Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude the debate by replying to the matters raised after I spoke yesterday afternoon. In the first place, I want to refer to the second speech by the hon. member for Von Brandis. In it he referred to certain mistakes appearing in the Yearbook. As far as the initials of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are concerned, I apologize. This is a mistake that slipped in and we shall rectify it. The hon. member also stated his standpoint with regard to federation, which is dealt with in one of the chapters. He said that federation at a certain level was regarded by us as integration, but that at another level we spoke in terms of a possible federation eventually. It is obvious, Sir, and after all, it is stated very clearly in the book, that if there is a federation between non-independent peoples or groups in one political structure, that is a form of integration, even though it is only political integration. What is meant in this article—and it is very clear; I read it myself and I think the hon. member should go and read the whole chapter again—is that as far as the ultimate outcome of the policy is concerned, Prime Minister after Prime Minister has said that after the homelands acquire their independence, the possibility of a voluntary connection at a higher level at that stage is not excluded. In the old days Dr. Verwoerd referred to a possible confederation or commonwealth. Our present Prime Minister talks about a power bloc of states in Southern Africa, something based on the European Common Market, in which independent peoples co-operate, of their own free will with regard to matters of common interest. The term usually adopted is “peoples who are politically and constitutionally independent, but who are inter-dependent economically and otherwise, owing to a common geographical location.” A form of confederation or a power bloc or something similar to the European Common Market could arise out of this, and it is in that spirit and against that background that this chapter was written. This is not excluded, of course. On the contrary. The ultimate position could clearly be—and I am convinced that this would be acceptable to the world—that we would make arrangements with our neighbouring States with regard to admission control by means of visas and passports, as is at present the case in Western Europe. Furthermore, the states will be able to act in concert at various levels. The eventual aim, therefore, is an ordering of the position in Southern Africa. That is what is envisaged.

The hon. member added that human relations must improve. I want to tell him at once that it is not the duty of the Department of Information alone to see to that. I am of the opinion that it is the duty of everyone in this House and of every well-meaning inhabitant of South Africa, Black, White or Brown, to see to that. Common rudeness and unmannerliness, whether on the part of Black or Brown people or on the part of White people, must be jointly condemned by all of us, because in a country with a composite population like ours, there is no place for rudeness or disorderly conduct. Responsibility must be the order of the day and in the nature of the matter, the people must place a high premium on improved human relations. I think it is a task that faces all of us to work along those lines. That is why I want to repeat that this is not an effort to be made by the Department of Information alone.

Sir, I also want to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Wynberg who spoke yesterday afternoon. The hon. member adopted the standpoint that we placed such a high premium on the independence of the Transkei in this debate because we wanted to use it as a kind of camouflage, seen from our point of view, to evade other matters which we would not like to have publicized. Surely it is logical that in this year in which the Transkei is becoming independent, that independence will undoubtedly enjoy priority in a Department of Information entrusted with the task of conveying it to the world, and that this priority will extend not only to our work but also to a discussion of this Vote. To say now that this is an effort to get away from other problems, is incorrect. The hon. member went on to try to disparage and belittle the independence of the Transkei as a matter of no great importance. He said that we should rather have spent that money on establishing sound relations with America. Then he also adopted a strong standpoint and defended his right to say this here. Sir, who tried to deny him his right to adopt that standpoint here? Of course it is his right, in a democratic country like this, to say anything in this House which you, Sir, allow him to. The hon. member is fully entitled to say what he wants to if you allow him to, and I shall defend his right to do so at any price. He is also entitled to make a fool of himself, as he did yesterday afternoon. That is what he did. To disparage the independence of a full-fledged nation of almost 4 million people as something that is transient and is merely a kind of camouflage, is literally to make a fool of oneself, and I do not begrudge the hon. member the privilege of being able to do so.

What are you talking about now?

I am talking about the speech the hon. member is going to make shortly under the Interior Vote! [Interjections.]

Sir, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Pinetown. In his second speech yesterday he put a few specific points to me to which I should like to reply. Unfortunately this is going to take some time, because he can ask five questions in no time, whereas it takes time to reply to them. In the first place he maintained that one of my senior officials in London had supposedly launched an attack on Chief Buthelezi by way of a letter. What are the precise facts of the matter? I quote—

What statement had the official made? He said, and I quote—

Mr. Mbatha immediately objected to this and said that they had not been democratically elected. It was further maintained that Chief Buthelezi had not allowed an election in his country because he believed in a one party system and did not believe in the democratic right. These two statements were made by Mr. Van der Walt as a correction of what Chief Buthelezi’s representative had said, viz. that these people had not been elected democratically. Is it, then, the duty of an official to let obvious distortion of the facts, as expounded by Mr. Buthelezi’s people over there, go unchallenged, or should the mistakes be rectified in simple language? Must it not be said that this is not correct and that Chief Buthelezi does not represent the majority of the people of South Africa, as was maintained? Should it not be said that he represents the Zulu people, but not the majority of Blacks in South Africa? I wonder how Chief Minister Mangope, Chief Minister Matanzima and those people would react if they heard Chief Buthelezi say that he represented such a mass of people. I quote—

Surely this is a fact and the hon. member knows it himself. After all, he knows that statement is untrue. Statements of this kind are made overseas and then left at that. Now, must an official of the Department of Information give the facts or must he allow lies to be publicized? That is the crux of the issue. I want to defend my official at once and say that it is his duty, when untruths and falsehoods with regard to the position in South Africa are proclaimed, to state the facts in the right way through the right channels by way of a letter so that the situation may be rectified. I therefore do not apologize for actions of this kind on the part of my officials.

The second matter I want to mention here relates to the official in Switzerland. There was a lot of fuss about a certain interview which was supposedly conducted. We investigated the matter thoroughly from all angles. The publication concerned is a women’s magazine by the name of Elle which appears in Switzerland. At one time it was a respectable women’s magazine, but under the leader ship of a new editress, Dr. Peter, it has acquired a questionable reputation. A year or two ago it published a revolting article on the alleged sex orgies of Swiss tourists in Kenya and incurred the annoyance of the whole of Switzerland. Popular TV personalities in Switzerland have also felt the venom of Dr. Peter’s poison pen and various libel actions are at present pending against her. She is a typical smear writer. She came to conduct an interview with this official and then gave an account of an interview which had never taken place. It put the man in an almost impossible position. I now want to quote from translations of two letters received from two famous Swiss. The first is a letter from director Jäger, chief of the political correspondents in Switzerland. Let me quote from this letter to Mr. Hepers, the official concerned—

This is from a prominent Swiss newspaper. The second letter is from Mr. C. Tchimorin, editor-in-chief of the Schweizerische Depés-chenagentur and president of the Swiss Association of Journalists. He is therefore undoubtedly a man who can speak with authority. I quote—

My official was therefore exonerated of all blame by the Swiss themselves. That magazine published a distortion of an interview. The interview of which she gave an account never took place; it was an interview that had been artificially created—typical sensation literature.

Did it not take place at all?

There was a discussion, but there nothing whatsoever of what was alleged in the article came up. Most of the allegations which were imputed to him, the official never made.

He should never have granted her the interview. [Interjections.]

The hon. member would have been the first to blame officials and say that they were there to give information but that they nevertheless refused to give interviews to the Press. That would have been his first reaction. Then I should have had to give the whole background of the matter from scratch. As now, he would have first have attacked and only then tried to ascertain the facts.

Next I should like to discuss the third matter raised by the hon. member. It concerns the publication Stepping into the future of which I have a copy with me. The publication is about Black, Coloured and Indian education in South Africa. As the hon. member and all other hon. members realize, education for non-Whites in South Africa is one of those matters in respect of which South Africa is continually attacked by our opponents overseas. It is continually being said that we are doing too little. Education and medical services in particular are the two spheres which are exploited against us abroad. I should like to give the hon. member the facts relating to this publication. The hon. member launched his attack by giving the Press an interview and in the course of the interview he used expressions like “unjustified and reckless spending”. He said this without having the facts at his disposal, because he has only now asked me for the facts.

But you gave me the facts last year in reply to a question.

The hon. member went on to say—

The expenditure on the book is described as reckless wastage of money. However, what are the facts? The book is the fourth in a series of educational books about Bantu education published by the publishers Euredika Publications. The manuscript was sent to the department in advance with about 100 diagrams and 500 coloured photographs. Since the department receives literally thousands of inquiries about Bantu, Coloured and Indian education from across the world every year and since it has been eight years since the department published a full fledged work on education for non-Whites, the publishers were informed that the department would buy 80 000 copies if it was translated into five important world languages and printed. If one takes into account that in the USA alone there are more than 6 000 universities and colleges and 36 000 professors and associate professors in subjects like sociology, political science, ethnology and education, whose students take an interest in this subject, the impression of 80 000 copies is in fact conservative. As far as wastage of money is concerned, it should be taken into account that the total cost was R250 000. The book was sold at about R3 per copy. The hon. member would do well to page through the book and examine its photographic material, maps and content. The book has been well written. I challenge the hon. member to buy a similar book anywhere at a price of less than R3.

Who wrote the book?

I am coming to that. The hon. member must first argue the issue of the wastage of money. The hon. member also maintained that the publisher made a profit of 100% on the book. What the hon. member’s statement amounts to, therefore, is that the book costs the publisher R1,50 per copy. When he talks such nonsense, I wonder whether the hon. member has ever had anything to do with the printing world.

Where was the book printed?

I shall provide all the answers. Allow me to proceed. The book is available at all leading bookstores, and the company sent thousands of brochures furnishing a description of the book to schools, libraries and dealers in advance. The book contains facts relating to our Bantu, Coloured and Indian education, a matter about which inquiries are constantly being received. I want to go further. The book was printed in Spain because it was cheaper than in the RSA and furthermore the department saved thousands of rand in transport costs in this way since it was a very simple matter to have it distributed throughout Europe from Spain. This is the logical explanation.

By whom was it written? Did the department or the publisher write it?

I now come to the contents of the book. The hon. member is speaking and making a lot of noise now, but I should like to put a few facts to him as they were put to me by the publisher—

What profit did he make? [Interjections.]

That the hon. member had better find out for himself. As far as I am concerned, a valuable book like this is a good investment at R3 per copy. Let us continue. The hon. member asked me who wrote the book. The book was written jointly by a number of people. Subsequently the book was checked by a number of other people. I shall mention a few names.

†Firstly, there is Prof. W. M. Kgware, who is professor of Comparative Education at the University of the North. Secondly, there is Prof. S. R. Maharaj, of the Department of History and Comparative Education at the University of Durban-Westville. Then there is Mr. C. A. Naguran, who is Education Planner in the Division of Education in the Department of Indian Affairs; Mr. R. M. Gugushe, Secretary of the Bantu Education Advisory Board; Mr. A. J. Arendse, Chairman of the Education Council for Coloureds; Dr. N. Sieberhagen, who was Director of the University of the Western Cape from 1968 to 1972; Mr. A. K. Singh, Education Planner in the Division of Education in the Department of Indian Affairs; Mr. W. Theron, Director of Education and Chief Education Adviser to the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations; and Dr. N. van der Walt, Chief Education Planner in the Division of Education in the Department of Indian Affairs.

*I could continue in this vein. The book was written, checked and prepared for printing by these people. That is the whole position.

Which of them wrote it? [Interjections.]

Some of the people I mentioned wrote it. I shall mention one of the names: Mr. K. W. Hartshorne. He is the Director of Education and Planning in the Department of Bantu Education. I can quite understand what the hon. member’s problem is. He and his party would very much like to depict South Africa abroad as a country which oppresses Blacks and which does nothing for Blacks.

That is an untruth. [Interjections.]

Order!

For a Cabinet Minister, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The hon. member should not become sensitive now. I am merely providing the facts. [Interjections.]

Do you really believe that?

Yes, I certainly do believe it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

It does not suit the book of those hon. members opposite for a work of this nature, an authentic work written by highly qualified people—White, Black, Indian and Coloured—of high calibre, a work dealing with the true facts of education in South Africa, to be published at this stage.

What facts are available in this book? Let us take a brief look. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Yeoville to say that the hon. the Minister is telling untruths?

That is correct. The accusations levelled at us by the hon. the Minister are untrue.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In this book are stated the facts which the hon. members opposite are afraid to have published. I accuse them of being afraid because these facts are being published.

That, too, is untrue.

As far as Bantu Education is concerned, I want to say that the hon. member for Houghton usually dismisses Bantu education with a gesture and says: “Yes, you boast about the fact that there are thousands of children at school, but they are all children in primary schools. It goes no further that. ” I see that the hon. member does not want to raise her head now, but that is the argument she uses throughout the world. This book gives the facts. [Interjections.] She is still not lifting her head.

There are statistics which indicate the growth in Bantu education. That is why the book is not acceptable to those hon. members. I shall only quote a few figures. The number of Bantu Schools increased from 5 300 in 1950 to 11 400 in 1973—and that is not to mention the figure for 1975. The number of teachers rose from 18 000 in 1950 to 58 000. The number of pupils at school rose from 747 000 to 3 300 000. Hon. members opposite do not want these figures to be published because that will cause their entire argument that this party lacks positive policy, to collapse. These figures indicate that this party is carrying out positive upliftment work. The percentage of the Bantu population attending school rose from 8,04% in 1950 to 19,86% at the present time.

Does the book indicate the number of Bantu School children who leave school in Std. 2?

Apparently the hon. member was sleeping while I spoke. She is now asking again: “How many of these children are in Std. 2?” This is the same argument again. Let me provide the figures. I shall begin with post-primary. Let me say at once that this is a little higher than Std. 2. I shall repeat the following statistics once again: The number of pupils in Std. 6 has risen from 16 000 to 70 000; in Std. 7, from 9 000 to 56 000; in Std. 8, from 6 000 to 37 000; in Std. 9, from 1 300 to 11 000; and in matric, from 674 to 5 736. The total increase has been from 34 000 to 181 000. All the increases mentioned relate to the period under review up to 1973. This reflects a fine record. But no, it must not be published. It makes things difficult for the PRP; it makes it difficult for them to spread their falsehoods about our country and about the NP. However, I shall continue to expose them. [Interjections.]

It is all untrue! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the other story they are always coming up with … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville may as well grow up. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, another thing they are always saying is that nothing is being done with regard to the training of Blacks in the sphere of technical education. There is a whole chapter in this book devoted solely to “industrial, trade and technical education.” It contains a description of how Bantu are trained in “carpentry, joinery, cabinet-making …” [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Minister a fair chance to complete his speech.

“… concreting, bricklaying, plastering, painting and glazing, electricians’ and wiremens’ course, motor mechanics, general mechanics, leatherwork, plumbing, drain-laying and sheet metal work, tailoring, leatherwork and upholstery, upholstery and motor trimming, motor body repairing”, and so I could continue. That aspect of their arguments, viz. that this Government is doing nothing about the training of Black people, is also refuted by this book. That is why the book must be criticized, why it has been criticized from the outset by the hon. member for Parktown. Then there is the financial aspect…

I criticized the spending of so much money.

Then give me just one other reason for the hon. member for Parktown to put this question. Just give me one other reason. I am waiting for it with the greatest goodwill. [Interjections.] Then, of course, there is the aspect of finance. In this book it is pointed out that the amount spent on Bantu education increased from R23 million in 1964 to R147 million on 1976. These figures do not include capital expenditure or expenditure on the universities. This is a fantastic record of growth and progress, a record which is reflected most effectively in a fine publication. This publication is available at R3 per copy. But the hon. member finds fault with it and criticizes my department for having undertaken such a thing. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, certain other people, too, took part in this process. I want to quote one in particular, because he is a well-known personality in education circles in South Africa. This person is Mr. Frans Auerbach.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Auerbach wrote the following in The Star of 2 February 1976—

That is the commentary. However, friend Auerbach was unaware that we might also get to see the letters he wrote to the publisher. He did in fact also write a letter to the publisher, who sent the book to him for comment. That letter, too, came to my notice. In it he writes—

[Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I am not upbraiding that hon. member, but a kindred spirit of his. [Interjections.]

Order!

Did you say that the hon. member for Parktown is a kindred spirit of his?

Yes, they are kindred spirits. As you know … [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is really terribly sensitive. It seems to me that these things are getting under his skin. Mr. Auerbach goes on to write—

This is how he feels about the whole matter. This is what he writes to the publisher, and if he reacts to this I shall also make public the other information which, for his sake, I do not want to make public now. In fairness to him, therefore, I shall leave the matter at that. But I reject the ambivalence and double-talk of writing complimentary letters to the publisher and at the same time making attacks on the book. I do not think that is worthy of a decent educationist. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parktown asked a few other questions. He asked what my policy was in connection with the purchase of books by the department. He said that the publishers he knew never got any contracts from the department and never sold books. I want to say at once that I think he knows the wrong people. [Interjections.] How are these things done? The publisher who really has South Africa’s interests at heart, may realize in his travels abroad that a need exists in a certain field. He then takes the trouble to compile a manuscript or have it compiled by experts, submits the manuscript to the department and says: “I think this is a possibility; look through it and decide whether you are interested.” Such a manuscript is then submitted to our experts. Our people overseas are sounded to ascertain whether there is a need for something of the kind. We do not sponsor a book of this kind in any way, nor do we pay for it. We only guarantee that we shall take a certain number of copies at a price agreed on in advance. The publisher then decides whether, with that possible market for the book, he has a chance of making it an economic proposition, and whether to go ahead and publish it, or alternatively he states that he regrets but he is unable to continue on those conditions. That is the method we adopt. If the hon. member’s friends whom he speaks to and who are concerned about the situation to act in a similar way, we shall consider their offers on the same level.

But are they not patriotic too?

I do not want to say it. I do not know who the friends are, but if the hon. member says that not attention has been paid to them so far, then it means that they are books which are not of value to South Africa abroad. That is the only reason, or else nothing has yet been submitted to us. [Interjections.]

Order!

The last question the hon. member put to me concerned the fact that our lobbyist in America, Mr. De Kiefer, was here in South Africa and that we refused to allow Rapport to have an interview with him. The hon. member immediately seized on this as an opportunity to level criticism.

I merely asked.

Why, then, does the hon. member not ask about the good things? Let us once again put the facts before the hon. member. A Press conference was arranged for this person when he was here. All newspapers were informed of this and attended, except Rapport. Then, subsequently, Rapport wanted to conduct an exclusive interview with him and our point of view was that if we allowed this for one newspaper, the other newspapers would have cause for dissatisfaction. Now I ask whether the hon. member has a case or not. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not waste our time.

Sir, I think I have dealt with the most important matters. I want to continue by referring briefly to what was said by members on this side of the House.

I want to say to the hon. member for Innesdal that I appreciate his standpoint that we should project South Africa’s image, in the light of all conditions here, against the world with all its defects. Then, as he says, South Africa will, in the nature of the matter, compare very favourable. I want to mention one example to illustrate this.

Some time ago I held discussions with an important textile manufacturer in South Africa. He told me that the firm has a factory in South Africa, but that it also had a factory in Nigeria and one in India, factories producing the same goods. Of the three factories, the one in South Africa paid the highest wages, the one in Nigeria paid about half the South African wages and the one in India, a quarter of that. Nevertheless, he said, strangely enough we were always coming in for criticism and pressure from the whole world because our wages in South Africa were too low, but they have never been attacked about the fact that they pay lower wages in Nigeria and in India for the same work. I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal that this is the kind of approach. If we identify and project this, one can achieve an effect, but now we have the problem that in the nature of the matter, this could cause problems for us with countries that could become our friends. I have said in the past in this House that a country which dares to attack South Africa in any way must make sure that it does not have something somewhere in its past, because it will immediately be exposed by us. We shall continue to do so. But to make a general projection and involve all countries would, in my opinion, be unwise of us and could cause problems for us and harm friendships.

