries. We have examples of this. Again, out of decency, I am not going to mention the names of all the countries involved. In a certain British islands group—not the British Isles themselves—which have since become an independent State, it is laid down in the consitution that the one population group, although it comprises 70% of the population, may receive a maximum of 40% of the seats. This is a constitutional arrangement which is based solely on race. The population group which comprises 70% of the inhabitants, is restricted in the Constitution Act to a maximum of 40% of the seats. The other 60% of the seats must, as a result of circumstances, go to the remaining 30% of the population. This is the kind of discrimination which, out of decency, I do not want to use. Let me mention another example. Fault is constantly being found with the homelands because we give the chiefs a special task or position, and because the number of chiefs in the executive are increasing, etc. In this case I am going to mention the name. A referendum was held in West Indonesia, which was approved by the U.N., to determine the future of that specific area. There were objections that the people, the ordinary citizens, were not sufficiently developed to vote. Eventually it was decided that there would not be a system of “one man, one vote”, but that only the headmen and the chiefs of that area would decide on its future. Where can one hope to find a clearer example of precisely where such a policy is being applied? When South Africa applies it, however, it is anathema and criticism is levelled at us from all quarters.

I want to conclude by making brief mention of one last matter. In the first place, this success which is being achieved at present, cannot be allowed for one moment to make us complacent or relax our efforts. The fact of the matter is that when we make breakthroughs or achieve success, that is precisely when we will have to carry it further in order to utilize and consolidate that success to the full. After having for years knocked on the door of certain countries in order to present certain things to them, and the doors suddenly open, we must not become rooted to the spot and say “Now that the door is open, we are not entering”. Consequently the sustained efforts of the Department of Information will now have to be intensified, and even greater expenditure will have to be incurred in the years which lie ahead to follow up on what we have achieved to date. The clearest example of this was the period when there were very sound relations between France and America. The American information efforts in France during those years were intensified to follow up and consolidate those sound relations. It has been our experience as well that, when in earlier years we had sound relations with certain countries, we achieved so much success that, now that the position has deteriorated, there are still people and organizations there who are persisting in their efforts. In this regard I want to say that success in the outside world does not bring with it alleviation or relaxation, but in fact an intensification of our information efforts. We must follow these up, to achieve what we can.

In conclusion, I want to make an appeal once again to everyone in this House and outside, and to all facets of our Press, to display in their writing and thinking the responsibility which is required by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, so that one is not ultimately embarrassed by the statement of standpoints by one’s own organs or persons outside. Therefore I want to repeat the request that writers and speakers should be careful of what they write and say in respect of matters in South Africa. I am saying this with great earnestness and responsibility. The times in which we find ourselves at present, are complex. The diplomacy which is at present the order of the day is not a show of force, but a game of chess in which one makes a move, and then sits quietly watching one’s opponent to see what he is going to do, and then plans in advance and makes the next move. In that regard reports and speeches can bedevil everything if these are not carried out with the greatest circumspection. I want to conclude by making an appeal to you all to act in a responsible manner in this regard. I thank hon. members for their participation in this debate, and I want to congratulate the department on the work which is proceeding under the guidance of the officials.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 13 and S.W.A. Vote No. 7.—“Interior”. Revenue Vote No. 14 and S.W.A. Vote No. 8.—“Public Service Commission”, and Revenue Vote No. 15.— “Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. I now want to discuss certain matters with the hon. the Minister who, having put on his other hat, assumes responsibility for the Public Service. In doing so I want to preface my remarks in regard to the Public Service Commission by congratulating Mr. Van Zyl on his appointment as chairman of the commission. I sincerely hope that he will have more success in getting the Cabinet to approve the recommendations of the Public Service Commission than his predecessor has had in recent years. The time has arrived for us to look at what the policy of this Government is in regard to the powers, the establishment and the functions of the Public Service Commission. I say that because it was as long ago as 1969 that the hon. the Minister of Transport, who was then the Minister of the Interior, told us in this House that the Cabinet had appointed a committee to investigate, at Cabinet level, the extent to which efficiency in the Public Service could be improved. Since that time there have been study tours overseas and various matters have been investigated by the commission, and we find that despite the frustrations of the commission in the past, when its recommendations were not accepted by the Cabinet or the Ministers concerned, the commission reports in its latest report that two projects were undertaken. The one project had as its purpose the introduction of a new classification system and a corresponding system of remuneration for the Public Service. The other project envisages the introduction of a totally new job-evaluating system to meet the needs of organization and personnel administration. One of the first recommendations made by the commission in this connection, to achieve these results, has been rejected by the Cabinet. I refer to the proposed readjustment of the functions of the departments of Community Development, Public Works, Planning and the Environment. This recommendation was made by the commission. The exact terms of this recommendation have, of course, not been published to us in the House. However, it is the opinion of the commission—and its members are, after all, the experts, the management consultants available to advise the Government—that if the proposals had been brought into effect, they would have brought about greater efficiency and considerable savings in manpower, in accommodation and in departmental auxiliary services. This proposal, however, was rejected. I believe that the hon. the Minister should be able to indicate to us why this was so, because it seems to me that it is a matter that has been crying out for adjustment for many years. We have raised the matter in debates on community development, public works and planning at different times. We believe that there could be a reorganization of the functions of those departments. This recommendation has now come from the experts and has been turned down by the Cabinet. One wonders whether it is not a question of someone’s little ministerial empire being affected which is causing opposition to any changes, even changes for the better which would lead to greater efficiency. Surely every responsible managing director of any business in this country takes the advice of his management experts when they come to him with proposals? That is the primary function of the Public Service Commission. If it does not have the confidence of this Government, and if the Government does not regard it as an expert body to advise it on matters of management, then for heaven’s sake, do away with the commission entirely and let the Government carry on in its own sweet way without having expert advice. When it comes to staff matters we find the same arbitrary action by the Cabinet. This has emerged from replies to questions which I have put to the hon. the Minister during this session. There was the request of the Joint Advisory Council, which was supported by the commission, that there should be a uniform retirement age at 60 with provision for extension of service on a contract basis for persons who wish to remain in the service. That was put forward by the Joint Advisory Council and was supported by the commission, but it was rejected by the Cabinet. An increased vacation savings bonus, too, was recommended, but rejected by the Cabinet. Increases in territorial allowances, a matter which the hon. member for Griqualand East has been so concerned with over the years, were also recommended by the commission, but they were rejected. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to increase the authority of the commission so that we can see results from the advice of the experts in the functioning of the Public Service. I believe that the commission is aware of continuing problems which in some cases are becoming worse. Where the position is static, if not improved, in the case of staff in the general divisions and in the overall position, this is due in large measure to a scheme which the commission has handled extremely well, namely the bursary scheme which has resulted in an improved intake in so far as those divisions are concerned. The position in the professional division, where there is a 9,3% drop, and in the technical division, where we find a drop of 8,5% as a result of resignations, is the worst in five years. I want to ai the hon. the Minister whether he will be good enough to advise and inform this Committee how he sees the future status, functions and position of the Public Service Commission. How does he see it functioning in regard to the position which it should at the present moment occupy in the Public Service?

I want to turn to the question of the employment of non-Whites in the Public Service. The authorized establishment in the Public Service has increased in the five-year period 1969 to 1974 by some 28 169 posts in respects of all races. It is interesting to note that 19 900 of these are attributable to non-Whites having been taken into the Public Service. This figure includes 9 200 additional non-White teachers. What strikes one when one looks at this intake is that although there is this large intake of non-Whites, there is apparently no intake whatsoever in the upper administrative, professional and technical divisions of the Public Service. In other words, the non-Whites have been taken in and used in the lower administrative positions. I should like to know whether adequate work is being done to train the non-Whites to occupy higher positions. I know that numbers of them will be trained to work in the legislative assemblies of the homelands or the territorial authorities, but I would like to have information from the hon. the Minister as to why it is that there appear to be no non-Whites in the higher echelons of the Public Service I know that the hon. the Minister has mentioned that he is for instance bringing them into the Department of Information, and I know that they are coming into other departments. It may be that great changes have taken place in the last 12 months since this report came out, but I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with this matter. This also raises the issue of the wage gap in the Government services between Whites and non-Whites, particularly those occupying professional positions. These are wages which are determined by the Public Service Commission. I do not intend to deal with this in any depth, because it will be dealt with by other speakers on this side, but I want to point out one thing in respect of what I believe is a shocking position that exists in this country. In 1964—we have had this debate before in this House—the ratio of pay of medical officers in the employment of the provincial councils which was fixed by the Public Service Commission, and in the State hospitals, was fixed at 10 for Whites; nine for Indians and Coloureds and eight for Bantu. That position has deteriorated and the gap has widened considerably. That was settled and approved in 1964, but what is the position today? In spite of all that has been done—and let me say that a lot has been done in recent years —we still find the position that we have not yet attained the ratio of 1964. The ratio at the moment is 10 for Whites, 8,5 for Coloureds and Indians and 7,2 for Bantu. Sir, this is not going to cost a fortune. I shall leave the matter at this stage. I only want to repeat that we have not yet got back to the 1964 position in respect of wages for medical officers.

Not the 1964 position; the 1964 decision.

Yes, but the 1964 decision was applied in the Cape Province when I was on the executive committee dealing with hospital affairs. We applied it immediately. Since then the gap has widened because increments were given to the Whites which were not given to the non-Whites. However, Sir, other members will deal with this aspect.

I want to come to another point which I believe to be a very important one in the Republic at the present moment, and that is the number of White aliens who are permanently resident in the Republic. It is difficult to get the exact figure, but according to the census of 6 May 1970, there were some 277 934 of them. Since that date there have been 112 713 immigrants into South Africa, which would bring the total to a little short of 400 000. I think it would be fair to estimate that there are probably at the present time some 350 000 White aliens with permanent residence certificates residing in the Republic. I am allowing for 50 000 less than the aggregate total. That figure of 350 000 represents approximately 10% of the White population of this country. The report of the Secretary for the Interior indicates that there were 2 165 naturalizations in 1973 and 2 574 in 1974. These are the figures for the last two years, but they seem to be very much the same throughout. These figures represent approximately a tenth of the number of immigrants. The backlog is therefore not being caught up, and the position is obviously not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to have a growing percentage of residents in South Africa who are not South African citizens.

I have asked myself why this should be so and I have attempted to make some inquiries. There are obvious reasons relating to pension rights and things of that nature, but I do not think that those cases account for 25% of the total number. It seems to me first of all that people become slack or that they are not conscious of the fact that they should become naturalized. I believe that there is not sufficient encouragement to people to become naturalized. I believe also that there is a certain amount of resistance because of a feeling that the procedures are too complicated. That is the feeling which exists amongst members of the public. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that at the end of the five-year period—these periods are recorded, and the department is aware of them—a communication should be addressed to these people to the effect that they have now qualified to apply for naturalization, and that they should do so.

I want to say that we in South Africa would like to see these new South Africans becoming fully and totally identified with this country of their adoption. We want them to stay. We want them to become completely identified with us and with this country. I may mention. Sir, that many of their sons are in fact doing national service. I have the relevant figures, which I obtained from the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, and it is interesting to see how many non-South African citizens have registered for national service. The figures were respectively 1 100, 1 018, 1 204 and 1 245 over the last four years.

But, Sir, what is also disturbing is the number who are exempted because they have stated that they do not intend to become South African citizens. The figures for the last four years are 650, 710, 818 and 832. Sir, these young men who are exempt from national service are gaining a two-year advantage over South African young men who are doing national service. The young South African who is called up to start his national service in, say, July loses half a year which he could have spent at university. He then completes his year’s national service in July the following year, with the result that his university training is delayed for two years. The same applies to the young man who intends serving articles or apprenticeship.

Sir, I think that these young immigrants who intend earning their living here have an obligation to South Africa and that they should become naturalized. If they have any difficulty in connection with their naturalization papers, they can call on the regional offices of the Department of the Interior, or they could even get some of the M.P.’s on the other side of the House to do some work and to help them with their naturalization papers.

Then, Sir, I want to raise a matter which comes under the Department of Immigration, but I think it also concerns the hon. the Minister. Where an immigrant who is granted a permanent residence permit when he enters the country indicates that he wishes to become a citizen of South Africa as soon as possible, I think there should be a simplified follow-up procedure whereby he can become naturalized as soon as his permit expires. I think this would do a great deal to eliminate the present unsatisfactory situation. Sir, when I talk about immigrants who live in this country, I also want to say that we have to realize that one of the strongest points in our favour in South Africa in our negotiations for a future peaceful co-existence on this continent is that we are citizens of Africa, not of any European country, and I believe it should be impressed upon these immigrants that when they become citizens of South Africa, they also become citizens of a nation in Africa and that they can make their contribution as far as future relations in Southern Africa are concerned.

Finally, Sir, I want to pay tribute to the regional representatives of the department who are handling the enormous intake of visitors, tourists and others, who come to this country. I have had occasion, when ships arrive in the docks with large numbers of foreigners who have language and other problems, to see the highly efficient and courteous way in which these people are handled. Although it necessarily takes a certain amount of time to attend to their papers, etc., one seldom hears a complaint that there is unnecessary delay. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to these representatives of the department.

The final point that I want to raise is in connection with passports. According to the annual report, 183 404 applications were processed. One can imagine how much time, how much energy, how much paper, is consumed in processing 183 404 applications for passports.

Refusals amount to 151. Now, the original intention when the whole system of identity documents, the “Book of Life”, was introduced, was that one of the features of that document would be that it contained travel documents, passports, and that that would be part of the identity documents. If one looks at these figures and one looks at the involvement of manpower and time and money, one wonders whether it is not wise that some urgent attention should again be given to what was the original proposal, namely that the passport and travel document should form part of the identity document issued to a South African citizen. I cannot see any reasons why it should not be so. I believe that just as the Minister withdraws passports now when he thinks it is necessary to do so in the interest of the country, a similar procedure could be adopted in this regard. I hope the hon. the Minister will react to this suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, before making certain remarks about the speech by the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that since we last dealt with this Vote, we have had to take leave of the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Cruywagen, who has now become Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. On behalf of our side of the House I just want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the period that he was in the Department of the Interior and for the very good work he did, not only here, but in his department as well. We hope that he will have the same prosperity and success in his new field of activity. Then, in the same breath, we should like to welcome our new Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister Louis le Grange, to the department and to this group. We are grateful to have a man of his calibre here and we should like to make use of his talents and abilities. To him, too, we extend a hearty welcome.

The hon. member for Green Point always creates a very restful atmosphere when he talks. [Interjection.] Yes, he is a typical patriarch, as the hon. the Deputy Minister here says. I must say that although here are certain points on which I would have liked to put a different emphasis, there were also certain points he mentioned with which I entirely agree, particularly in regard to appreciation for the work done by the officials of the Department of the Interior. I think the hon. member is well aware of the activities there and I think that his word of thanks is just as sincere as mine. However, I want to say that in the course of his argument the hon. member dealt with certain points in a way that was, to me, a little superficial. Initially he spoke about the Public Service Commission and its activities in regard to the place and the position of the non-Whites, and once again he touched on the old story of the wage gap. I want to tell the hon. member that the place of the Public Service Commission and of the Public Service within the Government administration is a matter that has been discussed extensively in the past and which has to be continually under consideration in any country that is developing as fast as ours. I think that the hon. the Minister will quite probably indicate to us in his own good time how he sees the Public Service and the Public Service Commission and the State machinery. Other members will reply to other points raised by the hon. member. I do think, however, that after all my peaceful words concerning the hon. member, we really have no alternative but to return to the debate we were conducting here previously. The hon. member cut new corners today and, in fact, got away a little too easily from the argument we had here last time.