To the hon. member for Pretoria Central I want to say that it is an excellent idea to give the Yearbook to people overseas. In that way more people can make use of it. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Sunnyside for his friendly words and I want to emphasize and confirm at once that we do of course give attention to Europe, too, and will have to continue to do so. At the moment we are giving attention to Africa as priority No. 1. There are also certain priority areas, like America in particular—I say this for the satisfaction of the hon. member for Wynberg—and also Britain, Germany and France. Those are the other priority areas we are working on at present, but we are also giving attention to Europe in general. To the hon. member for Bloemfontein North I want to say that I share his concern with regard to internal information.

If we were eventually to succeed and make a breakthrough as regards the acceptance of South Africa’s image, but failed internally, then that would be fatal because we would then not reap the fruits of it. However, the Deputy Minister is responsible for this, and he has already dealt with it in part. I therefore share the hon. member’s concern and I want to give him the assurance that we are giving the closest attention to the internal position as well. The point of view of the hon. member for Parys on race relations in South Africa is logical and correct; I agree with him 100%, also as regards our position as a subcontinent made up of various States and not the multi-racial unitary community which the Opposition talks about. The hon. member for Vereeniging raised the question of films and television for local theatres. Here we have a problem, namely that we often have difficulty in getting the films accepted commercially because our films are too long for a supporting programme. But we shall take a fresh look at the matter and, with a view to television, too, will in future try to produce films for those specific media. The hon. member for Westdene spoke about the possibility of a deterioration of relations in South Africa between rich and poor as a result of television, because people see how other people live. I agree with the hon. member that we should guard against that, but at the same time we must project the image of South Africa as a country where there is ultimately a better future for everyone. The hon. member for Middelland said that it was everyone’s duty to convey a message and that even the hon. member for Houghton sometimes succeeded in doing so. I want to agree with him at once that is so. In her conduct overseas I have never seen her being dishonest towards South Africa. The standpoint she adopts here and overseas is identical. For example, I have found that she says over there that South Africa has a free Press and freedom of speech. She makes those points very clearly, and I am very grateful that this is so. I want to say to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that I most definitely share his feelings. Personal conduct is a good thing under all circumstances. Nothing on earth can replace personal contact. That has been my experience on my visits overseas and that, too, has been the experience of innumerable people who come here. There is simply no substitute for personal contacts and personal impressions.

Sir, in my opinion information work must be based on four aspects. Before I come to that, I just want to sketch the background. We are dealing with a changed world, with a more fanatical opposition—I am not referring to the Opposition here, but to opponents in the outside world—people who are getting more fanatical, more embittered and more frustrated in their efforts to attack South Africa, people who begrudge us every success and who, for that reason, have to take stronger action against us, people whose whole way of life depends on the possibility of attacking South Africa, who make a living from it, who earn their bread and butter by attacking South Africa and being paid for it. Such a person works flat out to preserve his occupation. I say that against this background we have to make adjustments from time to time. As I have said, there are four aspects on which our policy with regard to information is based. In the first place, qualitative information, information of quality, bits of the book I have just had in my hand, must be disseminated. The department must not publish third-rate publications, nor must they use poor quality paper. The appearance of the publication must be pleasing and attractive. South Africa is not a third-rate country and information about it must be distributed in the best way. Consequently information must be distributed in a qualitative way with regard to both the material and the person at which it is directed. In the nature of the matter the department cannot reach the masses, because it has no access to the mass media of the world. The department cannot write articles and have them published in newspapers with large circulations. Nor is it easy for the department to acquire time on television, unless time is purchased. The department has therefore to determine priorities, and since it is impossible to reach the masses, it is necessary to concentrate on reaching opinion-formers at the most important levels, inter alia, the political, academic and commercial levels. The material and the people who have to be reached must therefore be selected on a qualitative basis. This is the first aspect on which the department’s information work is based.

The second aspect on which the department’s activities are based is having expert, well-trained, well-equipped and inspired staff, people who can put South Africa’s case in a dynamic and enthusiastic way. The department dares not allow an official to put South Africa’s case with his tongue in his cheek. He must speak from conviction and speak from the heart. He must not say: “This is what my Government says, but I disagree”. He must speak from the heart and say what the position is. I want to pay high tribute to the officials of the Department of Information, both here and abroad, who are carrying out their task with great success and zeal in these times. These are people who sacrifice many hours, and even nights, to put South Africa’s case. In the process they often overtax themselves, physically and mentally, in carrying out the task, particularly now that the department simply must make a breakthrough in the next few years.

The third leg on which the department’s activities is based is the use of modern techniques, television, direct and indirect influence, guests, journeys, dialogue and liaison as methods of projecting the country’s image. I repeat that use is made of direct and indirect influence. If one presents something indirectly, it is often more readily accepted in the international world because it does not look official. Fourthly: Priorities must be determined with regard to projects and those who are to be informed—a flexible policy which must be adapted virtually from day to day to reach the important opinion-formers and offer resistance where the attack is being made.

Mr. Chairman, if I were to be asked why the department’s activities are so important at the moment, I would say that at this time, when the world is engaged in a war of words, the task of information has become a task involving the security of South Africa. Information work has a preventative effect in that it can prevent problems occurring if it can be successfully carried out.

That is why I stress information so emphatically. For the moment the international limelight is focused strongly on South Africa. I want to repeat at once that there is no crisis situation. I object to those who are always talking about crises, because they are the cowards. At the moment the international limelight is focused on South Africa owing to the events in our immediate vicinity: In Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia and South West Africa. This is a time to act responsibly, a time to keep a cool head under all circumstances, to hold one’s course deliberately and tolerate no panic measures. The cry that we should run away, that we should throw in our hand without further ado and run away, I reject, because the reaction to that could be more negative than positive for South Africa, both here and abroad. One has to continue with the development of what has been tried and tested in South Africa, and progress step by step. I want to say at once that calm, orderly progress is of course necessary, and that improved human relations must be sought. Similarly, affronts to the human dignity of people must be guarded against, and people must be dealt with the necessary deference and respect. No one must be humiliated, belittled or despised. When I say this, I am referring not only to the Whites; I am also referring to the Blacks and the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa. I think it is time for the leaders of those people to appeal to their people, too, just as we appeal to our people, to conduct themselves in such a way that we can liaise with them and negotiate with them. I think there is a duty on both sides and I do not think that it is the duty of one side only. Unnecessary irritations and friction must definitely be eliminated, but it is undoubtedly necessary, too, that the Black and Brown people act in such a way that relations on both sides can be improved. We are living at present in decisive times, times from which I am convinced we shall emerge with great success under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have no doubt on that score. With his insight, statesmanly wisdom and leadership, he is capable of doing so. Everyone in South Africa—Black, White and Brown—recognizes this. In any event, I am no pessimist. As I say, these are watershed years and difficult times are at hand.

Since the international limelight falls on a certain place in the world from time to time and then passes on to another area of tension, I am convinced that this period will pass for South Africa, too. A solution will have to be found for the problems which exist at the moment, but subsequently the limelight will shift to another sensational part of the world where there is new tension. When that happens, South Africa will at last be able to go forward into a bright future. The next two or three years will be the period during which the guide-lines will be drawn here and abroad, guide-lines which will determine the trends for the next decade or two. They will also determine new groupings. We shall then be in a position to have economic and other co-operation with the states of Africa. This country will play its role in Africa as we see it, and will play its role in the world as a middle-rank power. What are the facts of our country, South Africa? We have the potential, the raw materials, the wealth, the manpower and the technical knowledge to play a vital role in Africa and strengthen the voice of Africa in the Third World greatly if they accept us as part of Africa, which we in fact are. I am therefore not concerned about the future. Once we are through the few decisive years, a fine and promising future lies ahead for South Africa, because the spirit of the people is right and our faith is unshakeable.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 12 and S.W.A. Vote No. 6.—“Interior”, Vote No. 13 and S.W.A. Vote No. 7.—“Public Service Commission”, and Vote No. 14.—“Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. I think it is appropriate that we should move from a discussion of the portfolio of the hon. the Minister which has just been disposed of to his other portfolio, Interior. In his concluding remarks, the hon. the Minister remarked on the resources of South Africa, the character of its people and its human and physical resources. He said we did not have to fear for the future of South Africa. This afternoon I am going to test some of the hon. the Minister’s attitudes, which he has expressed so far as his task as the Minister of Information is concerned, against what is happening internally under his Department of Interior in so far as the furthering of the interests of South Africa on the world scene is concerned. We have had the opportunity during this session to discuss the Public Service Commission and I do not intend to raise matters from this side concerning this body, except for one or two administrative matters.

There are other matters which I believe are very material to the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. There is, for example, the administration by the hon. Minister and his department of the Population Registration Act, the working of the new Publications Control Act and the need for greater co-ordination. I even want to go so far as to suggest the merging of the departments of Immigration and Interior, because of the overlapping which occurs at the present moment. There is also the question of the wage gap and of visa and passport control. Obviously I shall not be able to deal with all of these. Before I commence I want to express, from our side of the House, our appreciation to the Secretary for the adequate annual report which we have received. I may add that although it is a most inexpensive publication, it nevertheless contains all the necessary information. It is not embellished with policy statements and yet fully serves its purpose as the report of a department. I might suggest that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs refer this type of publication to some of the other members of the Cabinet who seem to indulge as far as their departments are concerned, in a glossy, magazine-type of annual report which I do not think is necessary.

I want to say to the officials of this department that I believe South Africa owes them nothing but the greatest gratitude for the manner in which they discharged their duties in connection with the influx of refugees during the past year. The report we have at our disposal gives us the factual situation: 13 000 refugees were handled together with their repatriation, applications for temporary residence, visas, etc. It was an enormous task which was thrown upon them. I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House to the various passport control officers and the other officials who were at these places when it was necessary for them to be there. I want to thank them for the exemplary patience they showed towards the refugees. There have been very few reported exceptions to this. I can commend the way in which they dealt with a difficult type of person. These people were obviously agitated and fearful of their future. In the circumstances, unreasonable demands could be expected.

I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister in regard to questions we have already put to him. It seems that the cost being faced by the Republic in this regard is enormous. Could the hon. the Minister indicate whether there are possibilities of recovering some of the cost? The hon. the Minister mentioned certain repatriation costs which would be paid by the Portuguese Government. I should like the hon. the Minister to give some indication as to the final cost to our country, if possible during this debate.

I want to raise the question of alien control and the admission of aliens to South Africa. It seems that the number of approved temporary residence visas has been normal. During 1974, for instance, 248 000 of these were granted. Some 251 000 were granted during 1975. However, when one looks at the number of refusals, one notices that there has been an enormous increase in respect of visas to visit South Africa. The figure for 1974 was 1 828 and for 1975, 7 660. According to the report, this figure excludes persons who wished to enter the Republic from Mozambique, Angola and the Lebanon. I should like to know what the reason for the enormous increase is.

Another thing I would like to deal with is the visit, or proposed visit, of theatrical personalities or groups to South Africa. Naturally these persons have to apply for visas. We know that the hon. the Minister— and we must accept it as normal procedure— can refuse or grant a visa without giving any reason. But a new departure seems to have arisen in the department, something which I can only describe as authoritarianism. I can find no legal authority whatsoever for the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister’s department and, obviously, also by him in this case. Last month an application was submitted to the Department of the Interior for visas for a group of entertainers wanting to visit South Africa. The letter which was sent to the applicants in this case said that in principle there was no objection to these people visiting South Africa. However, it contained the following directive—

This directive was imposed by the Department of the Interior in connection with an application for a visa. The letter was not signed by the hon. the Minister, but by an official in Pretoria. As far as we are concerned, audience control is not a function of the Department of the Interior. The authority of this House for that is vested in the Minister of Community Development. This issue is the use and occupation of premises. As far as Bantu audiences are concerned, it is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. I want to know what has happened here, because in this letter, which is dated 15 April 1976, the authority is assumed to dictate to the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Bantu Administration. When I saw this, I thought that perhaps the Minister of the Interior had felt that a directive to that new recruit in the Department of Community Development, the new Minister of Community Development, might serve a good purpose, but what about that senior member of the Cabinet, the Minister of Bantu Administration, who is the chairman of the committee which has been set up by the Cabinet to deal with the elimination of discrimination? He is now to have no say whatsoever in regard to audience attendance on the part of the Bantu people in South Africa. This letter goes on to give to the Ministers of Community Development and Bantu Administration a purely administrative function. After saying that performances are to be restricted to separated audiences, the letter goes on to say this—

This is a matter which we cannot tolerate. Certainly no authority has been given by this House to the Department of the Interior to dictate on the question of audience attendances at theatres. I want to go further and say that what appalls me in this particular instance is that this application refers to the proposed visit of a national folk company from Korea. This company, for which the application was made, and which has been dealt with in this peremptory way by the Department of the Interior, is a group which has been hailed by the New York Times as a “phenomenal company”. It has performed at Sadler’s Wells Theatre and it has performed at a Royal Command performance. It presents entertainment which is based on the traditions, legends and folklore of a nation which this Government helped from 1950 to 1953 by sending our Air Force to assist them. However, when they apply for permission to come here and present a traditional form of entertainment, they are told by the Department of the Interior that they must perform before separate audiences.

There can be only one reason for this, and that is something which this Government has pledged itself to get away from, viz. discrimination on the grounds of colour. Does the Minister realize the harm which a directive of that sort does to South Africa? It is unforgivable stupidity that a letter of this sort should emanate from the Department of the Interior in regard to a visa application. As I have said, the imposition of these conditions in relation to the granting of visas is not a function of the Minister of the Interior, unless his colleagues, the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Bantu Administration, have said to him: “You make up your mind; we will just fall in line with what you say.”

Mr. Chairman, we listened to the hon. the Minister speaking in the debate on the Information Vote. Does the Minister not realize how this action can lead to further isolation? The Lusaka Manifesto accepts that there must be a time factor, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister, because he may not know this, although the Minister of Community Development knows it, that Equity itself, whose members are threatening to deprive South Africa of theatrical visits, is prepared to accept a one third proportion of performances before mixed audiences as being satisfactory for the next two or three years. They are themselves prepared to accept a time period in this regard, but then the Minister’s department writes a letter of this sort, which torpedoes the very efforts which people are making to try to get understanding with these people outside of South Africa.

Sir, I want to come now to the question of the Population Registration Act. I want to deal with this in the light of the changes which have taken place in attitudes and in professed policy on the part of the Government, which attitudes have always been the accepted policy on this side of the House. As far as population registration is concerned, I want to say at the outset, so that there can be no argument about this, that there can be no objection whatsoever to the requirement that citizens of any country be registered and thus have a means of identification. There can be no question about that, but in the Republic that registration has been substituted by what I can only call an abhorrent system of classification according to legal definition which has no regard for the individual, his or her emotions or accepted way of life.

Classification gives rise to the application of other laws. Race classification, in particular, gives rise to the provisions of the Immorality Act, the provisions of the Mixed Marriages Act and a host of other discriminatory legislative matters which are so legion they would take me a long time to enumerate. When people attempt to achieve a privileged position, i.e. a higher classification—if I may use the word “higher”—this is not “trying for White”; this is not motivated by any shame of their fortune or misfortune of birth. I have seen hundreds of cases of that kind. The motivation lies in an endeavour to escape the intolerable consequences of the racial discriminatory laws of this country, to escape being enmeshed in a way of life which denies them the full value of citizenship of this country and the exercising of freedom of personal association. The human tragedies and continuing fears because of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act are very real among a very large number of people in this country. I am not pleading today for those fleeting, libertine associations across the colour line or for the loose-living individuals. My plea today is for the recognition of deep and genuine human affection, understanding and respect. Human understanding between individuals does not lose its depth or sincerity solely because it crosses the legally defined dividing line between the population groups in this country. That is all it is—a legally defined dividing line. It is not a dividing line of character or conduct; it is a dividing line of colour. Over the years I have not regarded it as necessary or desirable to give publicity to cases of intolerable hardship and human injustice flowing from the administration of this type of legislation. I have endeavoured to deal with these matters without going to the Press. We have made our position abundantly clear over the last two decades. We on this side of the House believe that the basis of appearance and acceptance of individuals is a sufficient basis for their registration. The very report before us indicates that there are changes being made in classifications. The rigid provisions of the Act, however, make the position of the Secretary of the department and intolerable one. He has little or no discretion. The law states that when one parent is classified coloured the children must be Coloured, whatever the hardships or intolerable consequences arising. The secretary cannot move, being bound by the Act. He can only correct errors and he cannot be persuaded that fulfilling the exact terms of the legal definitions is an error. He must daily be subjected to ordeals in dealing with the implementation of this legislation. I do not think hon. members of this House have had the full opportunity of appreciating the human tragedies, the continuing fear of exposure, the number of unregistered children there are in this country of ours, a number that is growing each year, and all of this as a result of classification, not on a scientific basis but in accordance with a legal definition.

I have many files of persons whom I have endeavoured to assist, not professionally but as a member of this House. This has, in small part, been an endeavour to alleviate the agony in which I find these people. They endure agony because of their deep and sincere emotions, when those emotions are frustrated because of the discrimination imposed by the philosophy of this Government, discrimination motivated by colour alone. This afternoon I propose to examine some of these cases. I have no intention of divulging the identities of the people concerned but I have their authority to place the facts before this committee. In the time available to me I shall deal with six cases.

In the first case I refer to Mr. X. He was apprenticed as a White, he is a member of a White trade union, he is employed as a White, he has associated for many years in a White sports club, he has associated with a White family for over 10 years, he has lived in their household for five of those 10 years and he and the daughter of the family have formed an association over this period of time, but he has a Coloured identification card because he has a Coloured classification. The couple has a child. This man’s father is White and his mother is classified as mixed and therefore he must remain Coloured according to this rigid definition. Reclassification has been refused. This man wrote to me—

I put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I suggested that he might give me the answer that I should give to this couple. His reply to me is—

[Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not wisdom; it is human compassion that it required to solve this matter.

Let me deal with the second case, that of Miss A. She has resided in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. She is classified as a Coloured person because it is the classification of one of her parents. She entered Rhodes University as a student. After some time there she was asked to produce an identity card and that was the end of her training there. However, she continued her training, she qualified as a teacher and she is now teaching. She was accepted as a White person by the then mayors of both Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. One of the Mayors wrote—

The other mayor said—

She did nothing to institute proceedings before 1969 when she could have come in as a result of acceptance and appearance, but now it is too late. She now lives in a White area and she associates with Whites but must accept the discriminatory laws against a Coloured person when it comes to the fulfilment of her own human relations with other people. The Secretary for the Interior will obviously not reclassify her.

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

If there is any time left at the end of my speech, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to ask a question.

Where does she teach?

I shall come back to her case in a moment.

†I want to come to another case, that of a young man who as a White man secured employment with the S.A. Railways early in 1973. Later in 1973 he received a formal notice from the Department of Defence to appear before a Defence Selection Board. He went there and was allotted to a regiment. For the whole of 1974 he served in a White regiment believing that he was White. When he returned in 1975, he received his identity documents saying that he was a Coloured person. Before he could do anything about this matter, he was called up to do another three months’ service which he has just done on the border. He has just been up north and served in a field regiment on the border. I took this matter up with the Secretary for the Interior, but he has found it impossible to reclassify this person.

There is a young couple that live together and I came across them recently. They have been accepted as Whites. They live together and have not been married. They have a child and they are living happily, properly, decently. They have not been able to marry because the girl has a Coloured identity card. However, I shall accept her into my house as a White person, but I have not been able to get her classification amended. The young man went up to serve on the border. When he went up to the border, there was no pay for him as a married person; he was paid as a single man. If anything happened to him serving in a regiment for South Africa, the associated girl with whom he lives and his child would have no benefit, no pay, nothing whatsoever, because of a formal classification, a rigid classification of this sort.

I must hasten to go on to another case. Miss B was referred to me by a church leader who advised me that Miss B’s parents came to South Africa from St. Helena. Miss B herself came from St. Helena and was classified as “mixed”. She has been living for almost a lifetime with a White man. They have had five children. The head of a church wrote to me and said that this lady and her children are accepted as Whites, live in a White area and attend a White school and church. The births of these five children have not been registered and problems have now arisen. These children have been attending a White primary school. They were able to get in there without showing their birth certificates. However, the eldest now wants to go to a secondary school and must produce an identity card. I have attempted to sort this out. The department, being as co-operative as they possibly could, decided that they will register the births of the children, that they will be classified as Coloured and that the guardian can then apply to have them reclassified as White, which application will be favourably considered. The position will then be that the father and the five children will be classified as White and the mother as Coloured whilst they are living in the same home where the father and mother have been living together for decades as man and wife. The children will remain illegitimate for the rest of their days, with all that denotes in this country.

Mr. Y served in the Army in a combat regiment from 1939 to 1944 when he was discharged. His report reads as follows: General character—very good; efficiency— very good; sobriety—sober. He was given an honourable discharge as medically unfit. In 1948 he met and married a woman. They married as White people. Their marriage certificate indicates that man and wife were White people. Subsequently he received an identity card saying that he is Coloured. These people married as Whites in accordance with the laws of South Africa. They are now to be the parents of Coloured children, even though they married as Whites and were accepted as Whites in 1948. This is what is happening.

But the hon. member knows what the legal position is in respect of marriages.

I know it is legal. That is what I am complaining about. I know that the marriage is still legitimate and valid. I am not querying that fact. The point is that the children are to be classified as Coloured despite the fact that their parents, according to their marriage certificate, were married as two White people in 1948.

I want to refer to the last case. I received a letter recently from a woman in which she said—

I took this matter up with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wrote to him saying that I could not for the life of me see why reclassification could not be acceded to in these cases so that the whole family could be united and could live a normal and open existence. The Minister’s reply was—

However, there was no reclassification.

As the hon. the Minister will know, I am not in the habit of raising these cases publicly. I raise them today because I believe that it is urgent that this sort of legal imposition should be lifted from people in this country. This must be done. All the money that is spent by the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Information and all the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs are negatived and torpedoed as long as we have this type of treatment of human beings in this country. It is not that these people want to be White because they are ashamed of being Coloured. These people desire to be classified as White if there is the slightest chance of their succeeding, firstly in order to escape from being enmeshed in the discriminatory practices in this country which deprive them of the full life they are entitled to lead and, secondly, because it prevents them from exercising the freedom of choice of association to the extent of marriage. This they are denied purely as a result of legal definitions contained in the Act which are enforced as they are being enforced at present. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this question. In cases such as these the hon. the Minister can help to improve the lives of a large number of children, children who are unregistered and who, one day, will have their own problems when they seek to be registered and find out the “when”, “where” and “how” and perhaps find out, too, that they are illegitimate children.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point reminds me of an unsuccessful suitor. This is the impression which he creates when one listens to him. Every year when this debate comes up, he brings up a certain few problems and tries to make an impression in this way. Every year the girl he is courting simply sends him back without his having accomplished anything. If one has followed the hon. member’s debates over the past few years, it seems that to a certain extent he rotates his subjects. Either he concentrates on the problems of the Public Service Commission, or he concentrates on visas, race classification or population registration. However, every year the hon. member comes a cropper. Year after year he goes back like a downhearted suitor to wait for the following year.

What are you getting at, Daantjie?

It seems to me that the UP has been so knocked about by the politics of Southern Africa that they have only one little concept left to cling to, namely discrimination. The entire political system of South Africa and everything which happens in South Africa centres around the particular interpretation which the UP attaches to the concept of “discrimination”. I believe that the hon. member for Durban North has more on his mind today than this debate.

Surely you are a Christian?

I can also hear the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in between. He has been in active politics since 1948 or 1949, but has never been able to come up with a real solution to the problems of the population situation in South Africa.

This is an unchristian thing!

Not at all! The hon. member has no solution to the population problems of South Africa. He and his party are simply clinging to small problems.

[Inaudible.]

I fully agree with you. In any community, in every part of the world, there will be problematical cases, cases which cause problems, which cause difficulty. However, hon. members of the Opposition are under the impression that all problems in the world are related to the policy of separate development. That sort of argument simply does not hold water. The UP’s chief spokesman on the interior once again devoted an entire half hour to certain small cases which in any event had already been dealt with in detail by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister. If there is anyone with understanding and sympathy for people and for human relations and human sorrows, it is the hon. the Deputy Minister. In my opinion the hon. chief spokesman of the UP is doing the debate a disservice by simply quoting certain cases to give strength to his argument, instead of taking note of the wide variety of activities of the Department of the Interior and the wide variety of activities of the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. UP should rather give us a different suitor for a change, someone who could perhaps put up a better show than the hon. member for Green Point.

[Inaudible.]

The fact that the hon. member for Green Point had so little to say today, but nevertheless, said it, actually proves the commendable way in which matters were dealt with, not only by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, but also by all the officials of the Department of the Interior. When one looks at this very tidy report we have received, one realizes what a great task is performed for us by the department concerned. If one takes note of the statistics and if one considers, for example, how many visitors’ visas were handled by the department—more than 156 000—how many people are let in and out by passport officials at customs, how many hundreds of thousands of people are dealt with annually, and how successfully all this is handled, it is clear that we in South Africa can only be satisfied with the good control which is exercised over people who live in South Africa, as well as people who enter and leave the country. For the information of the Opposition, I should like to read briefly what the aim and the chief functions of the Department of the Interior are. The aim of the department is to identify members of the population, including foreigners, for certain purposes. The hon. member delivered the same speech this afternoon, as he did two years ago—I read his whole speech of that time. The hon. the Minister then asked the Opposition: How are you going to classify people in dealing with the population problem of South Africa? How are you going to introduce a race classification system for establishing your race federation? In reply to that, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his likeminded friends usually interject: “But what about South West Africa?” But the hon. members must tell us how they are going to organize and control people in South Africa, where we have a multiplicity of people, without causing friction and conflict. Every year the hon. members come along here, but they have not once told us how they are going to do it. This year the hon. member for Green Point did exactly the same thing once again. What are the chief functions of this department? They are the following—

1. (1) The registration of relevant personal particulars and other information, for example birth, name, sex, ethnic group, marital status, citizenship, driver’s licence, licence for fire-arms, voters, travelling facilities, deaths, and admission to and residence in South Africa for foreigners, and the registration of newspapers and abbreviations of printer’s names;
2. (2) keeping the registers concerned up to date;
3. (3) the issuing of identification documents, for example identity documents, birth, marriage and death certificates, South African citizenship certificates, passports and temporary residence permits for foreigners;
4. (4) the provision of assistance: provision of staff, accounting of income and expenditure, work study and computer services;
5. (5) liaison between the Government and the provincial authorities in connection with State affairs;
6. (6) the provision of social services with respect to Chinese; and matters in connection with the Publications Control Board.

[Interjections.] I cannot hear what the hon. member is grumbling about over there. However, in the past few years we have been hearing what cruel people we are supposed to be. The hon. member said here that we were a Nazi state. There is the question of the control of publications. This year we have not heard a single word from the hon. chief spokesman about this. I suspect that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will most probably tell us how cruel we are and how adults are prevented from reading and seeing certain things. This party has been in power for 27 years and we govern this country well, because we see the realities of South Africa and because we are prepared to govern, because the moment one is prepared to govern, one must do things firmly and one must do them well.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I want to return to the Public Service Commission and should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to page 13, where the general staff situation is discussed and where, in para. 40, 41 and 42, we are told that the gain in staff was 52,20%, as against a loss of 54,98%. I accept that in analysing these matters, one can advance as a reason for this the fact that South Africa is a young growing country where the necessary infrastructure has not yet been created, that we do not have a labour shortage in our country and that as a result there are no people who are unemployed. There are many reasons one can mention, also the fact that we in South Africa are in the process of emancipating a large number of Bantu nations, that we are training non-White officials, Xhosa or Venda or whatever, for which purpose much of the White manpower has to go to these non-White nations. But I think it might be a good thing if we could receive an explanation from the hon. the Minister of how the Public Service Commission, especially under the new dispensation, intends to ensure that the losses in staff do not become greater in the Public Service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point mentioned the Angolan refugees in passing and actually only showed an interest in the cost aspect. Apart from the normal activities of the Department of the Interior, which naturally take up all the available time, this year the department had to deal with a completely new situation, namely the Angolan refugees. The hon. the Minister, the Secretary for the Interior in his capacity as refugee commissary, and the department had to accept responsibility for these people. These circumstances drastically influenced the activities of the “Entry and Exit” branch. Temporary accommodation was provided to these refugees in several camps. In South West Africa, for example, there were camps at Tsumeb, Grootfontein and Windhoek, and temporary camps at Walvis Bay and Oshikati. Later several other camps were constructed, chiefly on the border and in Angola, where the Defence Force saw to the well-being of these people. In the Republic, camps were provided at Cullinan and Lyndhurst. It was a tremendous task for the department, a task in which the Secretary was supported by various other departments. We think of the great task which was carried out in co-operation with the South African Defence Force, the police, the Departments of Immigration, Health, Customs and Excise, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and the Governments of Owambo and Kavango. I was privileged to visit the camps on several occasions and can only testify with the greatest respect to the unselfish work done by many officials to alleviate the distress of these people wherever possible. They literally worked day and night to prepare the area, install water and sanitation, and provide firewood, food and tents. Often, long queues of people waited to be documented and immunized. It was a common sight to see lights burning in the tents where the officials were occupied with this task from daylight till 11 o’clock at night. They did not even permit themselves the opportunity of stopping work in order to eat, but took something in between together with a cup of tea or coffee. Great trouble was taken by these departments to trace members of families and to unite families. For instance, a particular father was found in Rundu after his family had reached Walvis Bay via Skeleton Coast. These people could never have reached Walvis Bay through those barren regions had it not been for the help of the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police. It was an exhausting journey which they could only undertake during low tide and then they had to spend approximately 18 hours on the sand banks waiting for the next low tide. The Defence Force and the Police succeeded in bringing all these people and the vehicles safely to Walvis Bay, and I think that this action is really a credit to them. It was heartrending to see, especially on the first day and the ensuing days, how literally hundreds of people rushed over the border in a wild flight before murderers, plunderers and rapists. Tales of unbelievable violence, rape and marauding expeditions were common. From Ruacana to Oshikati it was a common sight to see groups of people practically under every tree and beside every canal, washing themselves, their clothes, or merely sitting and resting after their race with death. In this way these people eventually gathered at Oshikati, from where convoys were arranged to the various camps. Nothing is said about this. Convoys had to be designated and people had to be assigned to the various camps. It was an immense task and I cannot over-emphasize the unselfish service rendered by these officials for many hours on end. The Angolans, White and Black, turned in their hour of need to the so-called aggressors, the White racists.

It struck me that the hon. the Minister said under a previous Vote that the PRP went out of their way to brand South Africa as the oppressor of the Blacks. They should take note of the fact that the Black man now takes refuge with these aggressors. At present there are still about 2 500 Angolans at Rundu, chiefly Black Angolans, who crossed the border immediately after the S.A. Defence Force had withdrawn from there. They say they are keen to return to their country, but they fear the plunderers and murderers who raid Southern Angola. They say they are prepared to return provided that they can be placed in Luanda in some way. I do not know if this is possible, but perhaps the hon. the Minister, in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can look at this matter so that a solution can be found for these unfortunate people too. I think that they are correct in saying that if they should be placed in the south of Angola, their fate would be unpredictable. During the period in which all these refugees were staying in South West, the heart of the public was opened to them and people throughout South West Africa and South Africa made lavish contributions and donated food, clothing, blankets and medical supplies. These acts were a credit to the people of South Africa. A repatriation campaign was directed from these camps in collaboration with the Portuguese Government. The Department of the Interior also had to accept responsibility for this and had to make the necessary arrangements. They had to arrange for the transportation of hundreds of people from Windhoek and Grootfontein to Walvis Bay and Pretoria and also had to get these people’s documents in order.

Nevertheless, all the arrangements went smoothly and the manner in which trains entered Walvis Bay and the ease with which people were transferred from the trains to the boats were a credit to the department. The extent of the task is apparent from the following: 2 919 people were repatriated by boat from Walvis Bay, while 1 422 people were repatriated by aircraft from Windhoek; a further 5 570 left from Jan Smuts by aircraft, while 750 left the country at their own expense; and temporary residence was granted to approximately 2 000 people after they had complied with the requirements of the Department of Immigration. Leave was granted to these people to accept temporary employment in South West Africa and South Africa. I have been informed that all these people have already received legal documents to be in South Africa and therefore it will be easy to make sure that no undesirable elements enter the country.

In the process, approximately 33 000 km per vehicle was covered by officials between the camps, and if one thinks of costs, one must remember that there are tremendous built-in costs which are difficult to take into account. It will therefore be difficult ever to determine what the refugee problem actually cost South Africa. But in order to make all these things possible, five senior officials of the Department of the Interior were seconded on a full time basis to deal with the refugee question. The department then had to manage without their services for its normal work. If one considers that the number of refugees who entered South Africa exceeded the foreigners who entered the country during the same period, then one realizes what a great task had to be undertaken.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for his share contribution to this, because these refugees will propagate the image of South Africa in the outside world. They will tell the outside world that the White racists are not oppressors, but attempt to let truth prevail and to do justice to all. I am convinced of the fact that South Africa will be able to reap the fruits of this, and that in the years to come, there will be a wider circle who will say that the Whites in South Africa are in the right and that they are not oppressors and aggressors. This idea has already gained acceptance in Portugal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Omaruru will be dealt with by one of my hon. colleagues a little later on. I notice that the hon. member for Rissik showed concern for the deterioration in the staff position of the Public Service. Although he offered no solutions, I share with him his concern. The key to a progressive and developing society and a stable country is in fact an efficient and highly motivated Civil Service. This is especially the case in South Africa where there is rapid development and where the Government has undertaken the task of developing not only the whole, but also several autonomous regions which will require separate civil services themselves. Therefore it is not only vital to maintain the service which has to look after the vast community permanently resident in that enormous section which we call White South Africa, but if separate development is to succeed or bear fruit at all, civil service structures must be constituted to serve the homelands, the Coloureds and, in terms of Government policy, even the Indians. It is not my intention to become involved in a discussion of the desirability of the broad philosophy of separate development, because our contrary views are well known. I merely state the situation as a fact. I think it is no understatement to say that a viable and properly trained civil service will, in the homelands, mean the difference between administrative chaos and reasonable order.

I should also like to say from these benches that, in my view, the Republic is remarkably well served by the corps of public officials which we find at our disposal. Taking all the retarding and inhibiting factors into account, the Public Service has over the years developed and maintained what I believe are high traditions and standards. The calibre of senior men is of the best, as many junior and inexperienced Ministers will, I am sure, be able to testify. From my own experience as a private individual, in my profession, and even here in Parliament, I have seen the dedication with which the officials in the Public Service give their best to promote the interests of the public.

Having said that, it does not mean that all is well in the Public Service and that everything in the garden is rosy; far from it. The Public Service is today facing a crisis which seems to be escalating and not diminishing. This is no idle comment. Apart from what one gleans in the Press, in personal discussions and from personal experiences, the main recorded evidence of the crisis I have mentioned is contained in the latest report of the Public Service Commission itself. I wish to pick out just a few telling quotes from this document, two of which were mentioned by the hon. member for Rissik. On page 2, under the heading “Revision of the Public Service System” we find the following:

On page 13, under the heading “Vacancies”, we find the following—

On page 13, under the heading “General Staff Position”, we find the following under item 40—

On the same page, in items 41 and 42, we find the following—

I need quote no further, because the point is clearly made and I honestly believe that the Government has taken the point. The consequences of further deterioration are easy to see. They are a decline in standards, a falling off in productivity, a breakdown in the administration of justice, a retarding of the development of the infrastructures of the homelands, and a wastage of money in delays and in hold-ups. Much advice is being offered to the Government from all sides. I realize that. The editorial of Rapport of 29 February went so far as to suggest that private enterprise be called in to sort out the difficulties. I quote the Rapport of that date—

That is what Rapport had to say.

Within the framework of its mandate and of what is possible, I believe the Public Service Commission is struggling against heavy odds. I believe it has to resort to much ingenuity. It is using publicity campaigns aimed at the improvement of the image of the organization; it is instituting training schemes; it is promoting bilingualism; it is making more use of women in the service; it is mechanizing; it is granting further bursaries; it is juggling with salary scales within the framework of what it can do in terms of the budget; it is trying to improve pension benefits, and so on. All these things are a part of a campaign to curb the staff deterioration in the Public Service, and yet the position in fact continues to worsen. The establishment continues to grow while the number of the people in the Public Service continues to dwindle. Of course money plays a very important role. At a time when the word “inflation” has meaning for every single person, young and old, rich and poor. It also has meaning for members of the Public Service. We know in fact that the Public Service is not very competitive as an employer. The recently announced 10% salary increase, welcome though it is, is but a temporary palliative. We know that financial exigencies will for a long time play a role in the difficulties of this particular service.

However, I believe that the true nature of the ailment is not all that difficult to discern. It involves policy rather than mechanics. The difficulty as I see it, is that, despite all the changes that are taking place in South Africa, the Government still adheres to the belief that four and a half million White people must provide all the skills, expertise and direction of the services required by a vast multi-racial population of some 25 million people. This remains a fact, in spite of the homelands. In the 10 minutes I have in which to make my speech, I cannot go into detail, but I can make a few suggestions. It has become time that the Government take at least three steps. In the first place I should like to see the Government initiate a far more progressive plan to narrow, and according to a time-table to eliminate, the indefensible pay gap for equal work between the races.

In fact, the Government should work towards creating a single pay structure for all races within the civil service. Secondly, it is now time to embark upon a dynamic programme of technical, legal and administrative training far in excess of the present level. This should involve suitable Blacks, Coloureds and Indians and they should be brought into such training programmes in numbers hitherto unknown. In the third place, the Government should progressively restructure the Civil Service in consultation with the staff associations and representative bodies so as to allow employment and promotion on merit, thus phasing out discrimination and the monopoly of Whites on the middle to senior echelons of the service itself. What I am trying to say is that I believe that we have the resources in South Africa to solve the problems of the Public Service. If we dedicate ourselves to getting rid of discrimination and employ people of all races in the structure of the Civil Service, we shall find problems diminishing and not growing. Only in this way, while continuing with all the other measures which the Public Service Commission is laudably bringing about, will the Public Service be in a position in the years ahead to maintain the traditions it has built up over the years and to provide a full and total service in South Africa, across the board to all races.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to come back to the hon. member for Green Point. In the first instance I should like to refer to the statement he made, i.e. that he had no objection to a population register, but that he, at the same time, regards the present population classification as an abominable system. He continued and said that the only criterion for classification should be acceptance and appearance. Sir, what does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say in this regard? I refer to col. 4357 of Hansard of 2 October 1974. There the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that there shall be no race classification. The same hon. member for Bezuidenhout said later in that debate that this would be the first Act which would be tom up if they should ever come into power. Sir, one needs an explanation for all this confusion in the ranks of the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout not only said that it was not necessary. When the hon. members for Yeoville and Sandton were still in their ranks they also said they would do away with race classification. As against this the hon. member for Green Point says that he is a supporter of population registration and that he has no objection to a system of group identity. Yet, Sir, they have a policy in terms of which they distinguish between certain peoples. I am referring to their idea of communal states and communal councils for various population groups. How then are these people elected?