I want to come back to the race classification issue in particular. [Interjection.] I know the hon. member is a little impatient and sensitive about this, but during the previous discussion of the Minister’s Vote things were continually being pointed out that were occurring in South Africa and that were supposedly objectionable to the thinking and civilized world outside, and it was said that through its domestic policy, the National Party was in fact embarrassing the whole of Southern Africa.

However, I want to come back to the hon. members of the United Party. Last year, the present aspirant Progressives, who are now sitting there in the form of Reformists, still formed part of the United Party. At the time the hon. members of the United Party attacked the National Party and the Minister about the entire issue of race classification. They employed all the piety, sympathy, compassion, sadness and so on to be extracted from the race classification issue to indicate what a monstrosity it supposedly was. However, in the course of a very short speech the hon. the Minister referred the hon. members to a few points which I want the United Party to elaborate on in this debate. What was interesting about this whole matter was that the hon. the Minister then cornered them. I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present at the moment. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Durban North said that as far as the question of race classification in terms of their race federation was concerned, what they really wanted was a division of people on the basis of “acceptance” and “appearance”. The hon. member for Green Point then elaborated further on this in his second or third speech. In the same debate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there would be race classification as far as the United Party was concerned. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is now on the way to becoming a second-hand Progressive, said that as far as he was concerned, there would be no race classification. The hon. member for Vereeniging and various other hon. members on this side pointed out to the United Party that it was placing itself in an impossible kind of position and asked how the United Party would bring about a federation in South Africa if it did not determine the identity of various groups.

Just as we have done it over more than 100 years.

The hon. member states that they will do so in the same way as they have done it for 100 years, but I want to know in accordance with what ethical and moral principles they can reproach the National Party for stating that there is a diversity of peoples in South Africa and that we must take steps to identify the people in the various race groups. The hon. members, who form a fine pair in front of me here, said last year that the classification would be based on appearance and acceptance, but the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout rejected race classification entirely. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did do so. I want the hon. members for Green Point and Durban North to elaborate on this further in the course of this debate. I took a great deal of trouble to read the speech by the hon. member for Green Point. He said many things and spoke disjointedly, and I want to remind him of what he said. He said that they accepted that there would have to be some form of registration. He went on to say that a system of group identity by races was necessary to be able to carry out the policy of all the parties in the House, viz. that of the United Party, too. He went on to say that the Government, on the basis of classification based on skin colour alone, was enforcing an excessive number of apartheid measures that imposed restrictions on individuals which could only be described as offensive and humiliating. How can they escape these things in the light of their own policy? In my opinion we cannot allow the United Party to fire such random shots in the House which are subsequently seized on by an opposing or hostile Press and transmitted across the world. I think it has become essential for the United Party to give us a very clear indication in the course of this debate as to the nature of the system of registration they would institute.

In the short time left to me, I should like to make a few other remarks. I want to convey a word of sincere appreciation to the officials, particularly in regard to the control over foreigners from Mozambique that was exercised. We have had difficult and turbulent days and months in Southern Africa in recent times. Hon. members know that when people feel themselves to be threatened and when they are in a situation of flight, very major problems can develop. I want to quote a short extract from the department’s report this evening since it specifically concerns the control of the foreigners from Mozambique. I refer to page 5 of the report and (I quote—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in regard to one point I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Rissik, and that is to congratulate the new hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment. I understand that this is the first time an hon. member from the Potchefstroom constituency has progressed this far. I want to express the hope that he will cause a revolution in his department.

The hon. member for Rissik had problems with the question of race classification and the retention of identity. All I want to say is that we in this country have retained our various identities without any race classification. As regards political rights, we for instance had Coloureds, Bantu—up to 1936—and Whites on the same voters’ roll. They were registered separately, but it was not necessary to have an official race classification for that purpose.

†I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. He recently paid a visit to Paris. The hon. the Minister is often referred to as “kragdadige Connie” by the Afrikaans Press. It is therefore very pleasing to note that, when he was in Paris, he adapted himself so well to his new environment that he in fact became “swinging Dr. Connie”. He was such a swinging Dr. Connie that Rapport said the following of him—

He had the whole of Paris at his feet. Basically my plea to the hon. the Minister is that we in South Africa also shall appreciate it if he would become more “with it” when he is amongst us, especially when it comes to such an important matter as the removal of any form of discrimination based solely on race and colour. Instead of hearing from him, as we heard from him during the Pretoria West by-election, that he is prepared to replace apartheid notice boards, he should in fact accept the challenge and realize that his department is in fact the best place to launch an impressive campaign for the removal of all signs of discrimination. The Department of Interior through the Public Service Commission has a toe in every single State department. It has the right to make recommendations for the promotion to senior posts and it is also responsible for the compiling and drafting of salary scales and post structures. In the past I have pleaded for the separation of the teaching profession from the Public Service Commission. I know that the Government is not prepared to do so and I am not going to repeat my plea. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the State President recently said that when people insist on rights and privileges, they should realize that they also have duties and responsibilities. The Public Service Commission therefore retains its right and enjoys its privilege to determine post and salary structures, but it must also realize that it has a duty to perform in the Republic of South Africa at the present moment. That duty is to eliminate discrimination in the field of salaries, for instance, especially when it comes to people who have the same qualifications and who do the same type of work. When people have the same qualifications and they do the same type of work, they should receive the same salary. If they do not receive the same salary, I believe that is a blatant form of discrimination. I know the hon. the Minister will say that they are closing the gap, but I believe that in many instances there need not be a gap at all. I believe that it is well within the means of South Africa to close the gap altogether. All that is required is a little more determination and courage and some basic research by the Public Service Commission.

Take Bantu education as an example. The moment I suggest equal pay for equal qualifications, one normally hears a chorus from the “hensop” brigade in South Africa that that is quite impossible. People who say that it is impossible are totally ignorant of the facts. I am going to base my calculations on answers supplied to questions that were put during the second session of 1974. I refer to the questions and replies concerning the teaching establishment in Bantu education recorded in cols. 97 and 98 of last year’s Questions and Answers. In Bantu education there are eight different categories of teachers demanding different qualifications. Two of these, the lower primary teacher’s certificate and the primary teacher’s certificate, are post-Std. 6 and post-Std. 8 qualifications. There are no corresponding categories for White teachers in those fields. However, there are six other categories in the salary structure all of which require post-Matric qualifications from M + 1 to M + 6. In the case of Bantu education one finds that, according to the replies given, out of the total number of Bantu teachers of 57 480, there are only 7 000 with post-Matric qualifications. In other words, only in the case of 7 000 are there qualifications that correspond to qualifications required of White teachers. Of these, only 933 have qualifications of M + 4, i.e. a degree plus a professional qualification. At present the maximum salary of a male Bantu teacher with those qualifications is R4 050 which is in fact R60 less than the starting salary on the standard scale of his White counterpart. This type of discrimination is there for everyone to see. In the case of a Bantu male who has a doctorate,: c. M 4-6, the maximum in his top scale is R4 740, which is in fact R210 less than the starting salary of his White counterpart on the standard scale. How much will it cost to eliminate this discrimination? Let us look at the position of teachers with qualifications of M + 4. There are 933 teachers in this category, but let us put this figure at 1 000. In order to calculate the maximum amount involved, let us assume they are all males on the maximum of their scale. We find that the difference is R2 970 per annum. In other words, in respect of the 1 000 teachers involved the maximum amount would be R2 970 000. That is what is required to do away with discrimination in respect of this category of teachers. However, we know that all teachers are not males and that they are not all on their maximum salary. Let us then try to work out what the minimum amount involved will be in the case of the category of M + 4. Let us then assume that all the teachers involved are females at the bottom of their scale. One finds that the difference between a White and a Black female teacher at that stage is R1 470. In other words, the minimum amount required is R1 470 000. So, in respect of this category of teachers, it will not cost more than R3 million and not less than R1,5 million to remove this discrimination. All in all, there are an additional 6 000 Black teachers who in fact have qualifications between M +1 and M + 3. Let us say that the average is M + 2, although in fact we know that the average is M + 1. If we then apply the same formula, we find that the maximum amount required to bring about equality for those 6 000 teachers will be R13 680 000, in other words, calculated on the basis that they are all males and are all on their maximum salary scale. If it is worked out on the basis that they are all females, the cost involved would be R5 400 000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred, in the first place, to the wage gap, and linked it to discrimination. He then argued about the salary structures of teachers. At the moment I do not want to argue with him on that score. I want to discuss his statement that the wage gap constitutes blatant discrimination permitted by this Government. I just want to say a few words about that accusation. In the first place this wage gap between White and non-White in this country has existed for many years. It is an historical fact which we in this country are faced with.

Is that the reason why it is to remain that way?

This gap was in existence even when those hon. members were in power, and they never did anything about narrowing the gap or striving to bring this about. The first people to say that this gap should be gradually narrowed were this Government. It was the National Party Government that came up with the principle that a gradual narrowing of the wage gap should take place in accordance as the economy of the country permitted it. I am therefore unable to understand why this narrowing is linked with discrimination. After all, this is an historical fact. Does it mean that they admit that they discriminated when they were in power?

And they were satisfied with it, too.

Yes, they were satisfied with the discrimination they applied when they were in power. When were their eyes opened? I want to maintain that we have opened their eyes for them in the meantime. Consequently it is ridiculous to link the gap with discrimination. However, I shall say why everything that has nothing to do with discrimination is in fact linked with discrimination. It is owing to the competition that is going on between the various parties sitting here on my right. It is merely because the United Party is competing with the Progressive Party and is losing the struggle against the Progressvie Party. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to one aspect to which the hon. member for Green Point also referred, viz. passports. Last year the hon. member was dissatisfied about the passports that had not been granted, about the fact that not everyone who applied for passports, received them. This year the hon. member admitted that very few passports were refused. I agree with the figures he furnished here. He stated that only 151 passports were refused out of a total of 183 404 applications. This represents 0,08%. On the basis of this fact the hon. member then made representations to the hon. the Minister which amounted in principle to a request that every person who received identity documents should also automatically receive a passport. Unfortunately I must differ with the hon. member in regard to that standpoint of his. If every person who is furnished with identity documents is also given a passport, that means that it is the right of every person to possess a passport. Nowhere in the world is this a right to which a citizen of a state can lay claim. It is a privilege granted to the citizen by the state. It is a privilege granted to those citizens who can use a passport in the interests of their fatherland. Particularly in these times we are living in, in the world situation we are living in, I think it would be extremely unwise to regard a passport as the right of every citizen in the country. Consequently I am unfortunately unable to support this plea by the hon. member. I also hope that the hon. the Minister will not consider a plea of this kind at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to say a few words about our Public Service. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to give an overall picture of it. However I want to express a few thoughts concerning one specific aspect. It is also as a result of a reference made by the hon. member for Green Point to the resignations from the Public Service that I do this. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that the number of resignations from the Public Service has an adverse effect on the Public Service and that it seriously handicaps the Public Service in its work. However, there is a tendency to ascribe the resignations from the Public Service to the system of service and to salary problems in the service. I want to concede at once that salaries do have something to do with resignations. However, let us approach this from a different angle as well. The Public Service has a training system that is probably unique in this country. We in this country can pride ourselves on the fact that we have a Public Service Staff who are really equipped with the finest means and methods for their task. It is not only from the skilled and technical sections that we have resignations; it is from all the other sections of the Public Service as well, some more than others. When people resign from the Public Service they do not simply disappear; they do not pass into limbo. Those people enter the private sector. When we talk about the private sector, then we say that those people have been brought from the Public Service. The private sector is profit-orientated. The private sector will never buy a man if he is not a major asset. This means that every man who resigns and is bought in this way is a person who was an asset to the Public Service, where he underwent his training. This means that the Public Service is able to attract capable people and it also affords evidence of the effective training system of the Public Service by means of which well-equipped officials are trained. I say that this is a major feather in the cap of the Public Service. However I also want to say at once that this creates a problem for the Public Service because in this way trained people are attracted away from the Public Service. However, we must not think that they are lost to the country. They remain an asset to the country and represent an enormous contribution made to the general economy of South Africa by the Public Service.

I want to conclude by saying that we in South Africa are fortunate to have people in our service who are people of integrity. That is why it is so that we have a small number of people who are discharged owing to incompetence. I think there were 13 of them in the year covered by the latest report. This attests to the integrity of our people and their inclusion in the private sector attests to the sound training and the sound equipment they receive in the Public service.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some mention in the debate so far this evening of race classification. I do not want to follow the dispute that is going on across the floor of the House. I do, however, want to draw attention to a couple of very recent cases of real heartbreak and suffering caused by race classification. These are classifications which have come to my notice since I became a member of this House. For obvious reasons I am not going to mention any names, but the files are all here and obviously the Minister or any other person deputed by him is entitled to see them. Some of these cases are being investigated by various departments at the moment and I am grateful for what is being done.

I would like to start with a particularly distressing case, namely that of six children between the ages of three and ten. They come from various families but they have in common a grandmother. They live in Cape Town in a White area where they are accepted as Whites and where they live as Whites. They have now been re-classified as Coloureds. The reason for this, I am told, is because the grandmother has been classified as a Coloured. I have not seen the children, but I have seen pictures of them and my informant, whom I trust in this case, challenges anybody to pick these six children out of a group of 20 anybody chooses to put up. In human terms the consequences of this arbitrary act of reclassification are almost too miserable to contemplate.

What is the classification of the father and the mother?

I have the classification of the grandparent, which is apparently the only factor which was taken into consideration. I can, however, obtain that information. I am prepared to hand all the documents over to the hon. gentleman. All I would like to draw this Committee’s attention to is the effect this reclassification has had on these six children. In a very real sense I wonder whether they realize …

The hon. member must give me all the facts. It is no use telling us about this if the hon. member does not give us all the facts.

I said I was prepared to hand the files over to the Minister or the Deputy Minister. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I have no ulterior motive except to draw attention to the wretchedness and misery this kind of thing is causing these days. These children’s whole life-style is being changed. I wish people could look at this as a human problem, because that is what it is. One of the by-products of cases like these—and I wonder whether the people realize it—is that these children stop going to school at this stage. They dare not go to a White school because they would obviously be breaking the law. They refuse to go to a Coloured school because of the fear of ridicule and victimization. Their lives are turned into a minor hell, but we accept it simply because it happens on an impersonal basis. What is achieved by this? Is what we White South Africans quaintly call White civilization entrenched or strengthened by this kind of action? I think that it is degraded and dehumanized by acts which involve a callous unconcern for the human consequences. And to think that we should institute and tolerate this kind of thing in the name of civilization! Let me give you a slightly different case, Sir. I mention no names. I have the files here and I am prepared to hand them over to the Deputy Minister. A married woman is refused an extension of her residence permit in South Africa. No reasons are given. The husband and the father-in-law went to see the officials to see whether they could help. One of these officials, whose name the department has, called the husband into his office while the young wife waited outside. According to the husband, in a letter written to the Department of the Interior in Pretoria, the official then said to this man who was sitting across the table from him, “I do not know how to tell you, but you have put us in a very embarrassing situation. Don’t you ever feel embarrassed walking in the street with her? Did any of your friends have any remarks to make about your wife? Did your parents never object to your marrying this girl, and did they feel happy about the situation? On entering a restaurant, there may be people who object to her entering the restaurant.” [Interjection.] I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister this letter. I wish he would exercise a little patience.

I am just looking at you.

He went on to say—

The husband was incensed by this inhuman, humiliating attitude. He says that the official had never spoken to his wife. This young fellow went back to his father, who knew some officials here and elsewhere, but he got nowhere. He then wrote to the Department of the Interior and said that unless officialdom changed its attitude, he would renounce his nationality and that he did not want to be called a South African again. Sir, if we could only realize the consequences of this kind of thing, I think we would look again at the implementation of this Act. Listen to what this young man’s father writes in appealing to me for help as follows—and there are aspects of this case which are now being investigated—

Sir, he may well ask, “What for?” He goes on—

There is a clear inference here that this action was taken because this woman was regarded as Coloured.