What is the position in South West Africa?

Mr. Chairman, South West Africa is quite a different situation. [Interjections.] The industrial development density in South West Africa is now at the stage where South Africa was 100 years ago. Furthermore, there are a number of peoples in South West Africa who have their own identity, their own residential areas, their own culture and their own traditions. It is not as complicated as the population composition of South Africa. In fact, the two cannot be compared. Sir, they cannot escape from this argument so easily.

The hon. members for Yeoville and Sandton, when they were still in the United Party, said that they wanted to do away with population classification. The former hon. member for Durban North, in whose constituency a “classification” of votes is incidentally taking place today, also agreed with the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Green Point and the former hon. member for South Coast also said they wanted to do away with population classification. At that time the former hon. member for Wynberg, who is no longer with us, said: “No, we want classification, but not as the hon. member for Green Point wants it, i.e. classification based upon acceptance and appearance; we want classification which is simply based upon acceptance and nothing else.” We are completely justified in asking: Where and when does this confusion in the ranks of that party end? This is a confusion which started as long ago as in 1950, when that party so strongly opposed the so-called third party objections, because they had feared that this side of the House would start a witch-hunt against innocent White people who would then be reclassified as Coloureds. This had been their fear, but since we did not have a single case of that nature in a period of 17 years, we have another change of approach. In 1967, when those third party objections had to be abolished due to certain malpractices, they were the people who made a somersault. They were the people who wanted to retain this measure which they did not want initially. Sir, we most certainly have every right to ask the UP: Are you in favour of the maintenance of White identity in South Africa? Are you in favour of maintaining the identity of the Coloured group? Are you in favour of maintaining the identity of the Bantu ethnic groups in this country? Sir, we do not want to waste any time. Two years ago the hon. the Minister cross-examined that side of the House and asked them: “How on earth could you have a relations policy system in terms of which you want to grant representation to the various groups in White and Black communal councils, Brown communal councils and Indian communal councils if you do not have a classification system?” Surely, this is absolutely senseless. Those hon. members cannot get away from that argument. In their relations policy there is a provision to the effect that powers of this Parliament may not be transferred to the so-called federal Parliament before a referendum has been held among the White electorate. How do they identify White voters if they do not have a proper system of population classification?

The people of South Africa have long ago recognized the shortcomings of the official relations policy that party presents to the voters, but unfortunately hon. members on that side have not yet realized they are dealing with a fallacious policy, that, in this process, they are sacrificing the identity of the White man, the Coloureds and the Bantu and that they are doing away with the whole principle of separate schools, separate residential areas and all the things that go with it.

The hon. member for Green Point went further. He mentioned a number of hard-luck stories here and expressed his sympathy with those people. However, he went even further by saying that these hard-luck stories arise and exist simply because the Secretary does not have the necessary discretion in terms of the Act. In this regard I want to differ with him completely. I want to quote a portion of section 5(4)(d), which is applicable here—

Therefore, he is afforded a particular discretion to alter the classification.

He is being tied down by subsection (5).

The hon. member should not argue. It says so here in so many words. However, how is it being applied? That hon. member also mentioned the many cases of reclassification which should be referred to the Secretary. In fact, how many are those “many cases”? Approximately 400 per year out of a total population of 22 million people. Of those 400 cases no fewer than 122 were successful during the past financial year. The legislation provides that the Secretary, in the case of such “hard-luck” stories, may decide as he deems fit. The Secretary did not simply act arbitrarily as he thought fit either. After all, he realizes only too well that he is dealing here with quasi-legal actions, and he also realizes only too well that whatever judgment he makes in terms of male fides or incorrect judgment may be reviewed and may have repercussions in a subsequent court of law. For that reason he has to be careful and lay down guide-lines.

Therefore, if he has to digress from the peremptory provisions of section 5(5), which lay down how he should perform his task, he will most certainly carry out the classification in accordance with the description of “Bantu”, “Coloured” and “White” in section 1 of the Act. He will see to it that he acts consistently and also that the people concerned can be assimilated or accepted in the new group which they have to identify themselves with and in which they have to be classified. If he could do this, it means that those people would not be acceptable to that new group, and if those people are not acceptable for that new group, far more friction would arise in that hundreds of people would object to the classification of one unfortunate person. I admit that it is regrettable that there are in fact people who are affected in an unfortunate way, but just to show how judiciously the Secretary exercises his discretion, P just want to mention one matter. Since the Secretary has had this discretion, not one of his decisions has been revised. This shows how effective this procedure is. In 1974 not one single case was taken to the Appeal Court and this also applies to 1975. This goes to show that the hon. member is quite wrong and confused in his way of thinking. He interprets this whole Act incorrectly and as it suits him. Next year he will have a different policy again. Then he will have to perform an egg-dance again to look for another aspect which will suit him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Durbanville attempted to mislead the Committee when he only quoted subsection (c). If the hon. member had read a little further, he would have seen that subsection (5) makes it very, very clear because it states—

1. (a) a person shall be classified as a White person if his natural parents have both been classified as White persons,
2. (b) a person shall be classified as a Coloured person if his natural parents have both been classified as Coloured persons …

In other words, the Secretary for the Interior has a restricted discretion because he has to act within the ambit of this subsection. I am really surprised at the hon. member. He is a man who has legal qualifications; how can he come to this House and read only a portion of the Act and not the subsequent portion which clarifies and restricts this portion which he read? In my view the hon. member for Durbanville mislead the Committee in this respect, but I presume he did so in all innocence. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Durbanville tries to make petty politics of as serious a matter as race classification. He gave no answers.

†He said South West Africa is where South Africa was 100 years ago. I hope this blunder does not cause international repercussions. I should like to know from the hon. member what the NP was doing during the last 28 years so that South West Africa is now 100 years behind South Africa.

Does the hon. member for Mariental agree with the hon. member for Durbanville?

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Green Point most sincerely on a brilliant speech. The hon. member covered a very wide field and devoted his speech inter alia, to the heartbreak of race classification. I sincerely hope that the Act will be amended as a matter of urgency so as to make provision for the cases to which he referred. The hon. member for Green Point spoke on a very high level, but hon. members of the NP who spoke after him, tried to make petty politics of the matter. However, they offered no solution whatsoever.

†The hon. members for Rissik and Durbanville complained because the hon. member for Green Point spent so much time on heart-break race classification cases. Those two hon. members should be absolutely ashamed of themselves because they do not perceive the magnitude of this particular matter and what is actually at stake. The hon. member for Green Point would have been thoroughly justified if he had spent his entire 30 minutes dealing with race classification cases. The adverse publicity caused to the good name of South Africa as a result of these race classification cases is absolutely immeasurable and that is why the hon. member for Green Point dealt with these matters on a very high level and with the utmost discretion. I think he must be complimented for the manner in which he dealt with these cases.

When are you coming to your speech?

Now.

†These could be the golden years of South Africa if we rise to the challenge of our time. There are people who plead change, and change is good. I also want change. However, there are those who do not anticipate the consequences of some of the changes. These people are at times impractical, but in their clamour for change they are damaging race relations in South Africa. Change is good provided it is for the better; not just for the sake of change. The time is overdue for the Government to encourage hon. members belonging to both Opposition parties to settle delicate issues by dialogue and consultation rather than by acrimonious debate in this House. This does not mean or imply that a member of Parliament must merely be politely told that the answer to an application is “no” and he must accept the answer. [Interjections.] I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior is laughing, but I want to tell him that it means there must be a very real effort on both sides to solve the particular problem. Because the Government has the power, it means that they will have to make very real concessions in order that we may settle these matters.

Last week the hon. member for Pretoria East dealt with the position of the Chinese people of South Africa. His appeal, in a nutshell, was for better recognition of our Chinese community and I want to support his appeal. However, I should like to go a bit further than he did and I want to appeal even further. South Africa has a very good relationship with Taiwan and has set its sights on cementing and perpetuating this good relationship. I sincerely believe that proper recognition of the Chinese people in South Africa will assist in cementing that relationship and will have the desired effect, that effect which the hon. the Minister obviously wants. My plea for proper recognition of the Chinese community is not based on trade considerations. It is based on the fact that they, too, are entitled to assist in shaping the destiny of this country. Citizenship entails responsibilities, obligations and rights, reciprocally, between the Government and the people being governed. The Chinese community are the Cinderella com munity in that, in terms of Government policy, they have neither a homeland nor a representative council. To the best of my knowledge the Chinese community have never clamoured for political rights. However, many of us and especially those of us who come from Port Elizabeth have had a very close association with the Chinese community and the hon. the Minister can accept the fact that to give this community proper recognition is in the very real interests of South Africa. The Chinese community own a substantial amount of property. They pay rates and taxes. The income tax they pay is substantial. As far as the Chinese community is concerned, it is a case of taxation without representation. The Chinese community are entitled to play their part to the fullest. The policy of the NP makes no provision for their political rights and aspirations. We want an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that, if he cannot announce the desired changes of policy in this debate, he must at the very least undertake to give this matter priority attention.

The hon. the Minister is in the position that the Public Service Commission falls under him. There is absolutely no reason whatever why the Chinese should not be welcomed in Government services. We should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that his department will positively encourage Chinese people to join the Civil Service. We should like the further undertaking from the hon. the Minister that they will be treated on exactly the same basis as Whites in Civil Service. Merit and the rate for the job must be the criteria. The Chinese are very proud, hardworking and industrious people. They have their own way of life and their own culture. Should they be allowed to play their part as citizens, the hon. the Minister may rest assured that they will always be keen to retain their own identity they would not want their identity mixed with that of any other race group. The Chinese community compares favourably with any other community in South Africa. In fact, I make bold to say that they stand head and shoulders above most of the other communities in South Africa today. The time has come for the Chinese people of South Africa to be classified as White. This is the major obstacle that must be eliminated, the major hurdle that must be overcome, in order to give the Chinese people of South Africa full citizenship. There should be no restriction on the admission of Chinese to schools, nor should the Group Areas Act be applicable to them.

In 1965 a former Minister of Community Development, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, conceded that the question of the Chinese in South Africa was a delicate one. He said further that the relevant difficulties would have to be handled on an ad hoc basis and on merit. We of the UP reject that supposition of the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee. We believe that the Chinese must be classified as White and that one cannot deal with them on an ad hoc basis since that would create a quite intolerable situation. I am sure the hon. the Minister, on reflection in depth, will agree with me that one cannot deal with people on an ad hoc basis because that is most undesirable. The Chinese have been law-abiding citizens of our country and they do not deserve to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. According to a Washington newspaper report dated 11 June 1975, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, when addressing the National Press Club in the USA, is alleged to have said of the Chinese—

On reflection in depth, the hon. the Minister will concede that the word “less” applies rather than the word “more”. I have already listed all the disabilities that apply to the Chinese people. That is why I say that the word “less” applies rather than the word “more”. For the hon. the Minister’s statement in the USA to be meaningful, it is essential that he should not reject the plea I am making. He should tell us today that the matters raised by us are going to enjoy very serious consideration by the Government. In certain respects the Chinese community have rights that race groups other than the Whites do not have. For example, with permission, the Chinese are entitled to live in White areas. They are allowed to attend cinemas and use certain sports facilities. In many respects they are accepted by the White group as White people. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister nods his head. I hope he is nodding in agreement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer has primarily dealt with the situation of the Chinese community. The question I want to pose is: Why suddenly this interest in Parliament in the Chinese community? In a country like South Africa race relations and human relations are indeed a delicate matter. Since we are trying our best to calm things down and improve the situation, why did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday and the hon. member for Walmer today react as they did, apparently for the purpose of stirring a hornet’s nest. They raised issues here which should be dealt with in a delicate way, issues which should not necessarily be bandied about in Parliament.

We are simply doing our duty. Parliament is the forum of the nation.

The hon. member for Walmer says the NP does not make provision for the political rights of the Chinese community. It would be interesting to know whether the UP, in its proposed federal Parliament, makes provision for the Chinese community. I wonder whether they perhaps envisage a separate federal Parliament for the Chinese community. [Interjections.] They are the ones who want to play politics, so let them play it. [Interjections.] I believe this department is a department that contributes a great deal towards trying to calm down the situation in South Africa. However, it is important that matters should be dealt with on the correct basis.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of entertainers coming to South Africa and quoted certain conditions that had been laid down for a particular group. I think he referred to a children’s choir from the Far East. He said the department had laid down certain conditions.

My information is that the particular firm that asked for this group to be allowed into South Africa applied subject to certain conditions laid down by the firm itself. If the department subsequently replies in terms of those conditions, it is not the department that initially imposed those conditions. The department merely reacted to an offer by the applicant. In any case, the whole attitude of entertainers coming to South Africa is a matter that should be dealt with delicately, because I am of the opinion that South Africa has its own history, its own problems and its own Government, a Government which deals with these problems in as responsible a manner as is required under the circumstances. If this amounts to certain conditions being laid down by entertainers from overseas or by their agents, the question arises whether any country with any amount of self-respect would be prepared to bow to conditions being laid down by people from overseas stating the terms under which they are prepared to entertain in that country. If such matters or conditions are being handled on a sound basis and in accordance with reasonable attitudes, negotiations can take place. However, if conditions which have been applied for, or which have been laid down, are suddenly and abruptly abandoned by overseas entertainers who want to lay down other conditions, thereby trying to prescribe to the Government of a country how it should act, no country with any degree of self-respect can submit to such conditions. For that matter, I think it is important that promoters of entertainment should deal with this in the proper way and should not get involved in issues which they know will create tension or unrest in the field of entertainment.

Another matter that requires attention is the question affecting visas for people applying to come to South Africa.

*It is a fact that South Africa handles more than 3 million people entering the country every year and more than 3 million people leaving the country. Problems arise from time to time, but from the experience gained by the department it became known that more problems arise and that there are a greater number of cases of non-compliance with assurances in the case of a certain type of person or in the case of certain countries than is normally the case. For that reason I can only appeal to people not to abuse their visits to South Africa by trying to do certain things under false pretences which they did not divulge in their original application. Because, if people are allowed in South Africa on certain conditions, it is, after all, their moral duty to comply with such conditions and not, after they have arrived in South Africa under a temporary residence permit, suddenly to ask for certain other conditions or modifications. I want to quote the example of the USA. In that country no applications for permanent residence are considered when people come to the USA on the condition that they are to reside there temporarily. If they apply for permanent residence, they first have to leave the country. In South Africa permanent residence is allowed in many cases, but then entry should not have taken place under false pretences originally. Many people in South Africa render services here during their temporary sojourn. South Africa has a shortage of skilled labour and South Africa allows many people to come to this country under a temporary residence permit. South Africa also allows many tourists to come to this country, but people should not apply to enter the country as tourists when they know that this is not really their intention. Otherwise they come to this country as tourists, get married and then apply for permanent residence, while they, as tourists, were married to a South African citizen. This is to abuse the conditions for temporary residence. All one can do is to appeal to people not to abuse these conditions because if this happens, a certain pattern of behaviour develops and this creates problems and unpleasantness for the Government and also for those people who are concerned with the matter. These are delicate matters which should be handled in a proper manner but then this should be done in a responsible manner on both sides.

There is one other aspect I should like to mention briefly. One of the aspects falling under this department is the Electoral Laws Act, but since the Electoral Laws Act is being investigated by a Select Committee, it is not advisable to discuss it now.

†In any case, there is an election on today or as hon. members on the opposite side of the House have said, there is a war on, so let us not talk about a Worrall being on the point of getting elected to this House.

Sir, before dealing with the question of censorship, I just want to say that the hon. the Minister invited me yesterday to discuss with him the position of the Chinese community. He promised to furnish a full reply then. When I pointed out yesterday that no attention was being given to the position of the Chinese group as a group, the hon. the Minister replied that the same applied to the Portuguese, Italians and Greeks in the South African community. A clever hon. member in the back bench over there even asked: “What about the Hungarians?” The hon. the Minister’s reply means one of two things. Sir, the Portuguese, Greeks and Italians in South Africa are not classified as a separate colour group in our country and are therefore not subject to discriminatory laws. The same applies to the Hungarians. They are not classified as a separate colour group. They are simply regarded and accepted as cultural groups within the White community. However, the Chinese are, in fact, classified by the Government as a colour group and, as such, are subject to the colour laws of the country and for that reason their position is of importance. The reaction of the hon. the Minister means one of two things: Either the hon. the Minister tried to evade my question by furnishing an irrelevant reply, or it has now become the policy of the Government not to regard and to classify the Chinese in future as a colour group, but as a cultural group—such as, inter alia, the Portuguese—and then to accept them within the White community and, as such, not to make them subject to any colour legislation. We shall be glad if this is the position, because we are opposed to an archaic measure such as race classification. Moreover, the Chinese are living in White residential areas and their children attend White schools. For the rest they participate in White entertainment facilities and, in our opinion, they ought to be de-classified as a colour group and only be accepted as a cultural group. The hon. the Minister promised to furnish a full reply and I hope we shall get it from him.

Then I want to deal with the question of censorship. A year has lapsed since the new censorship machinery came into effect on 1 April last year, and we have obviously had occasion to consider the situation. It must be clear to the hon. the Minister that there has been more negative criticism against the present system—and I emphasize the word “system”—than there was against the old system. There is a mass of evidence from authors, church men, academics and other people in which strong objections are raised to the present system, or to certain aspects thereof. Unfortunately there is not sufficient time in a debate such as this to submit all the evidence, but let me just quote a few examples to the hon. the Minister and I want to quote to him witnesses who he cannot say have any party prejudices against him. I am not doing so to catch him in a trap, but these are people he cannot accuse of being politically prejudiced against him. Take a person such as Prof. Wimpie de Klerk. He is the editor of the organ of the NP in the Transvaal, Die Transvaler. Surely, he is not politically prejudiced against the hon. the Minister. He expressed himself in strong terms against eight aspects. I quote what he said—

I can also refer to the editor of Die Vaderland, a person who is also an author and is very critical of the system. Then, for example, we have a person such as Prof. Johan Heyns, a leader in the Afrikaans church life. He says—

His criticism is mainly aimed at the unsatisfactory situation that, when it is thought that a handful of anonymous people will be offended by a certain film on religious grounds, no one is allowed to see the film, including those who might be inspired by that film. The percentage objects, films, books, and so on, which is being banned today on the grounds that it is supposed to offend a section of the population has increased enormously. Another author who strongly attacked this action in Die Burger, quite rightly said that parts of everything that is filmed, recorded or printed may offend sections of the population. These are all unsatisfactory aspects of the law. Owing to the multitude of committees which have been appointed, this led to shows which are allowed in one part of the country being different from shows allowed in another part of the country. Furthermore, we have the intricacy of the machinery, because one has a “yo-yo” situation. Authors and their works are shunted backwards and forward between committees, which make a particular decision, and the directorate and the appeal board. Everyone has become a censor on its own. The idea originally was for the directorate to do largely administrative work, but one finds to an increasing extend that the directorate lodges appeals against the decision of its own committees. The directorate therefore plays the role of a third body in the process of censorship. Therefore, there are really three censors, i.e. a number of committees, the directorate, which also plays the role of censor, and the appeal board. This is an impossible situation.

Another source of criticism is the fact that the hon. the Minister refuses to report to this House on the people he appoints and on the basis of which qualifications he appoints them. I think this is quite wrong, because a Minister has a responsibility, not only towards this House, but also towards the country. When the Minister makes any kind of appointment on a body such as this for which the taxpayer has to pay, this Parliament is entitled to be informed by him on the grounds of which qualifications he appointed those people. Last year he refused point-blank to reply to me when I asked which qualifications the people had. I asked him to furnish us with the facts so that the people could have confidence in his appointments.

What is your qualifications?

I am elected; I am not appointed, and the voters can throw me out, if I do not have the qualifications they want me to have. However, the hon. the Minister has a responsibility, because he spends the money of the tax-payer. Therefore, when appointing a person, he should report to this House why he appointed such a person. However, he comes along with the poor excuse that he wants to protect the people. Against whom he does want to protect them? The people offer themselves for public service; does he want to protect them against the public? If a person is prepared and goes so far as to apply to do public service and is paid for it, he should not be afraid of letting the people know that he is capable of doing the work. I think the true reason why the hon. the Minister is rather scared to say why he appoints the people and what their qualifications are, is because he is afraid of criticism of himself.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to discuss the question of the Chinese which the hon. member mentioned, because the hon. the Minister will deal with the matter fully. I want to confine myself to his attack on the functioning of the system which was introduced by legislation in 1974. The hon. member says now that, after a year, he would like to consider the system in depth. As proof of how unsatisfied the whole community is with the system, he quotes a “mass” of witnesses, namely an article by a newspaper editor, a letter which appeared in Die Burger, as well as a statement made by Professor Heyns. The hon. member talks about playing yo-yo. I can also play yo-yo if I say that Anna M. Louw, who won the Hertzog prize, is a high-class author and wrote a fantastic book, is prepared to serve on a committee. In this way we can play yo-yo with informed and intelligent people’s differences of opinions in respect of this matter. After a year this is the only real argument the hon. member is able to advance against this system. Let me remind the hon. member of the predictions which they made in the 1974 debate. Had all the predictions become reality, he would not have had to speak today, because the Act would have collapsed by now. The hon. the Minister would then have had to repeal the Act and enact a new one, because the old Act did not work. What did the UP predict in 1974? Their chief speaker on the Interior said the following (Hansard, Vol. 50, 1974, col. 494)—

However, the hon. member did not give us proof of chaos. The hon. member continues—

The hon. member did not quote us a single example of dissatisfaction in the cinema industry. The hon. member said—

The hon. member did not quote a single example of a literary man who said that he was hampered in practising his art. What do the literary men do? They are prepared to serve on these committees. The hon. member for Von Brandis said that they believe that the labyrinth of bureaucratic actions suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister, will be the laughing-stock of South Africa. I do not hear any people laughing about this legislation. I think that if we compare in a fair, objective and balanced manner, the reactions under the old system with the reactions towards the new system, there is a larger degree of acceptance of the new than of the old system. The hon. member for Von Brandis further predicted that the legislation which we have already been applying for more than a year, would mean the collapse of the film industry in South Africa. Recently I participated in a discussion on this subject at Stellenbosch with a film director. This person said that this legislation is better for the film industry than the old Act. He said that it has a better right to appeal and that they can motivate it for the first time. There is greater satisfaction with this. The hon. member held up the realities and a few statements of people whom we all respect, but he did not furnish any facts which indicate that this legislation is unfair and unjustified. In a country like South Africa the opinions of others are always welcome, but providing proof with facts is the only argument which can belittle the system which is at present in operation. The hon. member did not provide us with a single fact. If the hon. member says that we are playing yo-yo and that we now have a new censor, namely the directorate, I must tell the hon. member that he forgets how the legislation reads. From the outset we argued that the directorate would have a special function. It is a function, in cases where rectifications are necessary, to appeal to the board of appeal which then gives decisions. The directorate itself cannot make decision, and has no right to make decisions. In reply to the hon. member’s allegation of how badly this system is faring and of the dangers of the practical application thereof, I want to tell the hon. member that he should read the report of the appeal board. The hon. member will then be able to see with what effort those writers who, according to him are complaining, are incorporated into the system, how their opinions are taken into consideration and how reasonable opinions are put into effect. On page 1 of the appeal board’s report the following is stated—

On page 2 the following is stated—

The sum total of this is that the Appeal Board and the directorate, the whole organization in its organizational connection, are prepared to listen to positive criticism and to convince people who are not satisfied with certain aspects, rather to give the system a fair chance. There is a great desire and a great deal of trouble is being taken to have the system operating in a fair manner and to provide positive criticism on aspects of handling which, in their opinion, were dealt with incorrectly.

I want to sketch a different image to the one which the hon. member sketched. I want to sketch an image in pursuance of the activities over the past year and as a result of the annual report. It is an extremely positive image, an image which says and proves that the system operates in a fair manner, that the Appeal Board operates extremely successfully as an effective body of revision of committee decisions, as a safe and fair body which may be approached by those who have been wronged, and as a tribunal of repute which settles differences in the highest tradition of our courts and gives responsible, logical and balanced judgments. In order to see how unbiased they are, one simply has to make a statistical analysis of their judgments. With respect to appeals under section 13 concerning publications, it will be found that nine were settled. Of these two were withdrawn, the committee’s decision was only confirmed in one case. In six cases a committee’s decision, to the effect that the publications were undesirable, was rejected and it was decided that the publications were indeed acceptable.

In respect of films 33 appeals were dealt with. Three of these were withdrawn. Only in five cases was a committee’s decision confirmed. In the other 25 cases a favourable effect was given to the appellant’s arguments in one way or another, sometimes fully and sometimes to a lesser or greater degree. In the remainder of the Appeal Board’s report it will be found that all the aspects we mentioned at that time as belonging to a court, are indeed applied. Up to now members of the public have been allowed to attend the proceedings in all cases. In most cases there was legal representation. Where there was no legal representation, it was because it had not been asked for. Full reasons are given for judgment. Minutes are kept and judgments are circulated in order, as we have said, to give guidance, stability and legal certainty to the committees. In this way hon. members can test everything which we promised at that time. It is applied so well and so practically that I have not yet heard one word of criticism against the functioning of the Appeal Board, its fairness and quality.

If we consider the system’s functioning on the level where the committees are active, we find the same. We find that it is not the case that a bureaucratic monster has been created here. Hon. members can look up the figures. The number of publications which were dealt with, is not very large. The so-called bloodhounds of which the hon. member for Durban Central spoke at the time which tear people from their sitting rooms, do not exist. No such people exist. There is no cultural policemen in terms of the system. The high moral values we have and want to maintain in our country, are merely being considered in a fair manner. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. member for Vereeniging correctly, he said that people are not laughing about the Censorship Act. I fully agree with him: People are not laughing about the Act; they are crying about it. There is no doubt about this. The hon. member also said that no chaos exists. However, I want to tell him in plainest Afrikaans possible—and I hope you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman—that the entire Censorship system is a mess. Indeed, it is far worse than that. It is no exaggeration to say that this system which we have now has become a real danger to our literature, to the film industry and to the stage in this country. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute. Let me quote the experts to underline my theme. I am not now going to speak about liberals, pseudo communists or sick humanists. I am now going to quote good Afrikaners. Let us begin with Dr. Hermien Dommisse. She is a good Afrikaner, not so? She is not a communist or a sick humanist, is she? Recently she warned that a meaningful Afrikaans dramaturgy is now being made practically impossible by, inter alia, the climate of censorship, in this country. The condemnation of Putsonderwater, was, according to her, the first nail in the coffin. Sir, does she know what she is talking about, or does the hon. member for Vereeniging know more about that? Dr. Dommisse went further and said, that it is an alarming condition which is not only affecting the stage, but radio, television and films as well. Under these circumstances, she says, the adults, intellectually developed Afrikaner, is increasingly turning his back on Afrikaans. Now those hon. members must listen.

What is the date of those cuttings?

The date is a few months ago. [Interjections.] Sir, Dr. Dommisse goes on to ask: “Is ons onder die omstandighede nie dalk besig om self te doen wat Lord Charles Somerset en Lord Milner nie kon regkry nie?’ ’ I think the hon. the Minister should also ask himself that question? Let us continue. A few months ago, Rapport, under the heading “Sensors wil Afrikaans-films nou platslaan”, wrote about “’n harde kern van vasbeslote komiteelede, dat hulle die Appèl-raad geen verleentheid ontsien, juis ten opsigte van Afrikaanse rolprente wat aan hulle vir keuring voorgelê word nie … Die sen-suuraanbevelings wat hulle doen, trek dikwels verby die belaglike tot na aan die histeriese absurde”. This is not a communist talking, Sir. It is a good Afrikaner. These are strong words which are being used here. The writer further refers to absurdities, or as he calls them, “embarraserende onsin”, the censors perpetrated in films such as Doors op die Diggings, where among others the word “bleddie” was objected to. This is terrible, Sir. Our whole future is at stake! Objections were also raised about the film Ter wille van Christine where the words “verdomp” and “dem” caused trouble. This is the kind of situation we have reached. The fact that the Appeal Board rectifies some of this absurdities, does not affect the principle of my argument at all, and this is that this censorship system today has become arbitrary; illogical, inconsistent and a danger to the creative arts in this country, whether they are films, theatre, literature or whatever it may be.

Sir, I can continue in this way and quote eminent Afrikaner critics to prove that this system is a mess. In Rapport Fanie Olivier, for example, writes about a “lagwekkende reeks insidente in verband met filmsensuur”. But then he poses this question, and this is a question which I hope the hon. the Minister will answer for us, because thousands of South Africans are asking this question: “Who ultimately decides the norm for judgment?” He asks whether it is the more relaxed and uninhibited citizen, or whether it is people in another sector of the community. Can the Minister tell us who actually determines the norm? Another question is whether there is one norm or more. Mr. Justice Kowie Marais, who as far as I know is no communist either, recently suggested that our censorship be placed on a sounder foundation. He pointed out that there are authors who are heading for a confrontation with the authority, “iets wat tot ontsaglike nadeel vir die Afrikaanse taal, sy kunsskap en die toekoms van die Afrikaner-volk kan lei”, he said. Who says this? It is Mr. Justice Kowie Marais. Is he a good Afrikaner or is he not a good Afrikaner?

He is talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Let us now quote the Afrikaans writer Chris Barnard—

Anyone who knows something about literature, knows that this can be fatal to literature. A moment ago we spoke on the senseless cutting of films, but there is yet another kind of absurdity here. I quote once again, from a good Afrikaans source, Rapport—

This really is progress! Just think of the uncertainty this kind of action causes. Also think of the waste of money. I understand that the manufacturers of the film suffered a loss of £25 000 as a result of all the stupidities which were committed. What affect is this going to have on film manufacturers? Is it going to put them off or not? [Interjections.] £25 000 may be nothing to most hon. members on that side, but it is a great deal to us poor people. Just think of the waste of time, energy and talent which this involved censorship structure causes. I wish I had time to quote here from a report of the Appeal Board in connection with what is called “Photographs of scantily clad women”. I want to refer to leading figures like Mr. Justice Lammie Snyman, Prof. Dr. Alwyn Grové and Dr. Kobus van Rooyen. They had to decide what makes a photograph of a girl in a tanga provocative and therefore undesirable to the Publications Board. [Interjections.] In his report Dr. Van Rooyen writes the following—

I ask with tears in my eyes: “Why should such people be saddled with things like this? Where is the whole thing going to end?” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to react to what was said by the three previous speakers in regard to the Publications Board, because I think it is necessary for the facts to be rectified immediately. As the responsible Minister who had to deal with the matter under the old dispensation, and who also has to deal with the matter now under the new dispensation, I want to testify at once now, without qualifying it in any way, that the present system is 200% more effective, practicable and reasonable in its approach than the old system was. I have evidence and experiences to that effect every day. Hon. members have all kinds of objections to the system, but let us now consider the problem which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated here. This hon. member’s first objection was in connection with the criticism which has been evoked. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Vereeniging has already dealt with this. There is of course a difference of opinion on the matter. All of us know this, and have known this, too, from the beginning. People in both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking circles object to it. But I could also show the hon. member literally hundreds of letters in my office from English-speaking South Africans who are in absolute agreement with this, and who say that the position should not be changed in any way.

What does that mean?

And what does it mean to quote a newspaper editor or Rapport? There is a difference of opinion in regard to the matter. The hon. member will agree with that. I, who deal with this matter administratively from day to day, am, however, able to give such an assurance. The proof of it lies very clearly in the effect of the legislation as it is being applied at present. The statement by Prof. Heyns in regard to some matter or other was quoted. According to my information his statement dealt specifically with the film Superstar. Allow me to give the facts. The facts as they were assembled by the committee in question, are as follows—

Criticism was levelled at the decision and then an appeal was lodged. I should like to hear whether there is anyone in this House who does not have confidence in the persons serving on the Appeal Board. Are there hon. members who do not have confidence in the status, knowledge, and so on, of those persons? Hon. members will recall that when the legislation was being discussed, they said that we would simply use any Tom, Dick or Harry as literary or legal experts. However, we made a judge from the Bench chairman of the Appeal Board. As his vice-chairman we appointed a professor of law at the University of Pretoria. The Board is made up further of a theologian of stature, an expert on culture and art connoisseur of stature in the person of Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl, and then there is also Prof. Alwyn Grové. Is there any lack of confidence in the Appeal Board? The film company in question appealed against the decision of the committee, but after the appeal had been heard for only a single day, the film company withdrew its appeal.

Because it thought it would lose the appeal.

Yes, I agree. I must inform the hon. member of the facts, however, and that is why I am furnishing all the information. One could therefore say that matter never went on appeal, for the company withdrew the case when it realized that it would lose the appeal. I accept that the company withdrew the case with a view to saving costs. It is rather interesting that Prof. Johan Heyns, who was quoted by the hon. member, accepted an appointment as one of the members of a panel. His acceptance of the appointment as panel member illustrates two things. In the first place it proves that we do not discriminate in any way against people who give evidence against us. We should like to have the average opinion of the people represented on the panel so that we can manage things better. Prof. Johan Heyns is one of the new persons who were appointed as member of the panel with effect from 1 April of this year. This is the same person who expressed that criticism which was quoted by the hon. member. The criticism which he expressed was aimed at the legislation, but he is nevertheless a panel member.

There are a lot of weaknesses in the Act.

The second aspect which is clearly illustrated is that we do not want to stifle criticism. Prof. Heyns is now in the position to give his opinion openly if he differs.

But that will not change the system.

The hon. member is doing Prof. Heyns an injustice, for Prof. Heyns would not have accepted membership of the panel if he had any fundamental objection to the entire Act and the system, as the hon. member tried to imply this afternoon. He would certainly have wanted to have no part of the administration of the Act if he had been fundamentally opposed to it. Consequently I think the hon. member is doing Prof. Heyns a complete injustice.

There is another aspect as well to which I want to refer. The hon. member referred to the people whom the Minister appointed to the various committees and wanted to know what their qualifications were. I have refused to furnish their qualifications before, and I still refuse to do so today.

But then you are not doing your duty.

The list of names had been handed to the hon. member personally, and he therefore knows who have all been appointed as members.

Yes, but I do not know all of them.

I do not care whether the hon. member knows all of them or not. The hon. member has the names of all the members, and he is therefore able to establish for himself whether or not these persons have the required knowledge. Surely the hon. member has the list and if he was not satisfied with some of them, he should have been critical of their having been appointed as members. He should then have said that this or that member did not have the necessary qualifications. Perhaps the hon. member does not know all the members, but he does know some of them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how he can expect Parliament to know all 250 persons? Surely it is the task of the hon. the Minister to make a report.

The facts are very clear. There are the names of the persons who were appointed. Those people will, of course, serve on committees. Surely the hon. member knows some of them. Surely he will be able to single out one or two who do not qualify because they do not have the right qualifications. Let him mention them. Let him come forward with his criticism. That is the whole object. If all of those whom the hon. member knows are acceptable to him, he must take it from me that the others whom he does not know are also acceptable.

Why are you neglecting your duty as Minister?

I am not neglecting any duty.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must not keep up a running commentary.

I have a duty to perform, and I am performing it to the full. I know what a witch-hunt that hon. member and many other people will set in motion if the qualifications of the persons concerned are spelled out one after the other. Let me add at once that, as it is also stated in the Act, we want a cross-section of the population. Naturally such a cross-section will not consist entirely of qualified people. The people form an opinion. Certain people might not have any academic qualifications. But an ordinary housewife, a mother of children, most certainly has a right to have a say in what may and may not be read. It is not only graduates who are qualified to do that. As I have said, I gave the member the list of names. He has all the names there. He may check through it as much as he likes. Whenever it suits him he may, in writing or otherwise, launch an attack on those committees. I accept full responsibility for this matter, and I am answerable for it.

The hon. member for Parktown raised the same matter. I regret that I have to cross swords with him for a second time on the same day, but he and I will have to learn to accept each other, although we are not on the same wavelength. We shall simply have to carry on in this way. In an overbearing manner he came forward with the story here that the Act is a danger to literature, that literature will go to rack and ruin as a result of it. Let me say at once that the statistics disprove every word of that allegation, from him and from people outside. Let me furnish the hon. member with the statistics before he shakes his head. I want him to hear what is happening in this regard. Under the previous dispensation, from 1963 to 1974, only six works were submitted to the former Publications Board as far as Afrikaans literature was concerned. Of these six, five were approved by the board. One was rejected and banned. An appeal was lodged against that decision and the verdict of the three judges in the case was unanimously opposed to the book, and as a result of that the prohibition was upheld. The name of the book was Kennis van die Aand, as the hon. member will know. This was the only book to be banned under the old dispensation, and in respect of which an appeal was rejected when an appeal was lodged. Under the present dispensation two Afrikaans literary works were submitted. The one was banned and the other was approved. The one that was banned was Skryt by Breyten Breytenbach. This writer delegated his authority to André Brink who lodged an appeal against the decision on his behalf. Before the Appeal Board could hear the case, Breyten Breytenbach was charged in a court—hon. members know about the case—and it was immediately realized that the work was sub judice and therefore had to stand over. Before the court could proceed further with the hearing, André Brink, under instructions from Breyten Breytenbach, withdrew the appeal. Where has Afrikaans literature been affected in any way now?

Does the hon. the Minister not accept the word of his own literary experts?

I am giving the hon. member the facts. The literary experts can say whatever they please. I have so much confidence in this Act and in our actions in terms of the Act that I was prepared to participate in a radio programme on this specific matter, together with two of these writers. I was prepared to do so because we have nothing to hide and because there is nothing in this world we need be ashamed of in this regard. On the contrary. The system is working well. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says, for example, that we now have three “censorship boards’ ’ and he refers to the committees, to the directorate, and to the appeal board. That is how he himself expressed it. Surely the hon. member knows that it is untrue. What is the actual position? The committees …

Order! The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knew that it was untrue. The hon. the Minister must please withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them. However, the hon. member ought to know that it is not true. He ought to know it. If he does not know it, he is ignorant. What are the facts?

How does it work in practice? Of course it will not work in practice!

I shall indicate how it works in practice. From the beginning we have indicated how this matter will be dealt with. I said the matter stood on three legs, each of which implies a specific task. The hon. member for Parktown asked who determines the norms. My reply to him in plain and simple language—just as it was when the Act was being piloted through this Parliament two years ago—is that the people themselves determined the norms. The people themselves determine what is and what is not acceptable.

Which section of the people?

All the people. That is already why the committees of the Publications Board have to represent the average opinion of the people. They represent the average opinion of all who are prepared to take action and are prepared to serve on the committees, of all who are prepared to co-operate. They determine the norms and they co-operate with one another. That is why I say that the people determine the norms. What is the case with the committees? The committees, or panels, are constituted on a country-wide basis. At present there are more than 200 of these committee members. The administrative duty of the directorate is to constitute committees for the consideration of specific matters. The committees consider matters; the directorate plays no part in the taking of decisions. The directorate has no right to reject, to veto or to amend decisions that have been taken. The directorate does have the right to lodge an appeal against committee’s decision. The directorate has that right on the strength of the Act, which the Opposition opposed in this House, but which was passed by Parliament.