What have you done about it?

I have handed it over to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I have not mentioned any names and I have said that I am grateful for whatever investigation is being held. It seems to me that this kind of thing must be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other cases here; I will only mention one more. This concerns a man who maintains that he is Coloured and who is classified as an African. This man has been living as a Coloured. He wants to continue doing so because he is accepted as such and it suits him. But under the Population Register Act he has beeen declared to be something that he says he is not and that he does not want to be, and as a result of this his life, if not ruined, has been soured to the point of exasperation. I accept that there are unusual circumstances in this case.

Sir, I wish we could bring home to this Committee and to the Minister and his Deputy the needlessness of this kind of thing. Where does it get us? What does it achieve, except appalling suffering in every single case? Sir, this is a forlorn plea, but I make it none the less in the name of common humanity: Let the race classification law become a dead letter. Apart from the suffering that it is producing, it makes this country look idiotic in the eyes of the outside world; it preserves nothing and it degrades every single one of us who has anything to do with it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown almost moved us to tears. I want to tell him that this type of sentimental talk does not get us anywhere. I think the hon. member should rather tell us what they are going to do in terms of their policy. We received the figures last year in connection with the large number of classifications which take place every year, of the small number of appeals against them, and the still smaller number of appeals which are upheld. Sir, these are not even a drop in the ocean. The so-called “hard cases” are wrested from their context toy the hon. members and exaggerated into something enormous, as if the whole system should be discredited by them. I do not think it is worth while. I do not want to follow the hon. member any further, because the hon. the Deputy Minister to whom this section of the department is entrusted will probably deal with him at length in that connection, especially in view of the fact that the hon. member dealt with specific cases. I do not want to go into that matter any further.

I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Green Point this afternoon when he referred to the fact that the Public Service Commission made certain recommendations in connection with the reorganization of the Departments of Community Development, Public Works, etc., and that the Cabinet did not accept them. He adopted the attitude that because the Public Service Commission consists of experts, the Cabinet should have accepted its recommendation without more ado. Sir, I do not know the details, because as the hon. member also pointed out, we do not get the details in the report. But I am sure that the hon. the Minister will in fact deal with them when he replies to the hon. member’s speech. But I do want to say that we cannot simply accept that the Public Service Commission should rule the country. The Public Service Commission can do no more than make recommendations. The ultimate responsibility for deciding on matters of this kind rests with the Government and the Cabinet. I do not want to enlarge on this any further, but I just want to state the principle, because I can never imagine a situation in which the Cabinet should be nothing but a rubber stamp for what the Public Service Commission or whatever other council or commission recommends, or that this Parliament should be a rubber stamp for what someone else recommends. Therefore we are looking forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply in that regard.

I should like to say a few words on this occasion about efficiency in our Public Service. Seen from a staff viewpoint, our Public Service is very large in size and comprises a wide variety of posts. There is hardly a type of work or a kind of post which is not to be found in the Public Service. It remains a major task to find suitable staff to perform the task of the State. Yet the Public Service is still growing to the extent to which the country grows and expands. The Commission also has to utilize the staff of the State in the most efficient and most effective way. Every year a large part of the Public Service Commission’s annual report is devoted to the promotion of efficiency. In our modern times this has become one of the important functions of the Public Service Commission. I would like to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister, to the Public Service Commission and to the officials who are constantly developing and adapting this facet of modern staff administration from new and modern management techniques. By means of the inspectorate, organizational and establishment inspections are conducted regularly. Because of changes and development in the country’s administration, the organization and the establishments of the various State departments have to be constantly revised to adapt to the requirements and to try and ensure the most effective administration at all times. So the time never comes when this branch of the Public Service can say its work is completed. This section has in fact become a permanent and therefore an extremely important part of the State machinery. For this reason, research and study is constantly being undertaken in this direction. I cannot stress the importance of this aspect strongly enough. Organization and method—O and M, to use the popular expression—has become an important science. I know that the Public Service Commission has extremely capable men available to it in this field. I know, too, that information, working methods and research results which have been obtained by this branch of the Public Service Commission have also found their way to the private sector. By means of symposia and others forms of communication there is a reasonable degree of inter-action in this field between the Public Service, the local authorities and large employers in the private sector.

In South Africa much is said about our manpower position as well as the most profitable utilization of our manpower and the pursuit of productivity in order to supply maximum production with the minimum number of workers. Because this is so, it is right and proper that the State should take the lead in this in its own staff situation and should convey the results of its own investigation and research to the private sector so that South Africa will not only be stimulated economically in this way, but it will also be possible to guarantee the efficiency of our whole national economy.

I know that these results are obtained in close co-operation with the South African Institute for Public Administration, which has liaison on all three levels of government in South Africa, namely the central, the provincial and the local, and that there is very close co-operation with our universities. There is also the closest liaison with the National Development and Management Foundation. It is interesting to learn from the annual report that the diary system as well as the KT2 system, i.e. the short-term control technique system— which, by the way, is the result of our inspectorate’s own research—is a very great success. It is really gratifying to know that the KT2 system has already been made applicable to 30 schemes in our Public Service by means of a bonus incentive system. In the Public Service Commission’s annual report for 1971-’72 it was pointed out that the KT2 system resulted in an increase of between 20% and 40% in the productivity of employees. However, when the system was linked to a bonus incentive system, the productivity was increased by between 40% and 60%. It may be mentioned by way of illustration that according to the annual report for 1971-’72, the KT2 system resulted in the establishment being adopted by the abolition of 737 posts, the prevention of 45 posts and the creation 138 posts. This in itself resulted in a saving of R1 198 000.

With the tremendous increase in the functions of the State in a complex society, it says a great deal that the staff expansion in the Public Service during the period covered by the latest report of the Public Service Commission was only in the vicinity of 4,6%. This is Why I tried to draw attention to this important aspect of the activities of the Public Service Commission. I should like to plead that nothing should be left undone to promote the research and that the best talent must be attracted for service in this field.

An official who does his work efficiently is a happy official, because anyone who feels that he is making a contribution, that he is producing work of a high quality and that it is appreciated, is also someone who is in a work situation from which he derives satisfaction and who can therefore be an asset to himself and to those around him. Therefore I really want to plead that every effort should be made in regard to this aspect and especially in regard to research in this field and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to ensure that these matters will always receive the necessary attention.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the arguments of the hon. member who has just sat down. The debates on the Publications Act have come and gone and I think the dust has largely settled. The new Appeal Board, the directorate, the committees and some of the inspectors have been appointed. I believe that most of them are already functioning. It is far too early to comment authoritatively on the work of these bodies. In view of the lack of statistics available it is probably too early to compare the work which is done in terms of the new system with that which was performed by the previous authorities.

I must say that despite all the trepidations which we had, the approach to the task as enunciated by the chairman of the Appeal Board—I think it is Mr. Justice Snyman—is a refreshingly open one. At this stage it is to be commended. I hope that the appointment of a judge as the head of the Appeal Board is a precedent which the department will follow in future if it is possible. Having a judge as the head of such a body does much to leaven the strictures of this somewhat narrow legislation. It can only help to foster a certain confidence in the entire system. I do believe, however, that the hon. the Minister could have done more to foster public confidence in the system in the composition of the committees which were recently announced. After all, these committees are perhaps the most important factors in the whole gamut of publications control. No more than token representation is given to the Coloured and Indian communities in all the committees throughout the country, whilst they number over 3 million people in South Africa. Nearly all of these people are literate and nearly all of them are directly affected by the legislation concerned. As far as I was able to ascertain, Blacks are not represented at all. Perhaps this is because it is intended that the homeland Governments themselves will handle these duties in their own areas. If this is so, perhaps we might be told today what the Government’s plans are in this regard and what progress has been made in including the Black people of South Africa in the decision-making process of publications control.

Further, the vast majority of publications read and reviewed by the committees throughout South Africa are presented through the medium of the English language. Yet, I am sad to see—and I put this as a submission—that this community is in my view not properly represented on the committees. In almost no committee is there parity of language groups let alone there being English-speaking majorities on any. So it is that by and large we who are English speakers find that we are allowed to see and read things, documents, papers and books in circumstances largely circumscribed by persons whose home language, background and culture is not English-orientated. I want to make it clear that I cast no reflection whatsoever on the capabilities and the qualifications of the members of the panel and I should like that to be understood, although these qualifications have not been disclosed. I am merely saying, and this is my point, that in the field of censorship which, because of our very history and background is already a sensitive area for English speakers, the English-speaking section of South Africa is not being afforded the fullest representation on these committees. Accordingly, I submit that a certain amount of confidence is still lacking in this system of publications control. I think we must be absolutely fair in putting this point. I want to say that if the lack of representation on these committees is in measure due to the fact that suitable English-speaking people have not made themselves available, then that in itself is an indication of the lack of confidence in this system which is prevalent in our society. But I go further; I say that that as an excuse for not serving on a committee of this sort is not good enough. I believe that that excuse is not good enough to avoid serving the community in this manner. I hope that English speakers will, now that the machinery is functioning, come forward when required.

Hear, hear!

If English speakers—and I say this with all the authority I can muster—are not interested in the development of English literature and English publications in South Africa, they must expect to have decisions which they do not like, taken for them.

Whose responsibility is it to see that English-speaking people are appointed?

Yours. [Interjections.]

I want to point in two directions. Firstly I believe the hon. the Minister should do more to try and bring English-speaking people on to these panels. Secondly, I call upon English-speaking people to make themselves available for appointment on these panels.

I want to go on to another aspect and say that I am alarmed at the atmosphere of puritanical righteousness created by this Act and by the Government’s Calvinistic approach to literature, films, the theatre and the arts generally. This atmosphere has been amply manifested in recent events. Let me quote a few examples. In Pretoria the city council banned the production of the play Selle Ou Storie on the basis of a memorandum sent to the council by a church.

The same old story!

It was banned even after the Publications Control Board allowed it through. The Transvaal Director of Education stopped a programme of plays for school audiences by Pact after 60 schools had seen it and all but one had commended it in glowing terms. Bacchus in die Boland had a rough passage; in the Cape it was withdrawn at the last moment.

That has nothing to do with me.

No, it has nothing to do with the hon. the Minister, but what I am saying is that this sort of thing is happening because of the atmosphere in this country. We are finding fringe organizations springing up such as AMS, Action Moral Standards, an organization which has appointed itself as an auxiliary guardian of our Christian ethical standards. It encourages members to lodge complaints and protests against publications which offend them. This has even permeated into the private sector. One finds that Scope tries to appoint censors to censor its own literature and its own documentation. So we find that even in the private sector internal censors are being appointed. This has gone far enough. South Africa is fast developing into a country with a censorship and morals complex, a psychosis which if allowed to flourish, can only stunt the free cultural development of our people.

We will let decent culture develop.

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. We are in danger of becoming a nation of Mother Grundies. Only a changed and more enlightened attitude by the Government …

Are you going to censor me?

Mr. Chairman the hon. member on my right is making it most difficult for me.

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

Only a changed and more enlightened attitude by the Government to cultural freedom in South Africa will rectify this unhealthy trend. I am not accusing the hon. the Minister of taking the wrong decision at every turn. What I am saying is that, by his very attitude towards the arts and literature and by the Government’s Calvinistic approach, an atmosphere is being created in South Africa in terms of which the promotion of literature, the arts and the cultural progress of the people of South Africa is being stunted. I think that what is needed is not so much a change in any particular piece of legislation, but a change of attitude towards the literature and culture of all the communities in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that South Africa was becoming a country that was virtually caught in the clutches of censorship. He made out that we have developed a complex about censorship.

A Psychosis.

What the Government is doing in regard to publications control is not censorship, as the hon. member is trying to put forward here. South Africa is at present one of the purest countries in the West, and this is aimed at keeping it that way. That is the point; it is not aimed at imprinting the Calvinistic view of life—which is, incidentally, the view of life of the majority of the White inhabitants of this country—on the spirit and mind of every other White and non-White inhabitant of this country who is not a Calvinist. It is not the intention to threaten or convert the spirit of the hon. member or his friends or followers. To tell the truth, this would be a monumental task for even this party to tackle. The hon. member tried to find a link between our publications control legislation, the fact that we have now set this legislation in operation, and certain steps taken by the City Council of Pretoria, the Director of Education in the Transvaal and the Administrator of the Cape. However, these steps have nothing whatever to do with this Act. Nor have they anything whatever to do with this hon. Minister or this department. Nevertheless, I want to reply to him on this score. When the Administrator of the Cape gives consideration to a play to be produced with taxpayers’ money, it is clear that the considerations that will apply will be different to those that apply when the matter is considered from the point of view of the Publications Act. It is clear that such productions are financed by the taxpayers, and therefore the taxpayers have a greater say, through their representatives, than the general public would have in regard to a production presented by a private person in his own theatre.

The main theme of the hon. member’s attack was the small number of English-speaking persons appointed to the censorship body. I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to give the exact numbers and the specific figures. However, I want to tell the hon. member in principle what the reply is that he will receive. It is that there was a lack of interest among the ranks of the English-speaking section of our population and it is owing to that lack of interest that so few English-speaking members were appointed. I now want to put a question to hon. members on that side: Which of them recommended a knowledgeable English-speaking person for inclusion in the panel?

I did.

I do not think I am wrong when I say that the hon. member for Durban Central is the only member of the Opposition …

I too.

Then there were two. Are there any more?

Yes, I did, too.

You do not count.

After the Act had been debated here, hon. members of the Opposition shamefully neglected their duty of ensuring that there would be due representation of the English language section of the population, with whom they are in the closest contact, and that the Minister should be given the names of a sufficient number of people with the necessary ability to enable him to apply in practice what they are making such a fuss about now. If hon. members continue to reproach the Government in this way because too few English-speaking persons are serving on this panel, we cannot let them get away with this tactic. In this regard I want to say, in the same calm tone as was adopted by the hon. member, that it is a pity that so few members of the English-speaking section of the population came forward. Whereas the hon. Opposition neglected their duty, other organizations made their recommendations. We are sorry that they are represented here by such a small number.

Are you really sorry?

Hon. members will hear from the hon. the Minister how he went out of his way to accept the majority of recommendations in respect of English-language persons and to appoint them, whereas he accepted a smaller percentage of the recommendations submitted to him in respect of Afrikaans-speaking persons.

As far as the subject of publications control is concerned, it is clear to me from what became evident in question time, and from the speech made by the hon. member, that there is one danger that is already lurking on the horizon. I refer to the danger that misgivings will be voiced in regard to the members of the committee which has to take the first decision. Now that we have such an outstanding appeal board, now that there is a judge as chairman, whom they will not be able to attack because they said that they would be satisfied with a judge, now that there is a person on the appeal board with the ability of an Anna Neethling-Pohl, now that a young lawyer with an outstanding record has been appointed as deputy chairman, now that a theologist with a doctor’s degree in ethics has been appointed, now that there is an English-speaking person on the appeal board who is an expert on education, now that they cannot criticize this appeal board, they will resort to the committee members who have to take the first decision, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has already started to do. As the Press has already done, and as the Opposition have done with their laughing during question time, they will come along and try to involve these committee members in every decision that is newsworthy. Every time a decision is made, they will ask: “Who was in the committee?” Oh, it was that “verkrampte” or that “verligte”, and what else can one expect? That is why I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that in applying the new Act, consideration be given to the protection of the committee members through not revealing which committee is responsible for a decision.

Close the doors again! Get into the little dark room at the back and make your decisions!