Surely the directorate first has to assess a decision before it appeals against it.

Of course it considers a decision. However, the directorate is not a censor. It takes cognisance of decisions by the committee, but does not have the right to reject or accept such decisions. It can only appeal against them to the Appeal Board. In its turn the Appeal Board decides in favour of or against the directorate. In other words, there is no question of the directorate having any say over the position. The directorate takes no decisions in regard to matters affecting the committees. The directorate may only refer decisions taken by the committees to the appeal board. That is all it may do.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should not therefore try to make the public believe that a third controlling body has been introduced. The situation which exists at present was determined by legislation from the beginning and was possible in terms of the existing legislation from the beginning.

There is another matter to which I want to devote attention now. The hon. member for Parktown quoted a report from Rapport. I quote—

I want to reject this at once, with contempt. I reject the idea of a censorship blunder when a committee takes a decision which is subsequently altered by the appeal board. This is no censorship blunder on the part of anyone. These two bodies, which have to make the assessment in terms of the Act, have the right to differ on a specific matter. If the appeal board therefore rejects a committee’s decision, it is not a blunder of any kind. It is merely a demonstration of the two components of the machine, each of which have their own part to play. The ultimate decision of the appeal board is final. Therefore, to neutralize a committee decision, which tends in a specific direction, by means of a decision by the appeal board, a decision which tends in yet another direction, is no blunder whatsoever. Nor does it indicate an inconsistency in the system. It indicates that the two legs of the system are working perfectly and correctly. Therefore, whenever a decision of a committee is reversed by the appeal board, this should not be regarded as a collapse of the system. To do such a thing is a bad mistake, and merely demonstrates the ignorance of the person making such an allegation.

In reply to that article in Rapport, a letter was written by the director of the directorate.

Oh, no!

Oh, come now! Please do not pretend to know nothing about it now. Here is the letter; I am going to quote it. The hon. member makes an attack, but does not read the reply to it. It does not suit his purpose to take cognizance of the reply. But I am going to furnish that reply. Here it is—

This is the impression which is created there. It is implied that it is a specific committee-in-miniature of three members, a hard core which exercises control over all the films in the entire world.

Nothing! Once again, only ignorance. The reply reads as follows—

An initial complete misrepresentation and misapprehension—

Did you read Rapport’s footnote to that letter?

I do not care what Rapport said in its footnote. It can react as it pleases. Here are the facts. What is the position, Sir? The action taken here was satisfactory in all respects. Let me tell the hon. member that my mailbag is at present full of letters from people who say that the appeal board and its committees are too lenient in their judgment, far more letters than there are from people who complain that they are too strict in their judgment. I receive letters, and there are scores of English-speaking people as well who write to me. They say they differ completely with my political policy and do not agree with our race policy, but in this matter our boards are too lenient in their judgment and should take stricter action, for pornography should be destroyed root and branch in our country. That is how people feel who really have South Africa’s interests at heart. Sir, I could go into this matter even further, but I think that I have elucidated the matter well enough now. If there is further discussion of this matter, I shall react to it further.

I now want to say a few words about the Public Service Commission, which was also referred to by a few hon. members here, inter alia, the hon. members for Rissik and Sandton. First I want to come to the hon. member for Sandton in regard to his objection to the Public Service Commission and his reservations in regard to the work of that commission.

†Labour turnover in the Public Service—I am quoting from the report—amounted to 50% over a period of three years. In other words, it is approximately 17% per annum. Although still fairly high and giving sufficient reason for concern, it is not nearly as alarming as the hon. member implied. As a matter of fact, we are doing a whole number of things to try to improve this position, and I want to refer the hon. member to para. 43 of the report of the commission, on page 14, under the heading “Activities of the Inspectorate” under “Promotion of Efficiency”. These are some of the possible solutions to this problem, i.e. (a) programmed organization and establishment inspections, as well as minor investigations deriving from ad hoc requests from departments for organizational and establishment adjustments; (b) Comprehensive mechanization investigations with a view to the computerization of departmental tasks, and a number of smaller investigations in regard to the supply of labour-saving appliances and office equipment; (c) Research and development work on performance efficiency; (d) Guidance to and quality control of the work of departmental work study divisions and certain aspects of the work of departmental inspectorates; and (e) Assistance to departments in the development, implementation and maintenance of systems and schemes aimed at increasing productivity.

*These are the efforts which are being made by the Public Service Commission itself to remedy this matter. Now that the hon. member has stated all his problems—and I do not want to minimize the problems either; the hon. member need not pull such a terrible face; he may as well be friendly towards me for I am not berating anyone yet—I want to say that I am also concerned about this, and that I have also reported it to this House before. I want to state that an efficient Public Service is essential, not only for the smooth functioning of the State, but also for the entire community, because the private sector and industry— everyone—in one way or another has to deal with officials. Therefore, a good, efficient Public Service is a must in any civilized, developed country. Therefore we are all concerned about this, not only the Government or I or the Public Service Commission. But in the nature of things we have problems. We have the problem which I mentioned here in this House the other day, i.e. that the private sector is luring our people away with higher salaries. Because the Public Service has an integrated and interlinking structure it is impossible, if one person attracts the attention of an employer and is offered a salary of, say, R150, R200 or R300 per month more than he is earning in the Public Service, and finds this so attractive that he is unable to resist it, to offer him an equal salary in order to keep him, no matter how willing I am to do this for the sake of the Public Service itself. Such a step would immediately create problems with the rest of the staff who are on an equal scale with that person. Such a step would create insurmountable problems for it may happen that his salary could even be more then than many of his superiors are earning. I want to concede at once that we are faced with this problem.

Now that the hon. member has stated his case, I want to add that it is necessary to discuss this matter of the Public Service Commission and the officials further, and that we should pay tribute and express thanks to the officials who are, under difficult circumstances, still ensuring that the Public Service functions with smooth efficiency, although they are working many hours of unpaid overtime. On this occasion I want to stress in particular that I want to pay tribute to the officials, and I am referring specifically to Public Servants, who, in spite of the fact that the cost of living index has gone up—and will have gone up further by July to almost 22%, or more—in the period since they last received an increase, have accepted the 10% increase which they were offered as from 1 July 1976. This is a sacrifice of more than 12% which they are making for their people and their country in the present economic situation. I think it is necessary for us to thank the officials for the spirit in which and the disposition with which this adjustment has been accepted.

After the hon. member had stated his case, he offered his party’s solution, which always comes back to the one aspect only, i.e. that the solution to all these problems lies therein that Black and Brown workers should immediately be employed. He said—this was his argument—that 4½ million people have to do all the work for 22 million people.

Only their managerial work.

Yes, all the management and board work. This presupposes, if I understand the hon. member correctly, that in the Public Service the Whites have to do all the work and that it is consequently necessary to bring non-Whites into the Public Service as well. However, I should like to quote from Hansard what an hon. member said here (2/4/76—col. 4526)—

Sir, do you know who the hon. member was who made this admission?—the hon. member for Sandton!

Yes, but I am right.

The hon. member has already made the allegation here that 50% of the posts are in his opinion filled by Bantu and non-Whites, but at the same time he launches an attack and asks us to bring more of these people into the Public Service, because 4½ million people have to do the work of the entire community. The concept is completely incorrect, for surely the hon. member cannot have his cake and eat it. Surely that is not fair. Arising out of the request made by the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Sandton, I want to say something about the Public Service Commission and the staff position in the Public Service. As the annual reports of the commission indicate, the staff position, generally speaking, is not satisfactory and the Public Service is experiencing problems, as are many other major employers in the country, in finding and keeping suitable staff in sufficient numbers. What is being done now to cope with the situation? In this regard I first want to say something about recruitment and publicity. Recruitment and publicity are being done on an ongoing and organized basis. The commission inter alia has seven regional offices which, undertake recruitment and publicity on a regional basis, while the commission also has a recruiting office in London. The means which are being employed include Press publicity, career exhibitions, participation in career evenings and employers’ days. In addition there are film strips which are made available to educational institutions, while films on State activities are being exhibited on a countrywide basis. At present there are already 59 series of film strips and 41 films—all in an effort to further publicity and recruitment for the Public Service. Closer liaison with educational institutions has been effected, and the commission’s office is also in charge of orientation programmes for first year students at universities with a view to guidance on combinations of careers in the Public Service.

During the year under review regional officers visited the universities within their regions at least once a month. A comprehensive are career guide—Careers in Government Departments, 1976-’77, of which I have brought along an example to show members, is regularly distributed, and is being well received. As far as improved remuneration are concerned, and I think it is interesting and important that I announce this at once, a system of accelerated salary increments, apart from regular, general salary improvements, has been introduced with a view to the retention of staff—the turnover is particularly heavy during the first few years of service— for specific groups in the lower cadres which serve as sources of supply for the corps of managerial staff of the future. The expansion of this system as from January 1977 is being contemplated, and this ought to contribute a great deal to the recruitment and retention of staff. It has been the experience of the department that staff is lost in the first few years of service. They start working in the Public Service, and after three or four years, when they have already acquired a little background, experience and administrative knowledge, they are better equipped and are easily lured away by the private sector with offers of higher salaries. The idea with accelerated increments is to give an official two increments per annum, i.e. every six months, if he deserves it, in the first few years of service, so that after three years this person will be on the notch on which he would normally have been after six years. For a time he will then receive his ordinary increments, and subsequently again receive the incentive for further accelerated increments over a period of two or three years, so that these persons will reach a higher salary scale sooner, in an attempt to keep them in the Public Service. This is the method the Public Service is adopting to compete with the private sector.

The Public Service bursary scheme was introduced in 1956. Since that time 10 158 bursaries have been awarded, 813 bursaries for the 1976 academic year. The expenditure involved in bursaries for the financial year ended 31 March 1976 amounted to approximately R2 120 000. Up to 30 June 1975 4 134 bursary holders had completed their studies and 3 411 had entered the Public Service, i.e. approximately 82%. According to these figures it is clear that the bursary scheme is making a considerable contribution to providing staff for the Public Service. To keep pace with the increased study costs the bursaries for full-time degree study have been increased to R1 000 per annum with effect from 1975. I could proceed, and I shall subsequently proceed, to debate this matter, because I know there are other members who want to discuss the Public Service Commission. Therefore I am not going to deal with this scheme in full now. However, I want to tell hon. members to link up with the first argument in regard to the matter, that the department is doing its utmost to effect these improvements and is constantly giving attention to the matter. Of course one cannot do everything in a day. I shall leave the matter at that for the time being.

I do not want to react in full to the argument concerning race classification which the hon. member for Green Point presented here today. I stated the policy of my party in full during the course of a debate which took place two years ago and I can inform the hon. member that the Government still adheres without any change to that standpoint of two years ago and that no change has taken place in the meantime. Race classification as such is conferred by me by way of delegation on the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is administering it at present. Therefore he will probably deal with the specific matters mentioned by the hon. member during the remainder of this debate. However, I want to say one or two things in general about race classification, and afterwards leave the matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Of course, race classification is one of the heart-rending matters in our political structure. Unfortunately it is, however, one of the essential matters, not only in the opinion of this side of the House, but also in the opinion of quite a number of members of the party on the opposite side of the House. The Progressive-minded members of that party, inter alia, the hon. the member for Bezuidenhout, are working for the abolition of race classification in one form or another.

That is our standpoint.

Registration, not classification.

What is the difference? In his next turn to speak the hon. member can tell us what the difference between “registration” and “classification” is. I shall allow him another turn to speak so that he can tell us once and for all what the difference between registration and classification is. How is the hon. member and his party going to apply their policy in respect of separate schools, for example? Surely that is their policy, for I cannot a believe that has been integrated already. How are they going to apply it? If a non-White parent arrives at a White school and wishes to enroll his child, how is that child going to be turned away if there is no classification or other method? Surely hon. members on that side of the House are still in favour of the standpoint that we should not have mied residential areas in South Africa? How is this question going to be dealt with if there is no classification in some way or another? I fear it is therefore a necessary evil in our dispensation in Southern Africa. However sympathetic I may be in regard to these borderline cases—six of which were mentioned this evening—I just want to say that these cases are dealt with by the relevant officials responsible for doing so with the utmost sympathy and humanitarianism. Indications in the report are that in the past year 122 reclassifications were made. In other words, 122 of the cases were actually rectified, with great care and according to the discretion of the official concerned, according to the choice of the applicant. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned six cases here this evening which are apparently heart-break cases …

I could mention others as well.

Very well, I accept that. There are perhaps 10 or 12 or 20 heart-break cases, but the fact remains that if the merit is there and it can be done within the existing, framework, the officials concerned have never been unsympathetic in this regard. However, they are saddled with the problem that they have to apply the Act …

I said that their hands were tied by the Act.

Very well then. Why is the Act there? For what reasons was the Act approved by this House? We have to see it in perspective, however sympathetic we are towards the specific cases. The hon. member sees the position with great humanity and a great deal of emotion from the point of view of the affected person. The State, however, is interested not only in seeing the position from the point of view of the affected person, but also from the point of view of the community as a whole. For this reason the application is thoroughly tested and inquiries are made into aspects such as acceptability in the community, etc. The State ultimately has to satisfy the community as well as the individual, if practicable. The matter is then left in the hands and to the discretion of the officials concerned to decide precisely what should happen. I want to say at once that within the framework of that set-up, the officials have up to now acted with the greatest success and, as the hon. member for Durbanville indicated, there has not yet been a single revision of the officials’ decisions. We are sympathetically disposed towards this matter, but the practical problem exists that we dare not consider only the personal interests of the individual. We also have to consider the interests of the community in which he has to be absorbed. If that community is not prepared to accept him or her, then we have to take this into consideration before a decision is taken. It cannot be done in any other way. We cannot ignore the feelings of the community simply because we feel sorry for the individual. The fact that 122 such cases have been rectified during the past year, demonstrates our favourable disposition in this regard. I want to say at once that I myself am very sympathetic towards the heart-break cases, and that we could reconsider this matter. I am certain that the hon. the Deputy Minister will want to consider this again, but hon. members must not accuse the department and say that there is no accommodatingness in this regard. In spite of the fact that the hands of the officials are tied by the Act, 122 cases were nevertheless rectified. That very clearly illustrates our attitude in regard to the interpretation of this Act. However, I want to leave the matter at that now, for the hon. the Deputy Minister will also reply in this regard at a later stage.

There are still two matters which have to be dealt with. The question of the refugees was raised by the hon. member for Omaruru, the hon. member for Green Point, as well as by others. I want to express thanks on behalf of the officials for the thanks conveyed to them for the task they performed in this regard. Involved in this were a number of the officials of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Defence, the Police, the Department of Transport and others, who successfully carried out an enormous task, without any fuss and without receiving much publicity for it, to the satisfaction of the entire community. I do not think that those people have received enough recognition for the enormous task which they have performed so excellently. I think it is necessary for it to be said here in this House that many work-hours were sacrificed to render a service to solve the problems of this community. I want to add at once that we are grateful that it was possible to do it in this way. Approximately 1 400 of the large number of refugees who were dealt with eventually remained behind in South Africa because they qualified for permanent residence in South Africa in terms of the requirements laid down by the Department of Immigration. The rest were in transit and have since been sent back to their country of origin, i.e. Portugal. In my opinion, an enormous task was very successfully disposed of here.

In conclusion I want to refer to the matter concerning the Chinese, a matter which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised. We as South Africans are aware of and know the culture of the Chinese community. Upon my visit to Taiwan a year ago I was again impressed, apart from my reading knowledge in this regard, by the highly civilized and highly developed modern community which may, in many respects, be held up as an example to other countries. I have the greatest appreciation for this country and its people. I have a high regard for their military preparedness, for their dedication and for the pioneering lives which they are living in their own country in their own way. I have a high regard for the dedicated and optimistic way in which they are carrying on, in spite of the dangers which threaten them from the mainland, a few kilometres away. Because it made an impression on me, I want to say that their former president, Chiang Kai Shek, who died last year in April—our previous Speaker represented South Africa at the funeral—was not buried in Taiwan. On the contrary. He is lying in a black marble coffin in his holiday house. He must not be buried. But on that day when Taiwan has taken over Red China, he will be buried where he is supposed to be buried, i.e. in Peking. This is the faith of these people, their dedication to their cause. It makes no difference whether hon. members agree with their viewpoint.

This is, however, what they believe, and this is the inspiration with which they work. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate any further on how we feel about the Chinese community. I want to point out that the Chinese community is a very law-abiding community, one which gives us very little difficulty, except for a few minor matters here and there. In general, they are a community which creates very few problems as a result of agitation or insistence on certain rights. One hears very little of this. In their highly civilised and Eastern way, they come forward with their representations through the correct channels to the correct persons. I want to say at once that it is possible for 95% to 98% of their requests to be solved administratively, because there is no agitation in that regard. I am saying this because I know what is happening in the Department in this regard. The hon. member himself mentioned the fact that it has been decided not to proclaim group areas for the Chinese, except for a few in Port Elizabeth where group areas for them already existed. This decision has been taken because the Chinese community is a small one. Chinese people, after thorough consideration of the circumstances, and with a view to their acceptance by the community in which they move, are allowed to live where they please. The Department of Community Development does exercise control and ascertain whether the people are acceptable in the community in which they want to establish themselves, and whether they are welcome there. After the negotiations have been finalized, and there is no objection, they are able to move into that community. The hon. member knows that these are concessions which have already been made.

I said that.

They are accepted in various places, for example in cinemas and sports clubs. The hon. member is also aware that the greatest measure of accomodatingness is being displayed towards the Chinese. They are being accommodated without a great fuss and without legislation, in as practical a manner as possible. In practice they are integrated with a community, provided they are acceptable to that community and depending on the nature of the community in which they wish to establish themselves. Many of the Chinese integrate into a White community in so far as residential areas and other amenities are concerned. Some integrate into Coloured communities. It all depends on the areas in which they want to establish themselves. Here is one example where, in contrast to the criticism which is levelled at us, a matter is disposed of smoothly on an administrative level without any fuss. Tonight we are being confronted, and now we have to give wide publicity to this matter and we have to spell out the problem so that the entire world can criticize us in regard to it. This is what is happening this evening in the debate here. The question is whether it is in the interests of the Chinese community to do this.

But you invited me to state my case.

Yes, because you raised the matter in the wrong debate. But you raised it yourself; not I. The fact remains—and I can say this here for all to hear—that we are in an administrative manner solving the problems of the Chinese community as humanely as possible. This is being done to their satisfaction, and there are no complaints about this. Why should I now be challenged before the entire world here, so that laws should be made, etc.? This is my final reply in regard to the Chinese community. To make the matter entirely clear, I want to point out that there are three principal groups in our race classification legislation, viz. Whites, Bantu and Coloureds. The Chinese community falls into the third group, viz. the Coloureds, because the Whites are defined as people of European descent. After all, the Chinese are not of European descent. According to the pure definition of the Act, a Chinese person cannot therefore be classified as a White person. He therefore falls into the Coloured group and in the Coloured group there are, in turn, various categories, for example the Malays, the Cape Coloureds, the Chinese, who are specifically mentioned and then “Other Asiatics”. This is where the legal position places the Chinese at the moment, but in the normal handling of this matter, and in the everyday course of events, there are few problems. The people are happy, and the hon. member knows this as well as I do. As I have said, the heart-break cases are being dealt with administratively, to the satisfaction of all. Now, the hon. member may say to me, with a view to scoring a political point: “That Act must immediately be amended as a result of our relations with Taiwan, as a result of friendly relations, etc.” He may insist that we do this immediately. However, I want to tell the hon. member that everything which it is humanly possible to do, is in fact being done, and I want to ask that this matter be left as it is. At present we have no choice. If it ultimately becomes necessary, and the time is ripe to do so, we could consider this matter again. But the hon. member must please not force me to a point now which is not necessary under the present circumstances, for it can only evoke a reaction from people in regard to this matter. Let us leave the matter in peace, in view of the fact that we are co-existing peacefully. I think matters can continue in this way.

I come now to the hon. member for Green Point, who raised the question of visas. As far as visas are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that there is nothing sinister or mysterious in regard to the increase in the number of visas which have been refused. My department assures me that the number of visas granted is more or less equal to the number granted last year. The tremendous difference to which the hon. member referred is attributable to the large number of Angolan and Mozambique refugees. When matters began to reach boiling point in those areas, they applied for visas for a temporary visit to South Africa.

But they are not included in that figure.

No, I shall have another look at this, but the point is that those people applied for temporary residence permits in the country and for visas to be able to enter the country in time. Because we knew what the position was, and because the people were not acceptable for permanent residence, we did not want to grant the applications, for they were not bona fide tourists, as they were supposed to be. Therefore we were not able to grant all of them temporary visas. Their applications were then refused, and that is why we find this high figure in respect of the refusal of visas. I repeat that these applications were made by people who were unable to qualify, in our opinion, for permanent residence in South Africa, but who wanted to enter the country in time from Angola and Mozambique before problems arose there. We were unable to help them in that way, but we did help them by allowing them transit passage through this country to Portugal. However, because they applied and those applications were refused, this figure had to be reflected in the statements as a refusal of visas. This is the only reason why this figure has increased so tremendously. However, I shall have another look at this.

According to the report, it does not include those cases.

I shall have another look at it, but this is the statement I am now able to make in regard to this matter.

As far as the visiting theatrical company from Korea is concerned, the hon. member for Green Point is of course wrong when he says that the Minister has no plenary powers to act in that regard. I want to inform the hon. member at once that the issuing of visas is only one function of the department. The allocation of a work permit is a second function of this department, and any condition may be attached to any work permit, depending upon the circumstances. In other words, a visa may be issued while the work permit may contain a condition in regard to the matter in question. This is the authority in terms of which the Minister may act.

Could you give me the reference in the Act?

I can impose conditions in respect of work permits, and I shall find the reference for the hon. member. Sir, the Ministers concerned, namely the Minister who issues the visas, the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Bantu Administration, held many discussions in regard to this matter, and the policy in respect of it was formulated. We give consideration to it from day to day, because circumstances vary from day to day. That is why there is a reasonable measure of fluidity and flexibility in its application. It is therefore useless for us to consider the matter jointly and to decide whether specific groups should appear before mixed audiences, and others before separate audiences. Visas are issued by my department in accordance with express conditions. However, people come forward afterwards and twist the arm of the Minister of Community Development or the Minister of Bantu Administration to have the decision of one department changed to suit their taste. This is what happens in practice. In the application form to obtain a visa they state explicitly that they do not want to appear before mixed audiences. They say they are applying to appear only before Whites or before White and Black audiences separately.

And what about this case?

I am first speaking in general now. In this case this was precisely what happened, and I can prove it to the hon. member. They applied to appear before separate audiences. Under that condition the visa was then granted. However, once they are in this country, and the Minister of the Interior then has no further control over them, they go to the Department of Community Development or to the Department of Bantu Administration, and without saying what their undertaking was when they made the application, they then try to obtain permission to appear before mixed audiences. This is what happens in practice. The hon. member must not shake his head now. I have already seen this happen in practice. Let us consider the case which the hon. member mentioned here. On the original application form—and I am referring now to the original application form because I do not know to what documents the hon. member was referring …

February.

On the original application form the impresario in question indicated that they would appear before segregated audiences. This was accepted in this way. Subsequently they said that they were being dictated to from higher up and that they had to appear before mixed audiences, otherwise they would not be allowed to come. As a result of that the other standpoint was then adopted. The letter to which the hon. member referred and in regard to which he was so tremendously critical of me, was merely a confirmation by an official of what those people themselves had accepted in their original application. In their application they said they wanted to appear before separate audiences, and the official wrote back to say that their application had been approved on condition that they appeared before separate audiences.

With all due respect, you are quite wrong. I have the application and the reply to this application.

I shall look into the matter again, but I have explained the matter according to the information given to me. If my information is wrong, I apologize to the hon. member. However, I shall first have to go and check up on this matter during the dinner adjournment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I must assume that in this instance the restriction imposed upon this visa was imposed after consultation with the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and that they both agreed on this restriction being imposed?

Please allow me to clear up this matter at once. A general policy has been laid down by the three Ministers collectively. The policy in South Africa is still separate audiences. This is the policy which has been laid down by the Cabinet. The exception, which has to be justified in special cases, is mixed audiences.

Which Minister takes that decision?

The three Ministers reach a joint decision on it. If there is any doubt, they consult with one another. That is the present position.

Marais cannot move.

No, Marais can move. Marais can decide whatever he pleases. Marais is as free as he can ever be, and he will never be caught. In any case, he is freer now than he ever was when he was with the party of that hon. member. [Interjections.] In this specific case the matter was never even referred to the Ministers concerned. Why not? Because these people, according to my information—if my information is wrong, I shall apologize to the hon. member—applied to appear before separate audiences. We approved the application on condition that they appeared before separate audiences as they requested. Subsequently they changed their requirements and that is why they were told that they had altered the original application. However, the hon. member and I will have to settle this matter during the dinner adjournment if possible. I shall enter the debate again after supper.

Mr. Chairman, 3 February 1976 is the date of application. I quote—

The reply from the hon. the Minister’s department is dated 15 April and starts—

Order! That is hardly a question the hon. member is asking. It is a statement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would be good enough to look at these documents.

If those facts are correct, I shall have to reconsider the position. However, I shall only be able to obtain full certainty in regard to this matter during the dinner adjournment. This is the policy in regard to this position. I have spelt it out clearly that the policy is one of separate audiences. The policy is in line with the normal behaviour of our society, and mixed audiences is the exception. The exception is allowed under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is definitely not that people from overseas can tell us that they will come to South Africa only if they are allowed to appear before mixed audiences. If that is their attitude, our reply is: “You are not coming; South Africa does not allow itself to be dictated to by anyone from outside.” I want there to be great clarity in this regard. If people advance acceptable reasons, we shall consider the matter. This has in fact happened in the past, and I should like to refer to an example. The Kokusai Review, the Japanese girls, appeared before a mixed audience in His Majesty’s at Johannesburg. One of their problems was that they had to present a waterfall scene. This scene had to appear on the stage suddenly, and preparing the scene involved great expense. As a practical consideration it was pointed out to us that it would be tremendously expensive to transfer the waterfall scene, which cost approximately R40 000 in any event, to another venue. We wanted to allow the non-Whites to enjoy the show as well, and that is why they were allowed to appear before a mixed audience. Nor was there sufficient support from the non-Whites so that a separate performance could be set aside for them. These are the considerations which apply, normal practical considerations, and not ideological considerations.

Why do you not do practical things more often?

I concede that such decisions are arrived at for practical reasons.

What about the harm you do overseas?

This has nothing to do with the elimination of discrimination. On the contrary. We are in fact eliminating discrimination if we afford people the opportunity of attending the shows. What is that if it is not eliminating discrimination? Previously it was impossible for some groups to see such shows. Under a previous dispensation the Black man would simply have had to stay at home, and he would not have been able to see such shows. We are now eliminating that degree of discrimination in that we are allowing them to come and see what is happening. The hon. members must not make out that we do not know what we are doing. The policy is very clear and in my negotiations with many of the impresarios I have already said: “Send us your applications in time; tell us how you want the audiences and motivate your reasons for wanting mixed audiences.” I informed them that if their applications were made in time, and were accompanied by the necessary motivation, we would look into matters quickly and give our decision. We would then adhere to our decision regardless of what the position was. Mixed audiences are allowed under certain circumstances. If a performance cannot be repeated elsewhere, mixed audiences are allowed. The policy is being applied with great realism and pragmatism. However, we are not prepared to be shunted around by impresarios who now ask for separate and afterwards for mixed audiences. Some of them simply cancel the show of one group of artists and then want to bring another group to this country. However, we are not prepared to accept that kind of administration.

I think that I have, with that, disposed of the matter. I have no further comment to make at this stage, but shall participate in the debate again at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members of the Opposition made much of the fact that not enough time is given to them to be able to discuss the various Votes properly. For the Vote we are now discussing, approximately R44 million was budgeted of which more than R12 million was earmarked for the Government Printer. It strikes me that the last time the Opposition spoke about the Government Printing Works was in 1972, but apparently this was mainly because the Auditor-General had made one remark or other about shortages in the supply. After that the Opposition never spoke about the Government Printing Works again. It is apparent from official documents that there are very few countries in the world who do not have a Government Printing Works, but in spite of this the idea still exists that the Government is possibly encroaching on the sphere of private initiative. In 1972 already a Select Committee of the House of Lords in England reported as follows—

I want to point out to hon. members that the Government Printing Works only does work for the Government, which means that the S.A. Railways and our postal services are excluded, with the exception of security work such as the printing postage stamps and postal orders. Apart from this, a considerable portion of the work undertaken by the Government Printing Works is contracted out to private bodies. For example, over the past four years approximately a third of the work has been contracted out to private entrepreneurs. In 1972-’73 the work which was done by the Government Printing Works, amounted to R6,2 million while R3,3 million was done by private contract. In 1973-’74 the figure was R6,1 million as against R3,3 million; in 1974-’75 R7,8 million as against R4,2 million; and in 1975-’76 it was R8,7 million as against R4,8 million. I do not want to elaborate any further on this. I do not have the time to do so.

What I actually want to do tonight is to express my gratitude to the Government Printing Works for the work which is done by them. In the first place I want to refer briefly to the office of the Government Printing Works in Cape Town. They have to do the necessary liaison work for the departments who provide the various items necessary for keeping the activities of this House running smoothly. As I have been informed by the officials, there have never been complaints about delays or faulty work in this connection. Hon. members will surely be aware of this. I think that one should take note of this with great appreciation.

Another department to which I should like to refer is the department which is responsible for printing postage stamps. In 1970 a new press was brought into operation in this department. I think that the quality of the work which is done there, compares very favourably with the work done in any other country in the world. I especially think that the Thomas Baines and Eric Meyer editions which were issued recently deserve particular praise.

Then there is also the department which, together with the Trigonometrical Survey Office, is responsible for the printing of maps. These maps are sold in the normal way, but if we take into consideration that there are from five to 15 different colours used on these maps, and that of the three new machines which were recently bought to supplement the six which are already there—two are used to print postage stamps—we realize that they have an immense task to carry out. For example, in 1973, 417 such maps were printed; 2 000 copies of each of these maps were printed. In 1975 it has increased to 600.

Postage stamps are just as important a part of the Government Printing Works activities. In 1973-’74 they printed 5,5 million sheets of 100 stamps each for the Republic alone, and 183 000 for South West Africa. In 1974-’75 they printed 6,75 million for the Republic and 200 000 for South West Africa. In 1975-’76 it was 6,1 million for the Republic and 305 000 for South West Africa.

Since the Government Printing Works is a service institution, its production depends on the requirements of the State. Therefore it cannot actually arrange its work as its machinery becomes available and cannot always make full use of them. Therefore to be able to make any savings, it must do so by the necessary application of management skill and by making more effective use of its machinery. I think that not only this House, but the whole country, ought to take note of what the Government Printing Works did to combat inflation. Ten years ago it was decided to erect new buildings for the Government Printing Works which would cost approximately R20 million. In the light of the present economic conditions, the Government Printer informed the Department of Public Works that it was not necessary because they would utilize the present premises in such a way and improve their processes of production to such an extent that they would be able to continue operating in the present buildings. Not only did they succeed in this, but in the process they also reduced their staff from 1 370 in 1970 to 1 115 in 1975. At the same time the turnover in the printing section increased from R7 million to R9 million. There may well have been slight price increases, but it cannot account for the full amount. The most important and perhaps the most praiseworthy of all, is the behaviour of the officials of the Government Printing Works. As a factory, the Government Printing Works is subject to the industrial agreement of the printing industry. In January this year they were to receive a salary increase. In agreement with the anti-inflation manifesto, however, they were satisfied to accept an increase of only 70%, that is, 30% less than the increase to which they were entitled. In this respect I want to pay tribute to them to the same extent as the hon. the Minister recently paid tribute to the civil servants. In that way alone they brought about a saving in salaries this year of R342 000. I believe that this is something which ought to serve as an example to the whole country. However, it does not end there. In its attempt to combat inflation, the Printing Works developed two kinds of locally manufactured paper, paper which is now also used by other private printers. I would like to emphasize the fact that it is locally manufactured paper. As a result of this development the saving by the Government Printing Works alone amounts to R300 000. Two printing presses, which have already been in use for two and four years respectively, are being used so effectively at the moment that on one of them alone an amount of R120 000 per year has been saved. Because the printing works cannot, from the nature of the case, save by curtailing its activities, because the printing works work for the Government departments, there is only one other way in which a saving can be brought about. This is through the purchase of new equipment. Therefore the printing works decided that, since new equipment to the value of R500 000 should have been purchased this year in order to replace old equipment, they would not embark on this venture. [Time expired.]

We on this side of the House should like to associate ourselves with the words of the hon. member for Losberg in his tribute to the Government Printer. We agree with him that the Government Printing Works renders very good services, a fine example to the rest of the Public Service. However, I cannot, unfortunately, say anything more about the Government Printer. I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. He has just said that he is doing everything possible and everything humanly possible in connection with race classification cases, as well as in connection with the Chinese, but he says the time is not yet ripe to do certain other things. Sir, I differ with the hon. the Minister. I think the time is ripe for the hon. the Minister to tell us now when he thinks the time will be ripe, because I am sure the hon. the Minister has reservations about the principle of race classification. Although he says that he and the Government remain unchanged on the standpoint they adopted many years ago, I am sure they have reservations about the question of race classification. He referred to the heart-break cases which occur and said he would do everything in his power to try to prevent the sorrow and to be human in these cases. But where the hon. the Minister is quite off the mark, is that he has to do all these things because he has an Act and that Act prohibits certain steps from being taken. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that he is going to try, within the framework of the Act, to eliminate the heart-break cases and to be human towards applicants. But why cannot the Act be amended? Has the time not arrived for this to be done? And I think the Minister must admit that the time has arrived for the legislation to be amended. It is high time for an amendment to be effected.

What do you suggest?

What we have been suggesting all these years, is that race classification should not be carried out according to this principle. We suggested that there should indeed be registration.

Explain.

No, I am not going to go into details. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point said he would explain the whole matter, but I just want to say in the course of my speech that there will be a system of registration and one of the principles thereof will be acceptability. I have just heard the hon. the Minister say that acceptability …

Which word did the hon. member use there?

“Acceptability”, the acceptance of the person, the fact that the appearance of the person is such that he can be accepted as such. Now, in the course of his reply the hon. the Minister said we should consider the matter from the viewpoint of the society, whether the society will accept the person, in other words the acceptability of the person to the community. I say that if the hon. the Minister talks like this in the year 1976, he may just as well proceed a step further and say that he is prepared to amend his Act so that people can be classified on the grounds of acceptability. However, the Minister cannot do so at the moment. The Secretary of the department is tied down. He is unable to use his discretion. If the hon. the Minister says he is unable to introduce legislation this year because it is already too late in the session, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should give the discretion he says he has and which the Deputy Minister has, to the Secretary; delegate it even further down to the Secretary of the department.

You are wrong. He already has this discretion.

No, that is not so, because, surely, we know that in cases where the Secretary is unable to help, the Minister is able to help. If the Secretary had the full discretion the hon. the Minister had, the Secretary would have been able to help and there would have been a great many cases of which the hon. the Minister would not even have heard about because the Secretary would have been able to deal with those cases. But this is where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that the hands of the Secretary are tied. He has no discretion at all and he therefore has to refer every one of these cases to the Minister. I say it is high time for this to be changed.

You did not do your homework.

Of course I did my homework. I know because I have taken part in this exercise and have myself put such cases to the Secretary and I know exactly what the Secretary has told me and I know, further, that the Secretary is perfectly correct in telling me what he has told me. The hon. the Minister must therefore not tell me that I must do my homework. What the hon. the Minister may say, however, is that I did not take the matter a step further by talking to him. I have heard the hon. the Minister on several occasions in the House taking up the attitude that “my standpunt bly onveranderd”. What can I therefore achieve by talking to the hon. the Minister if he tells me before I even come to him that it does not matter whether I come to him or not, he is not going to change his opinion in any way. The time has now arrived for the hon. the Minister, if he has not enough discretion, to see that he gets that greater discretion during this session and delegates that discretion to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that we have heard from the hon. member for Green Point about the marriages where the parties thought they were White, in fact had White identity cards and were then married as White. Later, however, one finds that his identity card was incorrect and is then reclassified as Coloured. I refer to this matter—because I feel even sadder than the hon. member for Green Point feels about this particular matter. I have heard of cases, and from personal experience I know of cases, where after the parties were married, the identity card of one of the parties was changed to Coloured. However, that was not all the department did to this person, because shortly after this, another section of the department arranged for that person to be charged under sections 18 and 19 of the Act and also, as an alternative, for fraud. I believe that it is really terrible for a person who married, thinking that he was White, to another person who was White to have his identity card changed through no fault of his own and on top of it being faced by a criminal charge. This criminal charge hung over this man’s head for months and months. When the matter was eventually brought to court, the charges were withdrawn without one word of evidence being given. Think of the anguish of those poor people during all those months with this charge hanging over their heads.

Mr. Chairman, in pursuance of the hon. member for Rissik’s reference to the report of the Public Service Commission when he pointed out that the staff position gives cause for concern, I should like to concentrate particularly on the professional levels of the Public Service. I made a few analyses and came to certain conclusions as far as three different aspects are concerned. In the first place, I made an analysis of the tendencies as far as staff losses are concerned, and I expressed these as a percentage of all resignations in the Public Service. I found that the percentage resignations on professional level in the Public Service during the period 1970 to 1975, expressed as a percentage of the total number of resignations, increased from 15% to 22%. The resignation of people in the technical branches of the Public Service, as a percentage of the total number of resignations, increased from 17% to 20%. I also considered the Public Service bursaries which had been granted, expressed as a percentage in relation to the total number of bursaries granted during the period 1971 to 1975. In 1971, 3,3% of the bursaries granted was awarded to students who wanted to study architecture. In 1975 the percentage bursaries granted in this field of study amounted to only 1,1%—one third thereof. The number of bursaries dropped from 36 to 11. In engineering the percentage dropped from 27% of the total number of bursaries to 8,8%, which caused the original number of 303 bursaries offered for this field of study to drop to 86. In paragraph 84 of the report of the Commission it is stated that 54,5% of the number of students who completed their studies in architecture at the end of 1974, did not join the Public Service.