When I ask for this, then I am not asking, as the hon. member who is probably going to make a speech shortly, contends, that decisions be taken in dark rooms. The very point at issue is that decisions must not be taken behind closed doors; the point is that there is another remedy. When a decision is taken and the interested party is not satisfied with it, he has a good appeal board, he has a cheap appeal that will not cost him a great deal and he can test the decision of the committee. However, if we are going to have a witch hunt of members of the committee, that will have to take a decision once a week, if we have a witch hunt of people serving on the committee, this will undermine the system, making it useless and powerless, and we shall be unable to get more people who will be prepared to expose themselves to witch hunts of this kind. These people have been appointed to these panels on the basis of their ability. They have been appointed on the basis of their academic ability, their experience and on the basis of their broad insight in general in regard to the moral and ethical fields, and sometimes specialized fields too, such as theology, etc.

What proof have you of that?

The hon. member asks what proof there is. Let me give him one example. There is a Mrs. X. —I do not want to mention her by name— whom the hon. member would call a housewife. She comes from Vereeniging and the hon. Opposition will immediately say that she is probably related to an important person, because who, then, is Mrs. X? It is right that the hon. the Minister should not put these people in the limelight, but I just want to present Mrs. X to hon. members as a test case. Mrs. X has a B.A. degree with Afrikaans and Sociology as majors. She has also passed with distinction an M.A. degree in drama. Mrs. X of Vereeniging—no one sitting here knows her—is at present studying for a doctor’s degree in drama. Mrs. X of Vereeniging has ten or more years of experience as a teacher and as a social worker. Mrs. X is therefore outstandingly qualified to do this work. However, the question to be asked is why the hon. members should have the curriculum vitae of all these 200 people so as to be able to launch a witch hunt even before legislation is implemented. That is why I ask that these people be protected when they exercise their functions as committee members. The appeal board is there, the remedy is there and we owe it to them.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the statements which were made by the hon. member for Vereeniging, but I shall come to them in a moment. We have a larger amount on the Budget for the machinery of the new censorship boards for the current year and as it appears to me this amount will increase considerably in the course of time, if one looks at the scope of the new censorship structure. Now that the new machinery has been set into motion, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what staff has been appointed for the directorate, the committees as well as for the Appeal Board, in other words, what the overall staff position is at the moment, how many new offices have been opened, and at which places those offices are.

We cannot conduct a whole debate now, in this short time, on the principle of censorship and the machinery which has been created, because the new legislation came into operation only a month ago. This House knows exactly what our attitude is and I do not think that we have to state it again. This House knows that we are opposed to the system, as it is at the moment, but because it is new and came into operation only a month ago, it is obvious that no one—this is said in all fairness— can judge it properly at this early stage. Therefore, we are prepared—as with any legislation—although we are opposed to the system, to give the legislation a chance to prove itself. We shall express our criticism in this regard step by step on the basis of our experience with the legislation.

What I do want to criticize is the way in which the hon. the Minister launched the legislation. The practical task of exercising censorship now is the task of the committees which are appointed by the directorate from a panel of names of persons the hon. the Minister has to designate annually and has designated. The Government gave us certain assurances in this connection, when we conducted the debate on this legislation. We asked that all population groups be represented in the committees, and, if possible, also in the other sections of the machinery. The Government has given representation to a number of Indians and Coloureds.

Our standpoint is that it is fair to give the Black man representation as well, because their cultural activities are just as much affected by the decisions taken in this regard as those of Indians, Coloureds and Whites. In fact, up to now Black poets, actors and writers, have been affected far more severely by the censorship machinery than White writers and poets. The present Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs was in charge of the legislation and dealt with the legislation on behalf of the hon. the Minister and the Government. He said explicitly in this House, that if there were suitable candidates, Black representatives would also be appointed to the committees. It was said here, and we were satisfied with that. The House was under the impression, at the time of its prorogation, that all population groups were to be represented in the committees under the new machinery. The hon. the Minister, however, did not carry out the undertaking and we regard that as a serious injustice to a large section of our population. We should like to hear what role the hon. the Minister sees for the Black man in the process of censorship.

I think that one of his excuses, when this matter was raised earlier, was that there were eight Black nations, and how could he give all eight Black nations representation? It is strange that the Government did not think of that when it sent a delegation to the U.N. Then they sent a Coloured, and Indian and only one Black man. Then one Black man was enough. Now suddenly, they hide behind this. It is a weak argument, however. There are approximately 200 members on the Minister’s panel and there is no reason why he could not appoint eight, if there have to be eight.

However, a couple would have proved that the principle is recognized that the cultural rights of all population groups are drastically affected by what is at issue here. It is no more than fair that everyone should obtain representation. When the commission, of which I was a member, sat, we had very strong representations from English-speaking bodies, churches, the English Academy and other English cultural bodies. All expressed their dissatisfaction with the disregard for the position of the English-speaking citizen in respect of censorship control. The least everyone asked, was parity, because this specifically concerns a cultural matter. Where a cultural matter is at stake, there has to be parity, at least in terms of the spirit of our Constitution and in terms of the spirit in which matters are usually conducted, as far as English and Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned. We presented these views here. Again, the Government intimated that it would see that justice was done. I merely add that 90% of the material on which decisions have to be taken, with a view to censorship is English-language material. What is wrong, is that of the almost 200 members who the Minister appointed to the panel, only 40-odd are English-speaking South Africans. That is an injustice.

How did the hon. member establish that?

It is very easy. Between 40 and 50. One cannot always go according to the names only, but it so happens that I know many of these people. If I am wrong, the hon. the Minister can correct me. I asked him for the figure. However, there are no more than 40-50 English-speaking people on the whole list compiled by him. The Government is seen as an Afrikaner Government and, as an Afrikaner, I do not want to see anything happening on the grounds of which the other language group could say that it is being unfairly treated by Afrikaans-speaking people. The hon. the Minister, however, now brings in the excuse—as did the hon. member for Vereeniging—that the English-speaking people were not sufficiently interested and that they did not send in names. However, it is not in the Act that it is a requirement that people should send in their names. Many people are too humble to push themselves to the fore. The obligation is the Minister’s, since the Act provides that the Minister is to compile the panels. All the Minister did, was to appeal to people who were interested, to send in their names. Now, however, the hon. the Minister is, so to speak, creating legislation administratively by providing that only those who have sent in their names—and it was never said that this was an obligation—are considered for appointment. The hon. the Minister now hides behind the argument that there was supposedly an obligation and that only those who sent in their names could be taken into consideration. I think that that is completely unfair, since the appointments rest with the Minister. If the Minister received an incomplete list, it was his duty to see to it that justice was done to both language groups in South Africa. The hon. the Minister must not hide behind the name which came in, since it can very easily be that some people were encouraged to send in their names and others not.

You were encouraged to do so in this House.

Yes, of course, but there is no obligation in the Act. It was purely a request from the hon. the Minister. I shall not send in my name. The obligation is … [Interjections.] The Government appoints rent boards, social welfare bodies, etc. Since when do people have to apply to serve on such bodies? The hon. the Minister is hiding behind a weak and false excuse in this regard. The hon. the Minister cannot, in any case, evade his duty in this way.

However, I want to mention a further point of criticism. When I asked the hon. the Minister last year for the names which be had already received, he told me that he could not give these to me at that time, since only 68 names had been received. He created the impression that, when the total number of names had been received, he would give the particulars of the names which had been received. When I asked the hon. the Minister about the names and qualifications in the course of this session, he said that it was not in the interests of the people that the details should be disclosed. Why not? Why should a man be afraid to have his ability known if he is appointed in the public interest? I think that the refusal of the hon. the Minister to give us the details here in this Parliament and to take us into his confidence by telling us who the people are whom he has appointed and what their qualifications are, is an absolute violation of the rights of Parliament. How are we to judge? The Act obliges the hon. the Minister to appoint knowledgeable people. What we want to do, is not to launch a witch hunt. Our duty, as well as that of the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is a lawyer, is to stand up here and tell the Minister, “You have a duty to Parliament”. The hon. member for Vereeniging would have done so were he sensitive to the rights of this Parliament. The Minister is obliged by the Act to appoint knowledgeable people, but now he makes it impossible for us to judge whether or not he has appointed knowledgeable people.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, just before business was interrupted, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout played the strange role here of spokesman for the English-speaking community, and in this role of spokesman he went far further than the English-speaking community itself was prepared to go when we dealt with this Publications Bill here last year. The hon. member comes along and demands parity between the Afrikaans-and English-speaking communities. Sir, this is something that was not even asked for by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when he moved certain amendments here last year during the discussion of the Publications Bill. On that occasion, the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was that there should be “adequate” representation. What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mean by “parity”? Is it parity between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons? Is it parity between English-and Afrikaans-speaking persons and between Portuguese and Greeks and Jews or whoever may be in the country? Is it parity between Roman Catholics and Protestants? What did the hon. member mean by “parity”? The hon. member came along here with a new idea that has never even been discussed before. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Where does one get parity?

Under the Constitution.

Where does one get parity in this country? Does one get it on hospital boards; does one get it on rent boards?

Nowhere under this Government.

For example, Sir, do we get parity in the support the teaching profession receives from the English-speaking community? Do we get parity in the support the English-speaking community gives the Police Force in South Africa, for example? Do we get parity in certain other matters?

Do we get in the economy?

Does one get parity in the economy? There is no parity in the economy. The English-speaking community has a much greater share than the Afrikaans-speaking community in the economy. The entire composition of our society in South Africa is such that one does not get a proper, full parity between the various sections of the community anywhere, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now comes along with the ridiculous idea that we should supposedly have parity in the appointment of committees and the compiling of lists from which committees are to be appointed. As usual, Sir, the hon. member is very wide of the mark. As he ought to know, the National Party is not concerned with the number of Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking people serving on a board or a committee. They are concerned with the principle whether the people whose names are included on the list are qualified to make a contribution. The hon. member who served with us on this commission will know that some of the strongest supporters of the principle of the Bill, as eventually incorporated in the legislation, were English-sneaking people. In my opinion the hon. member is splitting hairs, politically speaking, when he comes along here with the idea of parity. The hon. member said that it was the responsibility of the Minister to seek people from the English-speaking community who were interested in serving on these committees and that it was not their responsibility to apply on their own behalf. The hon. member then mentioned the example of the Rent Boards, but there, too, he is wrong. Everyone who wants to be considered for appointment as a member of a Rent Board must first complete a proper application form before he can be considered. This must be done by the interested person himself. In this particular case the Minister said that it was unnecessary for them to apply on their own behalf. It is just that their names have to be submitted by hon. members of the Opposition and by hon. members on this side of the House. I can say that we have done our duty. In Bellville there are people who have already been appointed, and people who have been recommended by members of the Opposition could just as well have been appointed, too. This was the first point of the attack made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, viz. the issue of parity.

His second point of attack is the fact that at the moment there is no advisory committee made up of Black people. The hon. member is satisfied with the fact that committees for Indians and for Coloureds already exist. He is satisfied with that. But now he asks: Where are the Black people? and says that we are ignoring the Black people in the process. But surely the hon. member was a member of the commission of inquiry. He knows that we discussed this matter in the commission at great length. He knows very well that the National Party members in that commission adopted a very sympathetic standpoint towards the establishment of an advisory committee for the Black people. He knows that we did not ignore them. He knows that as the Act reads at present, there is no provision for the establishment of an advisory council for Black people.

Order! We cannot all speak together. The hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

He also knows that the Act will have to be amended to provide for the establishment of an advisory committee made up of Black people. He knows that this is not part of the Act at the moment. But he knows, too, that it was stated in the commission and here in the House too, by the Deputy Minister and other speakers on this side of the House, when we discussed these matters, that we were sympathetic towards this idea, but that it required further investigation and that it did not fall within the terms of reference of the commission to come to a decision on this matter. Further research in this connection was necessary and it was even possible that a further commission of inquiry would have to be appointed in this regard. Because there are administrative and sociological issues; there are issues concerning the morals and customs of Bantu and in regard to consulting the various homeland governments as to their points of view on this specific subject. All these aspects must first be researched before such a committee could be established. The Deputy Minister said that the necessary inquiries would be made from all the bodies and persons with an interest in this matter. I believe that when the Minister rises, he will be able to say that the message has already been sent to those bodies and that their reply is being awaited. We must realize that this Act only came into operation at the beginning of this month, and I think that if we allow this matter sufficient opportunity to develop, we shall reach the point where the various Bantu peoples of South Africa will be place in a position to make a contribution themselves as regards the implementation of censorship in this country, the control of publications in South Africa.

Sir, there is only a minute left and consequently I just want to refer briefly to the third point of attack raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. His third point of attack was that this list of names that has to be compiled annually by the Minister in terms of section 5 of the Publications Act is not made available to the House. But he is wrong. This list of names is published, and therefore all the names are available. He could, therefore, inspect it, because it is available. But that is not the point. The point is that the Minister has no say in the appointment of the various committees. The committees are appointed by the Directorate of Publications and the work entrusted to the committees is not enrusted to them by the Minister, but by the Directorate of Publications. It is not possible, therefore, to inquire as to which member or which committee made which decision. In any event, we have security of justice owing to the fact that we have appointed a strong appeal board. We have security of justice owing to the fact that the various committees must provide reasons for their decisions. I believe that if all these facts are taken into account, it is unnecessary for the hon. member to complain about further details he requires. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was absolutely shocked at the attitude of the hon. member for Bellville. One would have thought that he was abundantly aware of the fact that in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act there is provision for parity. What makes his speech even more shocking is the fact that he is a man who possesses the necessary legal qualifications and one would have thought that he would have taken the trouble to look at the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Section 108 of the Act provides—

It is a well known fact that when the hon. the Minister or any Minister or any administrator makes an appointment to any board or committee, the first question he asks is: “Are you a member of the Nationalist Party?” If the applicant is a member of the Nationalist Party, he is automatically appointed and a few United Party members and perhaps a few members of other political parties are also appointed. However, the hon. the Minister failed in the appointment of these committees. During the discussions we gathered that the hon. the Minister undertook to maintain parity, but he failed in his responsibilities and I think that he should be ashamed of himself. However, I want to deal with another matter.

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

I have only ten minutes at my disposal and therefore I shall not reply to questions.

I feel very unhappy about the decisions on race classifications in the country which are taken by the present Government. The case which I want to discuss, is the case of a Chinese girl who married a White man in South Africa. I did not want to raise this matter in the House; I should have preferred to discuss it outside the House. For the past year I have been trying to solve the matter by way of discussions with the two hon. Ministers, but I regret to say that my attempts have not been successful. To me this is an unpleasant matter and I regret the fact that I am forced to raise this in the House tonight I am deeply disappointed and shocked to the core by the incomprehensible attitude the Government adopts on matters of race classification. [Interjections.] The question which arises is whether this Government is so callous, incompetent and irresponsible that they do not know what is at stake in a matter of this nature. This attitude of the Government in 1975 is of such a nature that they involve the whole question of race in South Africa.

†I should like to deal briefly with the Population Registration Act and its implementation. In some of the cases the decisions are such that it is a case of apartheid gone absolutely mad. It grieves me that I could not settle these matters with the hon. Ministers in question, but they are totally unreasonable. I should like to deal with the hon. the Minister of the Interior. On Monday night, that dramatic night in the History of South Africa, the hon. the Minister addressed a meeting at the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg. I am told by people that they were very impressed with his speech and that he gave the impression that he was very verlig. I was pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister was very verlig. I thought that a heart transplant had taken place. However, I do not accept that the hon. the Minister is verlig or that a heart transplant has taken place, because the hon. the Minister is responsible for some of the worst decisions that can be made by any Government in these race classification cases. That speech of the hon. the Minister about verligtheid is either sincere or a big bluff. The test of the hon. the Minister’s sincerity is the verdict that we get in these race classification cases and I propose to deal with one in detail. These decisions are completely soul destroying. Many of these cases are deserving cases in which the hon. the Minister should recommend to his Secretary that they should reverse the decisions. In these cases the Government has the power to reduce decent human-beings to a state of absolute degradation. In other matters the Government has shown that it is prepared to rise above petty politics and that it is prepared to use a statesmanlike approach. South Africa demands a firm, strong and compassionate Government. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that when he is compassionate he is not being weak. Compassion is a sign of strength. If he reverses some of these decisions it is a sign of strength and not a sign of weakness.

Hear, hear!

I find that in these race classification cases there is no compassion whatsoever when one appeals to the hon. the Minister. We are all conscious of the fact that these matters must not be brought into the hurly-burly of the debating chamber at this stage of our history in South Africa. They should be settled outside. However, it is absolutely useless trying to deal with the hon. the Minister.

I want to deal with the actual case in question. The facts are that a White South African male married a Chinese South African girl in Rhodesia in 1971. She is accepted as White and when she goes into a Government department they accept her as White. They live in a White residential area and they have a business in a White residential area. I just want to interpose here that the Chinese community of South Africa is a small community and that most of them are settled in Port Elizabeth. Many of us have had the privilege of meeting members of this Chinese community at all levels. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows that the White school board of Port Elizabeth controls only one school for another race group in Port Elizabeth and that is the Chinese school. To all intents and purposes the Chinese people are accepted in many respects as Whites and to the best of my knowledge the Education Department of the Cape Provincial Administration has the Chinese school falling directly under its auspices. If one has accepted the criteria of acceptance and appearance in this particular case, then it is obvious that this Chinese girl’s application to be reclassified as White should have been accepted and she should have been allowed to become a White person. I want to tell hon. members that many members of the Chinese community in South Africa look White but they are a proud community and they are not going to swamp the Department of the Interior with applications to be reclassified as White people. These people are proud of their identity. This young Chinese girl is approximately 29 years old and she married a man with a well known South African surname. For four years they have lived in happiness and the girl has tried to get herself reclassified, but without success. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as I am concerned and as far as our party is concerned this particular applicant is more White than the majority of White people in South Africa. There will be no problem whatsoever if she is reclassified as White. I want to say that this Chinese girl and her husband do not want to leave South Africa; they want to continue living here. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the alternatives are that are open to this couple. Firstly that they must leave South Africa and go to live overseas. They do not want to do that. They want to stay here and they want to make their contribution to South Africa. The second alternative is that they must part company. They do not want to do that as they have lived together for four years and they have made a way of life for themselves. The third alternative is that they must continue living together and breaking the law of the country and face the possibility of being charged under the provisions of the Immorality Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is what he wants for South Africa. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he does not reclassify this girl as White there is no equality and no equability in his policy. He can tell it to the marines or to whomsoever he wants to. There is no fairness whatever if this girl is not reclassified as White. The hon. the Minister is laughing at this at this particular stage. He should be ashamed of himself for laughing. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is known in South African politics to hold a right-wing view and it is with that same right-wing view that he now commands and directs his department. I am quite convinced of the fact that if another hon. Minister dealt with this matter or if the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with it this girl would be reclassified in five minutes.

There is another case I want to mention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, who, pray, is this hon. member, that he should carry on in this fashion? I do not know where the hon. member gets all his Dutch courage from to address a senior Minister in such a manner. [Interjections.] Let me give him the facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] Just listen to the facts. The hon. member made representations after the matter had been dealt with by the Secretary. The hon. member knows what the legal provisions are relating to the responsibilities of the Secretary. He then made representations in exactly the right way and his representations were considered. Subsequently he again made representations. I, then, came on the scene as the Deputy Minister …

Yes, unfortunately.

… with the delegated instruction to deal with these matters. The hon. member knows very well the trouble that was taken. I had a personal interview with him on his request.

Yes, of 40 minutes.

I told him, “Mr. Aronson, give me a chance to look at the facts for myself; I shall then-let you know and please then come and see me at my office.” I told the hon. member that I myself took the trouble to take the file with me when I went to Pretoria in order to discuss it personally with the Secretary of the department.

What was the result?

Already, at that stage, I told the hon. member that I was satisfied that the Secretary had acted correctly in all respects. The hon. member then asked me: “What will the Minister say about this?” I then said, “It is not even necessary for me to refer this matter to the Minister, but to please a colleague I shall nevertheless take the matter to the Minister.” The hon. member knows that I took that file to the Minister. I explained to the Minister that I had already told the hon. member that the Secretary had acted correctly in all respects and that this was also my point of view on the matter.

The Minister threw the case out.

Shut up, man!

Order!

The Minister did not even have to consider the matter. It was my responsibility and I need not go to the Minister with everything. Nevertheless, in spite of his full programme, the Minister was obliging enough to say, “Since this colleague has asked what my opinion is, send me the file so that I myself may have a look at it.” The Minister then did so. Only after that did I write to the hon. member and confirm the position to him. Now I ask him: Is he not ashamed of himself? [Interjections.] After all, he says that the Minister is callous and that the Minister does not want to listen to his representations, but he is aware of the facts. Now he wants to make representations in this House by saying that this young lady —and I am extremely sorry that he has raised this matter across the floor of the House …

It was necessary.

The hon. member knows that the parents of this young lady are Chinese. In fact, the entire family is Chinese.

What is wrong with that? Is that a crime?

There is no doubt that she herself is also Chinese, because she has Chinese parents who admit that they are Chinese. She herself admits that she is Chinese.

What is wrong with that?

Let me add that these two people did not go and marry innocently in Rhodesia. They did not go to Rhodesia to enter into a legal marriage there. Their residential address in Port Elizabeth is the same. Prom there they drove to Rhodesia to enter into an illegal marriage there and returned to South Africa within a few days.

Are they people?

You are a baboon. [Interjections.]

Order! I now want to make an earnest appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to put his case. If they do not do so, I shall take strict action.

The hon. member must not expect his clients to be able to go abroad …

He is not a client of mine.

… and enter into illegal marriages there and then want to come and twist our arms by asking whether they now have to live in sin.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to insinuate that a member raised an issue here because a client of his was involved in it? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat: Members must not come to the Secretary of the department and from there approach the Ministry with cases and facts with which they wish to twist the arm of the Government. This kind of thing will not be considered in the future. [Interjections.] If other hon. members opposite want to act as that hon. member has done, I can tell them at once that they really must not expect us to give them sympathetic consideration. [Interjections.]

We do not expect it.

The hon. member knows that I showed him two instances of serious contradictions in that file. I shall not mention them now. I said that these people could at least have come to us with clean hands.

Those are minor details.

Yes, but the hon. member states matters here as facts, which are not correct. This is the kind of case the hon. member has raised here this evening and this, then, is my reply to the hon. member. The classification is correct in that case and will not be changed, even though they live in sin and even though they should leave South Africa. That is final.

I should now like to deal with the hon. member for Parktown. I am replying to the hon. member for Parktown in regard to the cases he raised. It is unnecessary to do so, really, but the hon. member was friendly enough to tell me that he would reveal all the facts. I shall therefore assist him with pleasure. However, there is something I want to tell the hon. member. Before coming here this evening and taking out handkerchiefs and moving people to tears, he should at least have made sure of his facts. Here I stand now with a departmental file before me. It concerns the first case mentioned by the hon. member. In this case the grandparents, parents and members of the family are all Coloureds, and they are all accepted as such in the community, too.

No.

Yes. I know the hon. member did not know that. I am telling him now. Consequently I repeatedly asked the hon. member to tell us to what race the parents of these children to whom he referred belong. He only said that the grandmother was a Coloured.

These are the facts as furnished to me.

I shall now give the hon. member the facts. The rest of the family are in a Coloured area. There are many cases here of people living in White areas. This whole family—the grandmother and the parents of these six children—are Coloureds. The entire family are Coloureds. They live in a Coloured residential area and are accepted by Coloureds as Coloureds. I could probably refer the hon. member to about ten families who confirmed this during the investigation. Now the hon. member comes along and, without even making sure of the facts, makes serious accusations against the hon. the Minister and the Government. I only want to ask that the hon. member should first make sure of his facts before making accusations of this kind…

They have been checked.

Give me a chance now. I listened patiently to the hon. member this afternoon. It is the kind of thing the hon. member has done this afternoon that is published abroad. [Interjections.]

The second case the hon. member mentioned concerns the Bantu person who wants to be classified as a Coloured. That person’s parents are Bantu. They were originally classified as Bantu without there being any objection. He himself is classified as a Bantu and now he is applying to be reclassified as a Coloured. The hon. member ought to know that according to law that cannot be done. The Secretary of the department acted entirely correctly, as in the case of this Coloured family, too. Why does the hon. member not take more trouble with his facts before coming and raising matters like these in the House. This is my objection to the hon. member, and I say this to the hon. member in a spirit of goodwill. In future he must please refrain from coming along again and arguing as he argued this afternoon without making sure of his facts in advance, because otherwise, mistaken impressions can be created which will not be to our benefit.

I operate on the basis of the facts which the people furnish to me. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member were to see what is stated in this file, he would fall on his face, He did not even take the trouble to find out the most elementary details.

The third matter mentioned by the hon. member is one which, in my opinion, need not be discussed in this debate. The hon. member must approach the Secretary for the Interior in regard to that matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I only rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the action of the hon. Chief Whip on our side. I just want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that as far as the third case he mentioned is concerned, this is a matter that need not be discussed in this debate. He need not hesitate to raise the matter with the Secretary of the department.

There is another aspect that I also want to mention à propos of the speeches made by hon. members here this afternoon. If they look at the annual report, they will see that on page 10, statistics in regard to classifications are provided. There are various aspects of this. The figures for last year and for this year are given there. Hon. members will note that the figure for this year, if my adding is correct, is 90-odd. I should like to bring to the attention of this House the fact that these are examples of cases where the Secretary, under the legal provisions that allow him to do so, is entitled to take action which is not in accordance with the wishes of the legislator. Then we are accused by members opposite of callousness and lack of sympathy in cases of this kind. Here we have over 90 cases where the secretary of the department acted correctly and complied with the wishes of these people. In my opinion this is a fine example of the sympathetic way in which these cases are considered.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister have the figure relating to the number of cases that are turned down?

The figure that appears in the annual report represents about 10% of the total.

This means that about 90% are turned down?

Yes, about 90% are turned down, whereas about 10% of the applications are complied with. I also want to say, for the information of hon. members who were making such a fuss just now, that as far as these race classification applications are concerned, they receive the most earnest attention of the department from the outset. They receive the most sympathetic attention. I want to tell hon. members that there is not a single case in regard to which a finger can be pointed at the Secretary or the department to whom this matter is entrusted, and where it cannot be said that the greatest possible trouble was taken and the highest degree of sympathy displayed. I hope that this accusation made this evening will not be repeated in this House. What is more, in the past the hon. the Minister himself went out of his way and took the trouble to discuss matters with the Secretary of the department, to have another look at matters and to come back to hon. members. I really hope, therefore, that we have heard the last of this accusation of callousness, of lack of sympathy and attention, in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to argue with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I just want to make one simple statement and that is that the facts that I mentioned here during the debate before dinner this evening came from the people concerned and their legal representatives. If one cannot trust these people to give one the facts, then one is at a loss to know where to get them from.

You could verify those facts.

I also want to repeat another statement I made before dinner and that is that this is a degrading system which does nobody any good. The sooner we rid ourselves of it the better for this country and the better for the image of this country overseas. This wailing of what does us harm overseas leaves me absolutely unimpressed. It is this kind of indefensible thing (race classification) which does this country a (great deal of harm.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss something very different just for a few moments. I want to raise the question of visas and passports, particularly as far as Black and Brown people are concerned. The outstanding instance at the moment as far as the Coloured community is concerned is, of course, the situation of Mr. Sonny Leon, the Chairman-elect of the CRC. As far as we know, Mr. Leon is still without a passport, which was taken away from him. If this is still a fact, if his passport has not yet been returned to Mr. Leon, then I say that this is an indefensible situation. Here we have a man who is perhaps the leading member of the Coloured community of South Africa, about to occupy the highest nominative elective office as far as his people are concerned, and this man is without a passport. What would happen—this is a hypothetical circumstance which could very well take place—if Mr. Leon were asked tomorrow to visit a foreign country, either on this continent or elsewhere, and he had to say to those who invited him: “I am sorry. I am about to occupy this chair, but nobody has given me a passport; it has been taken away.” I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will give us a statement and that he will tell us exactly what the position is as far as Mr. Leon is concerned. It would be a disastrous situation if this were not rectified. The Government and the hon. the Minister would have to admit that they had made a sad, sad mistake. I want to deal particularly with the question of Coloured and Black people as far as passports are concerned. I would like to know why invariably, almost without exception, there is an inordinate delay in issuing passports to Black people—even when it has absolutely nothing to do with politics. The Minister shakes his head.

Can you prove that?

Yes, I am going to prove it now, I hope. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister will have to take another 10 minutes to deny my facts. I take the most recent case of an African that has been brought to my notice. He is Mr. G. A. Mkhize of Umlazi, who is the principal of a secondary school in Kwa Mashu. He was given an educational travel grant by the United States Government. He had not left this country on 17 April, as he was still waiting for a passport, although his course was supposed to have started in Washington on 2 April.

When did he apply?

He applied at the beginning of March, which does not seem to me to be an unreasonable situation. On 15 April Mr. Mkhize received a letter from the department asking him to supply his date and place of birth. This letter came after the United States Embassy in Pretoria had been asked to negotiate with the Department of the Interior, by which time Mr. Mkhize had realized that he would be too late to take up the grant. I was given these facts which have not been controverted so far. This is the question we would like to ask, the same question Mr. Mkhize asked: Why did the department wait so long before asking him where he was born and on what date he was born? Did they not already have this information? He said that as far as he was concerned he was a public servant and that these personal details must have been known to anybody in the department who had taken any trouble to find them. I mention this because I think that it is hardly surprising that the conviction exists among large sections of the public that people of colour in this kind of situation are sent from pillar to post, that decisions are made at the last moment and that if a decision is unfavourable no explanation is given.

Now, however, I would like to pay a tribute to the Department of the Interior. This may perhaps be an unexpected tribute. It is simply that, when it comes to a refusal to give explanations for the withholding of passports, there is no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. Everybody, whether he is Black, White or Blue, is refused any kind of explanation. Everybody is treated equally high-handedly or off-handedly; there is no discrimination. I exonerate the department from this.

In a letter to me a very outstanding White Natalian, whose name I am prepared to give to the hon. the Minister if he wants it—I will not bandy it across the floor of this House—wrote—

Surely, it is deplorable that responsible and reasonable people, such as this man I have mentioned, should be forced to come to such conclusions and I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me.

What are you insinuating?

I am insinuating that this is a situation which is to be deplored and that something ought to be done about it, but there are far too many instances of this happening as far as people of colour are concerned, where they are bandied about and do not get a square deal. That is what I am saying. I am not insinuating anything, I am saying this straight out. What is even more deplorable, is what effect this dithering as far as passports and Coloured people are concerned, has on the outside world and on the people who invite them? I am thinking of a case in which the hon. the Minister was helpful and for which I am very grateful. We managed to sort it out in the end. It concerned a Black writer. The hon. the Minister will recall the case. I shall not mention the name again, but it took over a year. I was not the only one, but only one of dozens of people who made representations. He had been given a very prestigious university bursary in the United States from two universities, and it took him 18 months—or nearly that anyway— before he was given a passport. What effect does this have on the outside world?

A disgrace!

We talk about our image. The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about it, but this is the kind of thing that really ruins it. Also in the realm of the treatment of people of colour, I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to the case of which he might well have read in the Johannesburg newspapers, the case of Mrs. Desai, a professor at Bombay University. For the last 18 years, her husband’s family has fought fruitlessly for her to settle in South Africa with her husband. I gather that an application has once again been turned down. I am only pointing this out to the hon. the Minister so as to show that this decision was contrary to the promise that was given by the hon. the Prime Minister at his meeting with the Indian Council some time ago, i.e. that applications from the wives and children of South African Indians would be sympathetically considered. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain to this Committee why this woman—obviously a woman of considerable ability and whose husband is a successful businessman and who I am told has certainly done his best to maintain links with this country while living abroad—and people like this are denied the right to come to this country?

Because they are Indian.

What is the reason for the decision? It is a decision which has been described as “blatantly racialistic”. I am hoping for the sake of South Africa’s reputation abroad that the hon. the Minister has got a good explanation for this.

Then I want to refer very briefly to the case of two distinguished foreigners who have been denied visas to visit South Africa. The one is a Dutch academic, Dr. Johannes Veddema. The other is an old friend (or an old non-friend) of long standing as far as I am concerned, Prof. Gwendolen Carter, who incidentally wrote a first-class book on this country called The Politics of Inequality. There are various other cases of American academics also having been refused visas. The point that I want to make about this, is that whatever they have got against Prof. Gwendolin Carter—heaven knows what it is! What is it? I do not know—the damage which has been done to South Africa’s image and reputation abroad by the refusal of travel facilities to responsible and distinguished foreigners such as Prof. Carter, is incalculable and infinitely greater than any damage that could be done by what any of these people ever wrote. Only very recently, a couple of weeks ago, a well-known South African newspaperman in Washington wrote that visitors to this country seem to become “undesirable” when they say “nasty things” about South Africa.

Nonsense!

But look at the success the Government had with Arthur Ashe. They kept him out here for a while; then they let him in. Are they not glad that they let him in? Why do they not let other people as well into the country? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are sick and tired, to the depths of our hearts, of the leftist liberalism which the Opposition … [Interjections.] I want to tell you that when I sat there in the private secretaries’ benches years ago as a young man, I wished from the bottom of my heart, while I was listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that I could become a member of this House so as to have a hand in doing something about the injustice and the blatant lies being told against South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order, order!

Order! The hon. member said nothing unparliamentary. He spoke of blatant lies being told against South Africa. He did not accuse hon. members of that. The Chair will decide for itself when to call an hon. member to order.

Mr. Chairman, we are really and truly sick and tired of this thing, of their singling out minor incidents, a few people, distorting them and throwing them into the world to try to show the world that we are following a policy of suppression and of stepping on people.

Sir, just before the latest Unesco publication of the U.N. on apartheid was banned, I paged through it cursorily in the library. Because it is banned, I may not quote from it, but in that publication there are references to several other publications of the U.N., and if hon. members on that side just want to take the trouble to go and see what incalculable damage they do to South Africa by singling out incidents and exceptions and holding these up to the world as the policy of this Government, then they must come to their senses some time or other. Sir, we had an excellent example here today in the hon. member for Walmer and also in the hon. member for Durban Central when he dealt with the wage gap in the Public Service. Sir, it is time for these people to come to their senses as far as this charge against us in connection with the wage gap is concerned. There are a few points which I should like to mention to them in connection with the wage gap. The hon. member for Durban Central referring to teachers said: “There need not be a gap at all. We have the means to wipe it out altogether.” Sir, last year in a different debate here, I quoted a figure to point out to hon. members on the opposite side that we had reduced the gap between the salaries of Black teachers and White teachers by 12% since 1973 and that it cost the Government R40 million during the past financial year. If we want to wipe out that gap altogether then it is going to cost the Government an amount of R70 million. Sir, in considering this question of the wage gap, we should take a few points into account.

The first point which I want to make here, is that we should not look at this gap through the spectacles of liberalism and of humanism. One of the greatest truths which the Oppositions just cannot perceive—they see right past it—is the elementary truth that there is no such thing as equality between people in the world in which we live. When we speak about equal worth, when we speak about human dignity, then these are inherent in our aspirations and our policy, but equality is a false concept with which hon. members on the opposite side are playing, and that is why they come up against so many absurdities all the time. Sir, nowhere in the world is the falsity of the concept of equality better illustrated than in the very area of salaries in the economic capitalistic system in which we move. In no country in the world is there such a thing as salary equality. The whole world is struggling with the problem of salary differences. In the United States, there are large salary differences, also based on colour. We are told that the gap there, between the salaries of the Negroes and the Whites, is still growing, not because there is job reservation, as hon. members on that side want to make us believe but because it is an elementary economic reality.

That is not true.

The sooner hon. members on the opposite side take off those liberalistic, humanistic spectacles, the better they will be able to see what the economic realities are. I just want to read out to the hon. member for Sandton, who is making so much noise, what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, his new chief, said with reference to the inquiry which was instituted here in respect of salaries paid here by British firms. He said—

Sir, surely there is no sense in arguing here on an absolutely humanistic basis. There is another point which we should also take into consideration when we speak about the wage gap, and the hon. member for Durban Central could well take note of this. The question of the salary gap is one of the most complicated matters which one can find. Hon. members on that side show their ignorance by talking, as the hon. member for Green Point did here today, only of the salary gap among professional people. They merely do us a disservice. We are dealing here with the Public Service Commission’s Vote, and our Public Service is in many respects a leader amongst the public services of Africa. We are also a leader of the developing Public Services of the Black homelands around us. The hon. the Minister is responsible for the Public Service Commission, and together with the Cabinet for the salary structure of the Public Service, and if they do not see these things in perspective and allow the whole question of the wage gap to run wild, so that it has a ripple effect to the whole of our economy, we shall surely find ourselves in a dilemma from which we shall never be able to escape. Then we shall put the Bantu homelands in a position of never being able to pay their own people. The same position applies throughout Africa. It is an elementary economic truth throughout the whole of Africa, that the African States pay salaries to the people who are in service of the authorities—and they admit it themselves, as a result of pressure— which form a far greater percentage of the national income than is economically justified. Surely we cannot embark on that course. But we say that this is a complicated issue. Let us just look at it briefly. We have a gap between salaries of the Public Service and of the private sector. There is a gap in salaries between the various industries in the private sector and there are gaps between salaries in various professions, in the salaries between men and women, etcetera—ad infinitum. Why should they single out the race element, which is also a factor in economic reality in South Africa, and present it to the view of the whole world?

But there is another thing which I want to tell them. The hon. member for Durban Central can also look at this. This is the third point, and it is that, if we look realistically at the situation in South Africa, we must admit that in many aspects it will eventually be almost impossible, in the absolute meaning of the word, to wipe out the salary gap. We are faced by the reality of a tremendous population growth among the Black population, which is flooding the labour market. We are also faced by other realities. Let me tell this to the hon. member for Durban Central and the Opposition. On 31 August last year, there was a report in The Argus, and they can easily check it. According to that report, which dealt with the average salaries of Whites and Blacks in the manufacturing industry, it will cost an amount of R298 million per month, i.e. almost R3 000 million per year, to eliminate the gap between the average salaries in the manufacturing industry. I can also refer them to the amount which it would have cost to eliminate the gap in the construction industry. It will cost R1200 million per year in the construction industry. But now they come along and, on the one hand, tell the voters of South Africa that the Government is forcing inflation on to the people. But on the other hand they have been forcing up the salaries of the Whites for many years. They tell us on this side that we pay the people too little. They tell the people outside they are suffering too many hardships, and as salaries are pushed up, so the gap becomes wider and then they come here and say we are responsible for the gap. Sir, I wont to tell you this. The pivot on which the question of salaries hinges—and this is my fourth point—is not whether we have wiped out the gap altogether, but whether we are paying proper, decent salaries to the Blacks of South Africa. I want to say thot our Public Service, which is in the hands of the authorities, is a symbol of justice towards Black people and towards Brown people as regards paying decent, living wages. Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove is sitting over there sniggering. When one listens to him speaking about these matters, what he says testifies not only to ignorance, but also and it actually makes one shudder—to his liberalism and humanism which have no perspective whatsoever as regards the facts and the realities here in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the subject I want to deal with, will serve to calm feelings a little and bring about a calm before the storm. I should like to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Florida in the House yesterday, in which he advocated the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the question of the science of information. Since it was raised in a national context, I should like to emphasize the practical application thereof in particular. I want to refer to a practical arm which already exists in our Public Service machinery, and which is dealing with this matter with great competence at the moment, which has built up a very great source of skill in this field and also made a great deal of progress in this sphere. This arm is the mechanization division of the Public Service Commission. Unfortunately this division has certain limitations. By referring very briefly to three examples, I shall try to highlight the problems and limitations of this practical arm.

The first is that a tremendous amount of facts are generated in the technological development of the RSA. These are facts which should be processed into useful information. That information should be stored, so that it can be obtained later and used again. Technological information is also generated abroad and it is important that South Africa also collects such information, processes it, correlates that which we have and also stores it for future recovery. It is here where the dimension of the new problem becomes apparent. The dimension I am referring to, is the correlation and exchange of information.

The second example relates to the economic activities of a country. The economic activity of a country stands or falls by the ability to collect, process, store and subsequently recover information. Because our economic activities consist of a large number of sectors, this new dimension becomes apparent here as well. Here too, we are dealing with the correlation and exchange of information.

The third example has to do with the national administration, and in that connection, I want to quote a more specific example. We see that we also have the same pattern in this case, because here too there is the collection, the processing, the storing and the subsequent recovery of information. Therefore, we have this new dimension again. Since there are so many Government departments which find it necessary to collect information and store it, we face the question of the correlation and exchange of information once again.

If we look at the Central Government, the provincial authorities and the local authorities, which include the Government and semi-Government organizations, we can put it this way: As the welfare of a people increases, its activities increase and to the extent that its activities increase, it generates facts which have to be processed into information. The information increases all the time and while the information could be processed by manual labour in the past, the information now has to be processed on a computerized basis, because there is not sufficient manual labour available. Therefore, we have entered the era of the computer.

Let us take a Government department such as the Department of Foreign Affairs as a specific example and regard it as a closed compartment which is autonomous and has needs peculiar to itself. In this compartment, information has to be collected and adjusted to meet the needs peculiar to the department. Furthermore, the information has to be stored in such a way that it can be recovered later so as to provide for the needs of the department. We see one important factor immediately, viz. the documentation of the different processes in the computer system. The hon. member for Florida pointed out quite clearly the strategic importance of the documentation of these different processes, because auditing functions must still be possible. Then there is also the question of maintenance. The possibility that new needs will have to be introduced to the system without existing needs in the system being affected, must also be kept in consideration. I want to mention a minor example. If we take the name, the address; the identity number and the date of birth of a person and see which departments in the Government machinery need this information, we come to the population register, the Department of Internal Revenue, the telephone department, the departments charged with radio, television and motor car licences, the bodies responsible for electricity accounts, and the Deeds Offices. As far as bodies outside the Public Service are concerned, we come to insurance, banking and the financing of hire-purchase transactions. Say, for example, ten of these people move from Cape Town to Pretoria. Can hon. members see what tremendous need there will be for the exchange of this information between these different departments and bodies? Therefore, what I am trying to explain here, is that there is a tremendous need for communication between these various compartments. This can be done in three ways. It can be done by manual labour, but then, if the information increases to more than can be coped with, this will no longer be possible. Or it can be done by mechanical methods, such as tapes. Another alternative is that it can be done by means of direct electronic communication. The important factor is the interchangeability of the information and this need exists in all Government, semi-Government and private sectors. Let us confine ourselves purely to the Government aspect of this problem and then I should like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister this evening. We already have such an arm, i.e. in the mechanization division of the Public Service Commission. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there should not be an inquiry as to whether this problem could not be settled within the present set up of this mechanization division. If they cannot settle a problem within the present set up, can they not be given more statutory power to act in an overlapping or co-ordinating capacity? It is not possible to effect this co-ordination, standardization or rationalization, if the systems are not already planned in the documentation and the design in such a way that the machinery, which will make the exchange and correlation possible, is built in.

I want to conclude by referring to what Langenhoven said, i.e. (translation) “That one should not pay the price of a donkey and then expect the work of a horse.” As far as computerization is concerned, the opposite applies. That is that we should guard against paying the price of a horse and eventually only getting the work of a donkey.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the cool clinical discussion of the hon. member for Wonder-boom has taken the steam out of this debate. Perhaps the Whips of the Nationalist Party acted very wisely, because had they not, tempers could have run very high. I must congratulate the hon. member for Wonderboom on his talk on the technological development of the Republic of South Africa and on how the Public Service Commission fits into it. He has stated his case very coolly and calmly, which is in absolute opposition to the attitude of the hon. member for Innesdal. I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to answer the hon. member for Innesdal because his was not a speech worthy of reply. It was a contemptuous speech, the product of a fanatical young man. He still has a lot to learn. He has to learn to live and let live. He is still young. He has had 27 years of indoctrination by this Government and he is going to see that one day it is going to crumble. However, I do not want to go further into that.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior, apart from his position in the hierarchy on that side of the House, holds a very responsible office in the Government of South Africa. As a matter of fact, one can say that he has something to do with us from the time before we are born until the time when we are in our tombs.

From the womb to the tomb!

First of all, if one happens to be an immigrant, the hon. the Minister will decide whether one can come into South Africa or not. Once one has been in South Africa five years or so, he will decide whether one can become a South African citizen. When one has become a South African citizen and decides to get married, he will guide your marriage. Of course, one cannot marry whom one likes. He also ensures, in terms of the Marriage Act, that one’s marriage conforms to a pattern. Furthermore, he sees to it that when one is born, one is registered and classified. Then, when one turns 18 years of age, one is registered as a voter. So it goes on. One marries, reproduces and dies and then he still registers one’s death. I hope that that is then the end of it. The hon. the Minister has all that power over us. He knows exactly where we are, who we are and what we are. He has got us into a nice little neat box, in neat little compartments. Each of us has a file with green tape on it and that is the end of it.

Because the hon. the Minister wields such power and has such influence in the country and in the Government, I want to make an appeal to him. Before we became a Republic, before the winds of change came, we used to move freely and at will between the so-called Protectorates as they were then and South Africa, and not only we but also the Blacks, Coloureds and so on. In the course of time people have married in Swaziland, in Lesotho and in Botswana and there was movement backwards and forwards. The winds of change came, we became a Republic, and Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana became independent. Suddenly we were faced with border posts and so on. Everyone who had been moving backwards and forwards, was suddenly told that one had to have a passport. People got their passports and some were told: “You are not entitled to a passport, because you are an alien in this country. You must get a visa.” I am now thinking of Coloured people. I am thinking of cases where South African Coloureds have married people of mixed descent in, shall we say, Swaziland. I have a particular case in mind where a South African Coloured married a Swaziland Coloured over 20 years ago. They have lived in Natal ever since they got married. They have four children and they are living decent Christian lives. They are respectable in every respect. The wife goes backwards and forwards to visit her parents. She has a Swaziland passport. Somehow or other she got hold of an identification document years ago when they first came in, but when all this new “jazz” came in, she had to hand that in and found herself with a temporary permit. It is in this connection that I want to make my plea. These people have lived here all these years … [Interjections.] Now wait a minute. They have lived here all these years, and to all intents and purposes they are South Africans in outlook, upbringing and so on. They are not “trying for White” or anything like that. They know they are Coloureds, and they are respectable people. However, she has to renew this temporary permit year in and year out. Surely the time has come, after all these years, for us to do something to amend the legislation, whether it be the Aliens Act or the Population Registration Act. Something should be done to give these people a sense of security, a sense of being able to live here. All they ask is that they be allowed to live here without the fear of some official saying one day that they are aliens and that it is time they went back to Lesotho, Botswana or Swaziland, as the case may be. I ask the Minister to give this matter serious thought and to change the legislation.

I am also thinking of the Parsees. The Parsees are Indians of a very high caste. They are cultured. They are a proud people. I would not say they are becoming inbred, but because of our legislation they are coming damn near to it. Because of our legislation a Parsee man cannot marry a Parsee girl from overseas. There are not many of them, so surely we can stretch a point somewhere and give these people some relief so that they can at least lead decent lives and remain here to contribute to the wealth of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi began by calling the hon. member for Innesdal a “fanatical young man”. To me the hon. member for Umlazi seemed much more like an “inflated with the winds of change old man”. By the time he resumed his seat, however, he had been somewhat deflated. I am sure that when the hon. the Minister has received the particulars of what was mentioned by the hon. member, he will give the matter his sympathetic attention, and that the hon. member will receive the decent treatment which we are accustomed to from the hon. the Minister and his department.

I should like to say something else about the Public Service. I believe that the positive importance of our Public Service is not emphasized strongly enough. It is rightly said that the Department of the Interior is concerned with every person in South Africa. It is concerned with people from the cradle to the grave.

We all know that.

Yes, I hear someone say that we all know that. I hope those on that side of the House all know it. I just want to emphasize it again. From the cradle to the grave we are constantly in touch with the Public Service and with the representative of the State, namely our public servants or the officials of other authorities such as the provincial administrations and the local authorities. Because of this contact one forms an image over the years, an image of the people one encounters at every stage. A certain image is created of our Public Service and its officials.

In one’s earliest years, one forms an image of one’s teacher who teaches one in one’s early standards. The image may be either favourable or unfavourable. Then there is the sergeant-major who helps one complete one’s military training. He usually makes an indelible impression on one. When one receives one’s first salary cheque, the Receiver of Revenue is standing next to one’s boss to receive his inevitable share, and quite rightly. I may say that he is a life-long friend who makes quite a profound impression on one. When one buys one’s first motor vehicle, not only the licensing official is waiting for one to receive his share, but also the Nemesis of all budding Jody Scheckters, namely the traffic officer with his little book. He too makes an indelible impression. There are other examples of such impressions which are being made on our people in South Africa every day, the one made by our officialdom on the public, for example. The reason for this is obvious. The State is the biggest single employer in South Africa today. If we examine this more closely, we see that the approximate number of officials employed by the State in some capacity is as follows: The central Government employs 258 000 people, the provincial administrations employ approximately 204 600, and the municipal authorities 193 000—a total of 658 000. Of this number, 256 000 are Whites and more than 400 000 are non-Whites. In this giant organization, with its thousands of branches in almost all spheres of our society, we find officials who come into contact with people. If we could ask our public servants a question, we would ask: What kind of impression do you make on me as a member of the public and what impression do you make as a representative of the State? Is the impression you make a pleasant one, or is it perhaps unpleasant? Do you make an impression of efficiency, or simply one of incompetence? Is the service which I as a member of the public receive from you as an official brisk and friendly and does it show a desire to serve and to be of assistance? Or is your service slow and your face sour? Does it show an attitude which makes me feel that I am just being a nuisance and wasting your time? The impression which you as officials make on members of the public is important, because this is the image of the Public Service and its officials which I shall take away with me. No matter how unfair it may be, at that moment and afterwards you are regarded as being typical of 500 000 or 600 000 other officials. We could go even further and say that under certain circumstances the official is also the mirror image of the people and the Government of which he is a member. So we may ask what image is formed in the minds of the other peoples who look at him. One wonders whether our officials truly realize what a tremendous responsibility is resting on them these days and, more than that, what golden opportunities they have for improving attitudes and human relations as well as respect for authority in South Africa. I am referring not only to internal relations within our governmental organizations, but also to relations with the public outside, with the various population groups.

The friendly official in the office of the Bantu Administration Board, for example, who briskly and efficiently attends to those who are waiting, be they White or Black, is creating inestimable mutual trust and goodwill which may be invaluable to South Africa. As against him, we have the gentleman who sits with his feet on the table and lets the people go on waiting. After all, they cannot go anywhere else. And in any case he is entitled to his tea break. The friendly, but firm word of warning from a polite traffic officer carries much more weight and commands much more respect for authority than the bombastic attitude with which offenders are sometimes given a verbal drubbing before being charged. The efficient public relations officer of a State Department can do much by way of positive liaison with the Press and other persons and bodies to improve and promote the image of his department in the public mind.

I mention only these few examples of irritations which one encounters from time to time. I want to emphasize that even though South Africa has the best State administration in the world, these things do occur, things which do not contribute towards the creation of good human relationships. I want to emphasize again that this is certainly not the general rule. Nor is it always possible to eliminate these things. One can only ask the officials who are concerned in this to help ensure that it is restricted to the absolute minimum.

There is another side to this picture of the responsibility of our officials to maintain authority and to create good human relationships, and this is that there is a responsibility on us as the public as well to behave with greater goodwill and respect towards our authorities and officials. Do we realize how grateful we ought to be to these people, these officials who guard over the safety of South Africa and its people 24 hours a day, in spite of personal discomfort; those officials who see to it that you and I have transport facilities, electricity, water, health and telephone services available to us 24 hours a day? If we look at these matters from this point of view, we may rightly ask whether we are really paying these people enough. We have a Public Service of which we may rightly be proud and to which we ought to be grateful instead of passing negative criticism such as we had tonight. Let us all, the public as well as the officials, as civilized people —we take pride in being this—behave correctly and in a spirit of goodwill by not offending against anyone’s sense of honour or human dignity and by not looking down on anyone whom one might regard as being one’s inferior.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton towards the end of his speech earlier this evening. He said, amongst other things—

The hon. member also peaded for “a changed and more enlightened attitude to cultural freedom”.

The 20th century will certainly go down in history as the century of phenomenal scientific achievements, increasing mechanization and industrialization and unprecedented material prosperity. However, a closer inspection reveals certain alarming by-products of these scientific achievements, this mechanization and industrialization and material prosperity. It appears that man’s security in the 20th century depends on the machine organization he himself has built up, while in fact his civilization is being threatened by its products.

In the spiritual, political and cultural fields we find that the standards, the thought and the behaviour of 20th century man is increasingly being dominated by four ideologies, namely materialism, humanism, liberalism and Communism. These ideologies are increasingly depriving 20th century man of his spiritual and moral anchors and are turning his scientific achievements and technological development into nothing but instruments for his ultimate downfall and destruction. However, the one force which causes fear and trembling on the part of godless Communism and those who prepare the way for it is a vigorous and convinced Christianity which finds consistent expression in everyday life. For this reason, international Communism is committed in principle to destroying the Republic of South Africa, as an important stronghold of the Christian National view of life and a bulwark against the advance of Communism and other related ideologies in Africa and the Western world. To this end every circumstance and situation is abused and exploited to attack the Republic.

International Communism and the ideology which prepares the way for it, present-day liberalism, are in fact using every means and method to undermine our people on the spiritual and moral level, so that we shall not be prepared to preserve our traditional values. Then, when our spirit has succumbed in the face of this onslaught, when our physical powers of resistance have deserted us and our thought has become confused, when our national feeling, our willingness to serve our country and its people, when our faith and idealism have withered away, it will be possible to launch the carefully planned Communist revolution in our country.

At the moment, however, the attempts are still aimed at persuading us to find compromise more attractive than the preservation of our own traditions; to find the adoption of other ideas, aspirations and principles than those which arise from our own people more attractive than the preservation and development of our spiritual heritage; to find the things of the great international world better than the best that out own people and fatherland are able to produce.

While our own values are made out to be narrow, insular, short-sighted and foolish, the strange ideologies and schools of thought are extolled as being enlightened, progressive, beneficial and wise.

In his book Psychopolitics, Lawrenti Beria, former head of the Russian Secret Police, expounded this strategy as follows. I quote—

So said Lawrenti Beria.

Significant and revealing, too, is the provocative statement made by the revolutionary youth leader and pornographic writer, Jerry Rubin: “We’ve combined, youth, music, sex, drugs and rebellion with treason.” Writers such as De Quiency, Aldous Huxley and Dr. Timothey Leary—who has been called the high priest of psychedelic experience—have even found it possible to suggest that the use of drugs is a good thing, because it allegedly endows the user with all kinds of insights and abilities.

This new culture, according to the said Rubin, Allan Ginsberg and others, is not only to destroy Western culture, but is also to serve as a unifying factor on the national as well as international level. And in one of its statements of policy Nusas declares that it advocates permissiveness, while “an alternative moral code as a lifestyle” is presented as an ideal and propagated. In addition, one of the declared aims of Nusas is to resist authority in all its forms. In fact, its leaders have repeatedly declared that Nusas rejects all forms of authority.

Sir, this Government and this hon. Minister in particular are committed to the combating of permissivity and licentiousness in every form, and will not hesitate to take the necessary measures to preserve the soul of the people.

But, Sir, where do the Opposition parties and hon. members on the other side stand in this battle? What credit can be given to their profession of anti-Communism if they keep hindering the Government in various ways in its difficult task of warding off the onslaught on the soul of our people, and if they keep trying to disparage the image of this hon. Minister and to play him off against his colleagues?

Do they not realize that by always moaning about individual rights and freedoms and insisting on the so-called “rights” of groups to be just as irresponsible as they like, they are playing directly into the hands of these forces which are seeking our downfall? Or do they not mind, perhaps?

Therefore, Sir, if they advance arguments to the effect that they are in fact anti-Communist, but cannot agree with the Government’s measures for combating Communism, then they must not blame me for telling them that with allies such as they, the Government and this hon. Minister do not need enemies.

In the Second Reading Stage of the debate on the Publications Act last year, the hon. member for Yeoville, at that time still leader of the United Party in the Transval, stated categorically, that—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South repeatedly referred to the Bill—not any particular measures in the Bill, but to the Bill as a whole—as an “evil” Bill. The hon. member for Durban North remarked in his wisdom that “if there is pornography and subversive literature”—and I emphasize the word “if”—“one should deal with it in terms of the powers one has”. But Apparently if those powers prove to be inadequate, one is not allowed to introduce more effective measures for dealing with this pornography and subversive literature.

Sir, I want to emphasize that if people systematically oppose these measures which this Government is taking, and is obliged to take, in order to combat these evils, and if they keep trying to discredit the Government on these grounds, what importance can we then attach to their words when they too come along and piously say that they are opposed to these things? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Mossel Bay gave us a very fine lecture, but I think it would have been more appropriate under the Vote of the Prime Minister which we dealt with last week. When he started his speech, it seemed to me as though it was a speech like those we had from the HNP in the old days. I do not think it is necessary to react to his speech any further. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg gave us a fine lecture on officialdom, but I gained the impression that he was criticizing officialdom. I just want to make it clear this evening that I do not believe that our officialdom should be criticized. I think we have the best officialdom in any country in the world. Why should the hon. member come along and criticize the officialdom here? I think this was quite wrong of him to have done so.

But I really want to address a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I was deeply shocked that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who participated in the debate on this Vote for the first time this evening, came along with the threat that if a matter has been investigated under the race classification legislation and a decision has been taken and the matter is raised in this House, that decision will never again be reviewed.

Disgraceful!

The hon. the Deputy Minister is quite new in his post.

May I put a question?

No, I do not have the time to reply to questions. The hon. the Deputy Minister may speak at a later stage. He will be given an opportunity to speak again; I only have 10 minutes.

On a point of order, may an hon. member put words into the mouth of another hon. member knowing that that hon. member did not use those words?

The hon. member should know that this is not a point of order, and if the hon. member is a Deputy Minister, then he should know it even better. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will keep quiet now and allow me to say what I want to say. Then he can speak again later on. I think it is a terrible thing for the hon. the Deputy Minister to have used a threat of that nature. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he, his department and his Minister are at great pains to investigate the cases in order to ascertain whether the Act is complied with. That is just the point. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister spending days and weeks trying to ascertain whether the Act is complied with; it is an Act which should be amended. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that when we are dealing with an Act in respect of which the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister are unable to do anything in the sense that when decent applications are received to review decisions were taken in-terms of the Act and the hon. the Minister then finds that he is unable to review them because the Act does not allow him to review them, there is, something wrong with the Act. I should say the two hon. Ministers should visit one another during the recess in an effort to determine what can be done to amend the Act so that, when applications for changes in race classifications are received, it will be possible to effect such changes. I do hope that this is the last time we have any threats from either a Minister or a Deputy Minister.

†I want to mention a certain case very briefly because I only have a few minutes at my disposal. In this case a Bantu man married a Coloured woman 14 years ago. The departmental reference is BBR 30/23 and 72/26163. This couple and their three children live in Elsies River, Cape. The family are regarded as Coloured by friends and by a minister of a church according to copies of affidavits in the file. The children attend Coloured schools and an application was made in 1972 to have the children classified as Coloured. The decision was made some years later, towards the end of 1974, to classify these children as Bantu. If this law is such a wonderful law as hon. members on that side of the House say it is, then I believe the law is an ass, because if this is the sort of result you can get from such a law, then I believe it is high time that the law should be changed. When I express myself in such strong language, I know what I am talking about, because I have a little bit of background as far as the law is concerned.

I want to say this finally to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Walmer said that he had had dealings with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but the hon. the Deputy Minister then had some doubts as to wether the hon. member for Walmer had really had a proper communication from them. I am referring to the case of the Chinese lady and this is the letter which the hon. the Deputy Minister wrote—

This is exactly the point I have made. He is satisfied that they have been correctly classified for the purposes of the Population Registration Act, 1950. In other words, because they believe that their law is a holy cow, this application must be turned down. I say that law is not a holy cow and it is high time they went and did something about it.

I have hardly any time left, but I should like to tell the hon. The Minister that he appears to be never happier than when he is interfering with provincial government. He has now placed a virtual embargo on overseas travel of provincial employees. It makes no difference whether the employee wants to go and visit an overseas country at his own expense or at the expense of the provincial administration. We know why provincial employees want to travel overseas. They want to travel overseas to keep up to date with modern trends and developments in professional and scientific pursuits. This is why they go. They often go because they want to attend conferences where they can exchange views and hear all that there is to be heard about new trends and developments. What does the hon. the Minister say? He issues an edict saying that if somebody wants to go to a conference he has to give six months’ notice to the Minister he that wants to go. He is being the big brother, Mr. Chairman; he knows what is best for all provincial employees in South Africa; he knows best what is best for all provincial councils in South Africa; he knows best what is best for all the executive committees. He is the great big Poo-hah; he is going to lay down the law to the whole jolly lot of them. Look how he is sitting there now listening to me. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes before 10 o’clock, when the debate will be adjourned, I just want to say a few words about the unreasonableness of the previous speaker’s unwarranted attack on the hon. the Deputy Minister. Under the circumstances I think that it should be rectified immediately. What the hon. the Deputy Minister told the hon. member for Walmer was simply that the Act provides that certain things are to be considered in race classification, that we are administering that Act as it was approved by this Parliament, that we cannot interpret the Act arbitrarily, according to our own wishes, but that we are legally bound by it and that this Parliament approved the principle that in cases of race classification we should consider people’s descent and not their appearance. Hon. members should know that. So in a case such as this, where we are faced with the accomplished fact that this Parliament approved an Act which provides that a person’s descent is decisive, this must be accepted. Let us just have a quick look at the history of the race classification situation.

Who piloted through the Act?

We piloted it through and this Parliament passed it. The fact remains that when race classification was first introduced, the concepts of appearance and acceptance were the accepted standards. For years the Act was implemented in this form, until a stage had been reached where it was felt that the doubtful cases, the borderline cases, had all been classified. Great flexibility was applied throughout the process. Then the Act was amended and it was decided to apply the criterion of descent. If a man’s father or mother is a non-White, that person is classified as a non-White. This is the position as it stands today. Let me take the practical example mentioned by the hon. member for Walmer. What happened there? This person initially made representations to the Secretary of the department. This Act is administered by the Secretary of the department; he does the classification, not the Minister. In the years since he became the Secretary of my department, I have known him as a sympathetic person, who considers these cases with the greatest discretion. He has many cases to consider …

If you give him an impossible Act …

The hon. member had better keep quiet. The wine of Wynberg had better keep quiet for a while. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted pursuant to Standing Order No. 25.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker I move—

I think that all members of this House are grateful that the recent incidents in and around the Israeli Consulate in Johannesburg turned out in the end not to be the work of any organized international or political terrorist group. Nevertheless, we thoroughly approve the uncompromising attitude taken up by the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement in which he indicated unequivocally that South Africa is not prepared to give in to terrorist demands. We in the official Opposition feel strongly that this is the correct stance for South Africa. We want the hon. the Prime Minister and the outside world to know that our attitude is one of wholehearted support for this stance. Other countries have learnt, some of them by very bitter experience indeed, that to give in to terrorist demands is nothing but an invitation to further demands and further acts or threats of terrorism. I believe that if, for instance, the Tokyo conference on hijacking had had world support in respect of the decisions taken, we would have been much further on the road to putting an end to hijacking as one of the things which happen in the modern world. It is for that reason that we feel the world should know that in their determination to resist threats of this sort the Opposition and the Government are united.

Although the incidents in Johannesburg have been resolved with less tragedy than at one time was thought probable—serious though that tragedy has been—and the handling of this matter has earned considerable and, I believe, well-merited praise for our forces which were involved, I think it would be idle to suggest that there are not some very important lessons to be learnt from the experience. I believe it would be equally idle to suggest that the statements and interviews which have been given to date have resolved all our doubts and all our queries.

The first matter that I want to raise concerns the education and the training of our own people in the event of civil disaster of any kind. As we know, this should be part of our civil defence pgogramme. It really amounts to knowing what to do, exercising the necessary discipline to keep away from avoidable danger, and taking the necessary precautions to minimize casualties. I believe that this will involve a role for the mass media which I shall mention later on. From all accounts on Monday and on Monday night the work of the Police and of the military units involved was tremendously handicapped and complicated by the undisciplined curiosity of the public who in many streets and in many buildings unnecessarily exposed themselves to danger and were in some cases in the direct line of fire. The six o’clock broadcast of “Current Affairs” on the English service of the SABC, commenting on the affairs, spoke of the suicidal inability of the public to grasp what was happening. The speaker said that the lesson was that the public must act with responsibility. But, Sir, what steps have been taken to educate and to prepare the public for situations of this kind? I am not talking about those who were taken by surprise when the shooting started without warning, but I am talking of the curious who appeared later in the streets, at windows and on the tops of buildings in the vicinity, who exposed themselves to what might have been very serious attacks indeed. In fact, I make no bones about it; I shudder to think what the position could have been if there really had been six gunmen instead of one. In this connection I want to ask what plans, if any, there are for the evacuation, where necessary, of the vast building and office complexes which grace our cities today. Urban terrorism is only one form of civil disaster. There are many others. Is it not time that paper planning, of which we have heard a lot, was translated into practical education and demonstration and that certain basic rules were made known to all races? Up to now there has been very little enthusiasm for this sort of thing. The general feeling has been that it can’t happen here. I think we now realize it can happen here. Attention to planning and rules of conduct could do a great deal to minimize casualties and avoid disaster. Fire brigades and ambulances being available under the civil defence scheme are not enough. The public must know what is expected of it. If it does not, essential services may be interfered with and unnecessary casualties may be incurred.

The second matter I want to raise, concerns compensation for the dependants of those killed, compensation for those wounded and compensation for damage to property. We all know that civil actions lie in these cases, but in the overwhelming majority of cases civil actions are fruitless because of the lack of means of the perpetrators. In the case of death insurance companies pay out ordinary death benefits, but in the case of terrorist victims ancillary benefits tend to be specifically excluded. In any event, not everyone is insured nor do normal life insurances cover disability, damage or wounds. Many insurance policies on buildings exclude damage caused by civil riots or terrorist activities. Who is going to do the paying in the present case? Between 30 and 40 innocent people have been wounded. Who is going to compensate them for pain and suffering, for loss of wages and for any resulting disabilities? What is the position in respect of the dependants of those killed? This side of the House once introduced a motion providing for compensation for the innocent victims of crimes to be paid by the State. The Government turned it down at the time. What is their attitude now? Are they prepared to reconsider the position, and if so, on what basis? What is the position of the Israeli Government? Is there any liability attaching to them under international law? What is the international practice? Is the Government prepared to make representations to the Israeli Government and, if so, would this include compensation for wounds inflicted or damage done accidentally and in the course of duty by our Police and military units?

I do not propose to discuss the position of diplomatic immunity or extra-territoriality because this may bring me into conflict with the sub judice rule. I do believe, however, that there is a difference between a consulate and an embassy and that it is only in respect of an embassy that extraterritoriality applies as a right that can be weighed. If I am correct, it worries me to find that the arms which the security guard involved had access to, were apparently in a consulate as opposed to an embassy. Does that mean that these arms were brought in with the consent of the Government? If not, how did they come in? Where did they come from? Sub-machine guns, explosives and hand grenades—if in fact there were hand grenades—are not the sort of weapons that should be in places to which people other than the most responsible have access. Are other consulates arsenals? If so, what steps are taken to ensure that arms do not get into the hands of irresponsible people?

I believe that the operation on Monday and Monday night was one in which the Police, the Army and the Bureau for State Security were involved. It appears that in the end Gen. Van den Bergh, who I believe did an outstanding job, was in overall command. How did this happen? In a Police operation I could understand it if military units were temporarily under Police command in respect of certain parts of the operation. Had there been an assault on the building, I would have expected the Army to take charge. I do not see how the Bureau for State Security fits into the chain of command. My impression was that it was there to supply information.

One should not talk if one does not know.

I am merely asking. I think this is something that should be cleared up for the future. The last matter I want to deal with is the lessons we could learn from this unhappy incident with respect to the role of the mass media. No one denies that in the conditions pertaining on Monday, it was difficult for the mass media to get accurate information. By the same token some of the information put out as genuine was so inaccurate and so alarming that it could have had disastrous results. I do not want to quote, but one newspaper spoke of “Rooi masjiengewere”, “Vyf dood —nege terroriste”, while others spoke of Arabas and Japanese. It does seem that when operations of this kind are in progress, some means should be evolved whereby those responsible for the operations could provide accurate information to the mass media, at regular intervals, at a place designated for that purpose. I know that this will not stop speculation, but it could prevent some of the wilder speculation and the damage this could do. In this way all news media could be used to impress upon the public the necessity for responsible behaviour in and around any place where incidents were taking place. I have no doubt that the occurrences on Monday and Monday night will be studied in detail by the relevant authorities. I hope that such studies will enable them to present plans for the future and courses of conduct which may avoid certain difficulties experienced on this occasion. I should like to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that these studies will be expeditiously undertaken.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday for 17 hours, not through a news report from overseas or through some newspaper stories from some distant country, many South Africans became aware for the first time of the horror of urban terrorism. This happened in a city which we know and to which we have become accustomed. This has made an impact on a very wide circle within South Africa. Sympathy has been expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the families of those who were killed and to those who suffered injuries. We in these benches would like to associate ourselves with those expressions of sympathy. There has also been an expression of approval for the general attitude of the Government in dealing with demands by the terrorist and also for the action of the various officials involved in trying to remedy the situation. Again we would associate ourselves entirely with these expressions of approval for the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister on this occasion and the actions of the officials.

When one considers the number of people who were killed or injured, the matter of compensation, a point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, immediately comes to the fore. I think of the dependants of those who were killed, those who have suffered bodily injury and those who have had their property damaged, either as a result of the actions of the terrorist or because the Police believed it was necessary in the course of their duty to open fire on the building in which the terrorist was located. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will examine these matters and, in addition, discuss with representatives of the Israeli Government the matter of compensation for the people who may be involved.

In spite of the effectiveness of Government action, I believe there is no room for complacency. On this occasion the incident happened to involve an aggrieved individual. On some future occasion one could be faced with a determined gang of political assassins, though of course we hope that this will not be the case. It is therefore important to see whether any lessons can be learnt in order to prevent situations of this nature arising in the future and to deal with them effectively should they take place. There is also the question that was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz. the control of access to weapons, especially hand-grenades and automatic weapons. This question should be resolved and discussed with foreign missions in relation to their employees and their security guards. Secondly, I believe that the role of every Government official and every Government department should be re-enacted and analysed critically so as to evaluate the efficiency of the action and to see whether there can be any improvement should a future situation arise. A point which comes to mind immediately is the whole question of the co-ordination of forces and whether this was done with maximum efficiency or whether there were problems under the stresses and strains of this event. There is the question of the mobilization and integration of voluntary aid and medical services and whether these were optimized on this occasion.

There is the question of crowd control. In a situation of this nature crowd control is absolutely critical both in regard to the effectiveness of Police action and in regard to preventing loss of life. Finally, there is the role of the radio and particularly of television. I think it is necessary that the public be kept informed by radio of what is taking place. In a sense the radio should also satisfy public interest. However, this should not be done in such a way as to arouse excessive public emotion and perhaps even a sense of public hysteria. I do think that this is something that should be examined because there is a danger in interrupting programmes frequently to draw attention to a particular event and in getting off-the-cuff comment which is inaccurate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned references to Japanese and to three people including one woman terrorist wearing black clothes. All these things have the impact of creating a very, very tense emotional situation. Particularly in view of the fact that we are moving into the era of television the whole question of how a tense situation of this nature is to be dealt with is very important indeed. I want to mention that the hon. the Prime Minister himself when reporting to this House was, I think, tremendously circumspect and careful and tremendously measured in the words he used to this House. However. I do not think that the general way in which this news story was presented to the South African public by the SABC matched the caution and circumspection with which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the very few moments that I have, I should like to say that I believe that this matter was handled very correctly and very firmly and with good result for which I think we are all grateful. There are many unanswered questions which because of our inherent inquisitiveness we would all no doubt like to hear the answers to. However, there is the question of the sub judice rule and what is even more important the fact that the discussion of delicate diplomatic matters should not be hampered by politicians who may not have all the facts, and I put myself into that category. For that reason I do not wish to enlarge unduly on what has been debated here. I just want to say that I believe that there should be compensation for the innocent victims of terrorism and I also believe that we will learn from our experience of this event. On behalf of those who sit in these benches with me I should like to extend congratulations to those people who handled this matter so effectively as well as our sympathy to those who suffered in this particular instance.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events in Fox Street in Johannesburg were of course the first of this nature South Africa has experienced. Let me say at once and unequivocally that in spite of the fact that this was the first time, and in spite of the fact that our various Services and the various persons that took part had never had any previous experience of such matters, they made no mistakes whatsoever in regard to any aspect and, indeed, did not put a foot wrong.

Hear, hear!

I think they deserve the thanks and appreciation of everyone in this House and in South Africa. Hon. members not only heard what I had already said in this House; they also read what the various newspapers wrote in this regard. Personally I have not up to now read any criticism in any newspaper of either the Bureau and its chief, Gen. Van den Bergh, or the Defence Force and its chief, Admiral Biermann, or the Police and their chief, Gen. Crous. I now wish to tell my hon. friend opposite that I take it positively amiss of him for having said under these circumstances what he did say in respect of Gen. Van den Bergh.

But he praised him.

I saw in that a charge against him. I saw in that an insinuation which I did not expect from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Why do you want to spoil it?

No, Sir, it is not I who did that; it was the hon. the Leader. So much so was this the case that I was compelled to make the interjection which I made in that regard. Consequently I am replying at once. The hon. the Leader’s insinuation was implicit in the statement that Gen. Van den Bergh had taken over the whole show, and that if it had subsequently been necessary to fight, he would also have taken over the command.

No. [Interjections.]

That is the impression I got, and I do not think I am wrong, … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban North must contain himself.

… otherwise I cannot, with the best will in the world, understand why the hon. the Leader raised this matter at all. The fact of the matter is simply that the heads of the various services were all there together. What was done there, was done with the closest consultation among them. When it came to talking to this person, it fell to Gen. Van den Bergh to do this. Let me also tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that every newspaper is full of praise for the specific manner in which he did this.

I said so.

Surely it is perfectly obvious that, where it was necessary for the Army to take action, they did so, and where it was necessary for the Police to take action, they did so. However, when it came to the talking—and that is the question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cast in our midst here—it was his turn, and he did this well.

Well, we are entitled to know this; that is why we asked the question.

Sir, the hon. member could have raised this in a very different manner to the way in which he did raise it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the difference between consulates and embassies. There is a degree of difference, so I have been informed, between the two. For this purpose it is not necessary to go into the matter. My information at this moment is that we had no knowledge of the arms, etc., which were on the premises. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we had made contact in regard to all the related matters. My reply is: “Yes.” I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. These are delicate matters which I do not wish to discuss across the floor of this House now. I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa, nor do I think that it is in the interests of Israel, nor of the States which are involved in this, that I discuss this delicate matter across the floor of this House, except to say that we are in contact with one another, and that relevant matters have been discussed between us and that the question of compensation is receiving attention from the attorneys of both sides involved in this matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of compensation for general offences. We stated our standpoint at the time when the matter was discussed here in this House. I am not convinced that our standpoint is wrong, and consequently I have nothing to say in regard to that matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the education of the public. All of us, day in and day out, are educating the public, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows the public as well as I do. However, I do know that in the past, when the public did not want to obey and we were compelled to take action against members of the public, hon. members opposite levelled charges at us in this House. [Interjections.] In the past we were given no assistance by hon. members on the opposite side when we were compelled to take action. Hon. members will recall what happened here at the Cathedral and on other occasions. When we came into conflict with the public who refused to carry out orders, then hon. members opposite did not support us, they criticized us. Personally I would be very grateful if the one lesson which emerges from the matter, namely …

You have got your facts wrong once more.

No, I have not got my facts wrong. “It is what it is.” [Interjections.]

You have forgotten what it was.

Order! The hon. member for Durban North must contain himself.

Sir, I am absolutely tired of the hon. member now. [Interjections.] I wish to express the hope and confidence that as far as this matter is concerned we will in future be able to rely on the Opposition. Then we would make far more progress with our education of the public in this regard than we would otherwise have done.

I also want to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the sensational reports which appeared in the newspapers. I want to express my disapproval of the kind of sensational reports which were published. Just to give you an idea, Sir, I myself heard an experienced international journalist say over the radio that night that he had seen at least one Japanese in the window. This is the kind of sensation we have to deal with in these cases. The newspapers do not realize that for the sake of sensation they are not only misleading the public but, what to my mind is far worse and which is a matter in which I have an interest, are marring relations between us and other countries by implicating persons of other nationalities who ought not to be implicated. It was for that reason—the hon. member for Sea Point referred to this—that I made my statement in the way I made it here in this House that evening. Unfortunately, when we talk about the Press, then, with the exception of the hon. member for Simonstown and perhaps a few others, we are not supported by the hon. members on the opposite side. Then we are accused of merely picking on the Press and of being hostile to the Press, and so on. I therefore trust that we will in future have the support of hon. members opposite as far as this matter is concerned as well. If I may address a word to the Press on my part, I want to ask: Why do they not accept the official announcements which are made in this regard? If they had accepted the official announcements, they would not have found themselves in that position, and then sensational and false reports would most certainly not have been sent out into the world.