An analysis of new appointments revealed —and this is particularly interesting—that re-appointments, expressed as a percentage of the total number of appointments of professional staff members, amounted to only 16% of the total. Only 12,2% of the people previously employed in technical posts in the Public Service, returned to the Public Service. In other words, people in these categories do not return to the Public Service. These figures can be compared with administrative reappointments, which constitute 42% of the total number of re-appointments. An analysis of professional posts—and I base the analysis on a random test I obtained from the Public Service Commission and which is statistically represented—reveals that by 30 September last year the Public Service experienced a shortage of 22% in respect of people trained in architecture. Furthermore, a shortage of 30% in respect of quantity surveyors were experienced; 26% in respect of engineers; 15% in respect of land surveyors; 27% in respect of town and regional planners; 38% in respect of programmers and 23% in respect of assistant-programmers. What is shocking about these figures is that as far as engineers are concerned, 87 new appointments were made in the preceding year out of a total of 373 posts and that 93 persons resigned, resulting in a net loss of six persons. As far as the computer staff is concerned, there were 20 appointments and 34 resignations. The situation with regard to legally trained staff, has already been referred to when it was mentioned that only 20,7% of the posts was filled by properly qualified people on 3 June last year. One can advance many reasons for this situation, but a great deal is already being done to deal with the problem. One wants to pay tribute to the Public Service Commission for the initiative they display as far as advertising, and so on, is concerned, a matter to which reference has already been made.

However, I want to deal with the crux of the problem and I think that the problem of the professional person in the Public Service lies in the question as to how professional people can be accommodated within the framework of the Public Service, a framework which is traditionally tied up with, inter alia, the remuneration of administrative and professional staff. It is this aspect which creates a major problem in the Public Service as far as the handling of professional staff is concerned. In paragraphs 9 to 12 one reads of a revision of the Public Service system, something to which the Public Service Commission has been giving attention for a considerable time. It is ironic that this very investigation, which is fundamental to the solution of the whole problem of the staff position of the Public Service, suffers from the same shortage as the rest of the Service, i.e. an insufficient number of professional people to pay attention to the matter. On that page reference is made on three occasions to the manpower shortage which causes little or no progress to be made with this fundamental investigation into the Public Service. How does one solve a problem such as this? The first thought that enters one’s mind, is to say that provision should be made for improved salary scales and more money. However, this is not so easy. This has to be done as well, but a great deal more than this has to be done.

A qualified American psychiatrist, Prof. Frederic Hertzberg, who is an international expert in the sphere of personnel management and motivation, conducted world-wide research in respect of the question of job satisfaction and motivation. His findings revealed very interesting particulars, particulars which are really fundamental to an investigation into a body as comprehensive as the Public Service. He found that factors contributing to job dissatisfaction on the one hand bear little relation to factors contributing to job satisfaction on the other. We found that certain factors contribute to job dissatisfaction but that the elimination of those factors merely eliminate the dissatisfaction without bringing about or motivating satisfaction. More than this is needed, particularly at professional levels. An adequate salary and pleasant surroundings, and so on, are not enough, because what professional people are concerned about, is job enrichment, fulfilment in their work and realizing themselves professionally. If this could be brought about we would have self-motivation and a higher degree of productivity. In order to conduct an investigation into the Public Service on the basis of this proved, fundamental criteria of a proper system, an investigation which is in fact being conducted by the Public Service Commission, I want to ask whether it is not possible to make available to the commission the services of consultants in managerial and personnel management apart from the experts we have at our disposal. I want to commend this matter to the hon. the Minister. I do not think there is any firm in South Africa which will be able to control a comprehensive project such as this. However, if we want to do this, we will have to look for assistance on international level. I believe it is going to be in our own interests to lend stimulus to this particular project in order to finalize this investigation into the State machinery and proceed from there. If we delay this project, we shall only be delaying even further the results we shall achieve through this ultimately.

As far as the shortage of professional staff is concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Minister—I know that, according to the report, this is being done—whether it would not be possible to have even more professional work given out on contract to private people. There are hundreds of firms which are capable of doing work of this nature; they drew a great many people who had been employed by the Public Service originally. I also want to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for certain professional grades to be lifted out and detached from the fixed pattern in which they are unfortunately trapped, at least until we have revised the entire structure. In a period of low economic activity, as is relatively the case at present, one finds that professional people do not return to the Public Service, because those people mean too much to their firms. Consequently, they prefer to carry these peoples through a period of relative slackness. For this reason we shall never get them back again.

Another important aspect is that the professional man needs good equipment. In the private sector one finds firms which have all the necessary equipment at their disposal, but nevertheless every provincial council as well as certain Government departments duplicate all that equipment while they do not have the necessary people to operate this equipment in a proper manner. Consequently the equipment merely serves as a white elephant. I saw it with my own eyes, and I therefore know what I am talking about. However, I want to make an exception as far as one aspect is concerned. One requires continuity and a high degree of security as far as computers are concerned. If one adds up all the money the Public Service Commission, the Defence Force and the various boards spent on computer programming work which is given out on contract, it amounts to approximately R6 million. Has the time not come for us to consider the establishment of a utility corporation to carry out this work for the Public Service on a tender basis? Such a utility corporation would be able to undertake computer programming work which is given out on contract at one-third of the cost at which it is being done at present. Such a project would fit in ideally with a bureau of information science which I advocated in this House earlier this year.

Mr. Chairman, it does not happen very often that I can congratulate a member of the governing party on a speech he has made. However, I can do it this evening with all sincerity and I want to say to the hon. member for Florida that it must have taken courage for him to make a speech like that this evening because the Government generally is not …

You just want to make politics out of it again.

I am not making politics at all. I am being absolutely sincere. It is exactly the same sort of reaction the hon. member has given us now that I want to talk about. This Government is not kindly disposed towards any person who comes with criticism. Yet that hon. member came with constructive criticism of the hon. the Minister, the Public Service Commission and of the whole situation as we have it today.

Criticism?

Of course it was criticism. Was the hon. member for Carleton-ville asleep as usual or did he not listen to the hon. member for Florida? Did he not hear the hon. member’s criticism of the faults and his suggestions for solutions?

Order! The comment of the hon. member that the hon. member for Carletonville is usually asleep is unfair and the hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words. I want to come back to the hon. member for Florida and to the hon. the Minister. Both have conceded that there are problems in the Civil Service. I think this is generally known, and if one looks at the report of the Public Service Commission, one realizes that everybody is concerned about the problem. I want to put a different thought in the mind of the hon. the Minister, by saying to him that he, as well as the hon. member for Florida, have spoken of attempts to attract more people by making their working conditions more attractive and to keep them there once they have got them into the service. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should rather look at the better utilization of the resources which he has available to him. In the estimates we find that there is provision for an establishment of 186 341. We know the hon. the Minister does not have that number of persons in his employ. However, is he looking at the efficiency of each and every one of the persons he does employ? I am an ex-civil servant myself, and I know that there are civil servants who are carrying more than their weight today. There are those, whom the hon. the Minister mentioned, who work hours and hours of overtime without being paid for it, in order to keep the Civil Service going. But has the hon. the Minister looked at the other members of the departments to see whether they are carrying their share of the load, or whether it is a minority of loyal and honest civil servants only who are carrying a number of others who are passengers? I want to say in all sincerity, and without reflecting in any way on the Civil Service as a whole, that I believe all honest and sincere civil servants will agree with me when I say that there are a number of passengers.

There is another aspect in this regard. At the moment we have a Government with 35 different departments. I wonder how much duplication takes place throughout those departments. Is it really necessary that we have 35 departments? Should some of these departments not be combined? One particular example that comes to mind is the question of the Department of Immigration, which was established about 14 or 15 years ago. I think it was established with effect from 1962.

It was established in 1961.

This department exists primarily to carry out a function delegated to it by the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the carrying out of certain of the provisions of the Aliens Act and of the Immigration Act. What is the position? The Department of the Interior is concerned with the issue of visas, temporary residence permits, work permits and the granting of citizenship. But cutting right across and into the middle of these functions comes a Department of Immigration acting, as I have said, under authority delegated to it by the hon. the Minister. It deals with the Immigrant Selection Board, with the granting of permanent residence—in other words, with immigrants who come to South Africa to settle here permanently. Apart from the duplication of administrative staff which I can see in such a set-up, there is the confusion created in the minds of so many people. This confusion does exist. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is not aware, but I am sure members of his department are aware of cases—I have dealt personally with such cases—where people consider that they have submitted documents called for by the Department of Immigration erroneously to the Department of the Interior which dealt with them and filed them. Thus a problem arises. There are also cases where people come into the country with a work permit or a temporary residence visa and then seek permanent residence. While his application is being processed by the Department of Immigration, he finds that his temporary residence permit has expired and that the Department of the Interior informs him that they do not need him any more and that he has to go. Immediately this person is confused. He has submitted his papers and he thinks everything is under control. But suddenly somebody tells him that he did not comply. I believe the hon. the Minister should consider this cause for confusion in the minds of members of the public.

In all seriousness, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that one of the first steps that should be taken, is to consider whether or not we really can afford the luxury of a separate Department of Immigration at the present time. All the functions that this department carries out can be carried out by the Department of the Interior. I believe that will be a more efficient operation, because there will then be no duality, no separation of the control over what is in fact only one function. There will also be a financial saving.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned, I was suggesting to the hon. the Minister that he should look to the efficient utilization of the resources at his disposal. I had suggested to him that he might also look at the question of doing away with the Department of Immigration and reincorporating the functions that are carried out by that department within his own Department of the Interior. I commend that idea to him, and I commend to him also a further investigation regarding other departments. I happen to have picked on these two departments because they are two with which I happen to have had a certain amount of experience recently. This is where the thought came to me. I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet as a whole could look at the possibility of consolidating other departments into one and thereby saving quite a lot in the way of administrative costs and manpower.

We can have fewer Ministers too.

Yes, that is another thought, but I do not think you will allow me to discuss the question of doing away with some Ministers under this particular Vote, Mr. Chairman.

Do not be tempted. Maintain your standard, please! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, at the same time as I make these suggestions to the hon. the Minister—and I make them in all seriousness as positive suggestions for his consideration—I believe that he has got to look to those people whom he has today, and to their welfare. He must look at ways and means of retaining them within the service. One of the big complaints that I come across over and over relates to the personal grievances which members have. The system of grading and the system of promotion today makes every official directly responsible to his immediate superior. In the days when I was in the service there were various officials who were known as Public Service Inspectors. The Public Service Inspector came around periodically, and if an official had a complaint he could go to that inspector in the full confidence that he would not be prejudiced in any way if he put his complaint to the Public Service Inspector. Today an official who has a complaint is required to put that complaint to his immediate superior, and he is dependent upon the goodwill of his immediate superior if he is to be promoted. In this connection the following is stated in para. 87 of the report of the Public Service Commission—

I am glad to hear that the commission has investigated those complaints which have been brought to the notice of the commission, but I believe that there are other complaints which have not been brought to the notice of the commission. I find that in the January 1976 edition of the Public Servant the Public Servants’ Association has brought pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister the necessity for some sort of independent tribunal, be it a Public Service Inspector, a separate committee or whatever it may be, to hear the grievances of individual public servants who have problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South’s attempt to try and take political capital out of the very positive contribution of the hon. member for Florida before supper tonight is, in my opinion, a very clear manifestation of the actual political bankruptcy of the UP. If this is the kind of thing he tries to make political capital out of, then one can understand why at this moment the UP is literally fighting with its back against the wall for its political life in Durban North.

We are winning very well there. [Interjections.]

They are very sure now, Sir, but we shall see. As far as the rest of the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is concerned, I know that the hon. the Minister will reply to it fully.

I should like to associate myself with the speech of the hon. member for Florida. I should like to emphasize the competent, unselfish way in which our civil servants in our Public Service have served this country over the years. One can really thank them very much for this. We have noticed and appreciated the very hard work of our officials in certain difficult circumstances in the past. But in spite of this one cannot emphasize enough the necessity for continually tightening-up our Public Service and bringing it into line with the most modern in the world. In 1973 already, the hon. the Minister drew attention to this matter by causing an inquiry to be held. I should like to express a few thoughts about the regeneration of our Public Service. I should like to approach the matter from three points of view. In the first place, I want to emphasize the importance of the Public Service as an essential element in the management of our country. Secondly, I want to emphasize the systematic application of a new approach. Thirdly, I want to draw attention to the priority which, in my opinion, the regeneration of the Public Service should enjoy.

As far as the first of these points is concerned, I want to say that an efficient governmental service is indispensable for ensuring the internal order of the country, for providing the services which are essential for social health, and for making provision for the perpetration of all business and cultural activities. It is one of the pillars on which an ideal condition in any country rests. Sir, lack of time does not allow me to give full particulars in this connection, but what I should, however, like to say about the central Public Service though, is to a large extent applicable to other parts of the governmental sector.

The physical onslaught against South Africa in recent times draw attention to the importance of a prepared Defence Force, but preparedness is not a single concept. Equally important is the high morale of our nation together with an effective administration of the country. These three factors are interdependent of one another. The one cannot exist without the other. The central Public Service is the instrument by means of which any Government policy is carried out, and without an effective Public Service a government is like a head without a body. The intricate problems of South Africa, together with a sophisticated policy programme of our Government, necessitates a skilled, versatile Public Service, a Public Service on which, in my opinion, increasingly high demands are going to be made in the future, and it is fitting that we should continually consider the institutions and the practices which constitute our Public Service system. This will ensure that we will be able to guarantee the present as well as the future infrastructure which will be necessary for our safety and well-being.

If one considers the Public Service as a system, we must dwell for a moment on the importance of that concept. Basically, the Public Service is a system of work consisting of various components. The institutions, practices, structures and people within the system show a certain continuity and influence one another mutually, and the concept “system” further implies that we cannot consider the components thereof in isolation. Changes and adjustments in certain parts of the system will therefore necessarily have an influence on the system as a whole, In the same way problems in certain parts of it will also have an influence on the whole system. However, it follows logically that should the underlying institutions and practices of the Public Service be placed and maintained upon a sound foundation, it will be a strong factor in the increase in efficiency in the Governmental sector.

Flowing from the systematic approach it is obvious that when one speaks about the promotion of efficiency in the Public Service, it is essential to identify these underlying and fundamental institutions or practices so that it can be ensured that they are basically sound and efficient. If this is not done, those who are concerned with the administration of our Public Service will find that they are treating symptoms without reaching the fundamental problems and being able to rectify them. However, the Public Service consists of people, people with skills and ability, etc. and all staff institutions and practices must aim to maintain a competent body of staff quantitatively as well as qualitatively. This is absolutely essential, otherwise effective implementation of policy will suffer. Staff administration consists of two aspects: Application work which takes place within the framework and in terms of the existing rules and regeneration development work which includes adjustments to the existing framework of the system. Applied actions are normally of an urgent nature on the short term, while regeneration work usually aims at the broad solution of questions, for example, investigations into the functioning of the actual fundamental institutions and practices of the Public Service. And since application work is urgent, the danger exists of its enjoying preference over regeneration work.

In practice it would result in a vicious circle, because increasing inefficiency of basic practices will automatically bring about an increase of urgent application work, which would result in less time and money available for regeneration work. Urgency and importance are not always synonomous. Therefore I am particularly pleased to note in the latest annual report that the Public Service Commission is working urgently at the renewal of our own Public Service system. One realizes that this is a comprehensive and major task, but in the light of the absolute importance of it, and the possible solution of our staff problems as was indicated to us, I wondered if it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what priority regeneration of the Public Service enjoys at present, what progress has already been made with this work and when the new classification system of the Public Service will possibly come into operation.

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying earlier, I believe that the hon. the Minister has given to the Public Servants’ Association an undertaking that he was giving serious consideration to the question of establishing an independent tribunal to hear the complaints of individual civil servants. I believe that the time has come that the hon. the Minister must tell us exactly what he has done in this regard, whether he has, in fact, done anything to help the civil servants regarding this particular aspect. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg has also tried to make political capital here tonight and I want to say to him, in all seriousness, that it is quite obvious that he did not understand what I said earlier about the hon. member for Florida when I congratulated him on his speech and on the fact that he was prepared to face facts, the facts being that we have problems in the Public Service, and the fact that he had the courage to say to the hon. the Minister: these are the problems and here are some suggestions to solve them. But the hon. member for Verwoerdburg got up and tried to tell us that everything in the garden was rosy. The only thing I can agree with in what he said is where he says he believes that the Public Service is a basic requirement for the control of our country, that we therefore have to have an efficient Public Service and that we have to have a happy Public Service. I want to talk to the hon. the Minister in regard to this very question of having a happy Public Service.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Florida both mentioned that it was no good simply increasing salary scales, to buy persons with higher salary scales. It is the conditions of service; it is the privileges which go with service that count an awful lot. I think one of the things the hon. the Minister has to look at is the question of pensions. The hon. the Minister knows that in 1973 a new deal was given to civil servants regarding their pension. First of all, the rate of pension was increased. It was based on the average salary of the last three years of service instead of over the last 10 years, so that the position was that all civil servants who went on pension since 1973 are far better off than those who went on pension prior to that year. Of course, I am not going to talk about those before 1948 or even those before 1955, who are even worse off. But let us talk about those who retired prior to 1973. I have a case of a senior official, an educational planner, who in 1968 went on pension after 47 years of service. He stayed on until the maximum period that he could stay on, and after 47 years’ service he was earning a salary of R6 600. During his time of service he had paid into the pension fund an amount of R9 300. He drew, as a gratuity when he went on pension, the sum of R9 000. His pension was R5 400 in 1968. That has increased, with the increases the Government have granted civil pensioners over the years, so that it is now R6 778. His successor went on pension last year, earning a salary of R13 200—twice what his predecessor earned in 1968 when he went on pension. He has paid into the pension fund R12 500. He received a gratuity of R37 000 and his pension is R10 300. Now, why should the man who went on pension in 1968 be expected to accept a lower standard of living than the man who went on pension last year? It is all very well for the Government and for the hon. the Minister and his department to say that the man who went on pension in 1968 paid in less to the pension fund. But he paid in good money, money which was worth something at the time. Also, if you look at the figures I gave to the Minister, you will find that man who went on pension in 1968 paid in an amount equivalent to 141% of his retiring salary, but the man who went on pension last year only paid in an amount equivalent to 95% of his retiring salary, and yet he qualifies for this tremendously increased pension. Sir, these are the things which rankle in the minds of civil servants today. They wonder whether they will be looked after in their old age. If they stay on, will they be looked after?

I have another case of someone who went on pension in 1960. His pension then was R139 a month. That pension has been increased by over 100% since he went on pension in 1960, and today he receives R297 a month. Sir, this was also a senior civil servant when he went on pension, and today he and his wife are expected to live on R300 a month. If he was not a pensioner, he would be entitled to relief and benefits from the Department of Social Welfare and Community Development as earning less than R300 a month. I know that the Government has not been entirely unaware of the plight of these pensioners. I know that they have done something about increasing the pensions. As I say, in the case of this man who went on pension 15 years ago, his pension has been doubled, but the question remains whether the hon. the Minister believes that is adequate compensation to a man for a lifetime of service to the State? Surely he is entitled to a better standard of living than R300 a month. Does the hon. the Minister know what it means today to live on R300 a month? This is the sort of thing I believe the hon. the Minister has to look at, when he thinks of trying to improve conditions in the Civil Service, so that he is able to retain those people whom he has got.

There is yet another aspect. I started off this afternoon by stating that I believe that the Minister should look at what he has got in the Civil Service, and see how he can utilize what he has got to the best advantage. We have in the Civil Service a number of non-White people, but the hon. the Minister knows that there are certain limitations which are placed on those persons, and not only difference in the wage structure. They can only go so far in a department, and I wonder whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister to lift completely the ceiling which is placed on the development of a non-White in the Public Service. Here I do not refer only to the departments of Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and Bantu Administration, because there I concede that in terms of stated Government policy—we still have not seen it carried out in practice—the non-White employees of those three departments can rise all the way in theory, although it does not happen in practice. But in other departments we also have non-Whites, and I believe the time has come for us to make more efficient utilization of the resources available to us in the form of those non-White people in other departments. Even more important than that is the question of encouraging the hon-White people to be more efficient. I have here a copy of a statement issued by the hon. the Minister on 1 March 1976. It was published in the Eastern Province Herald under the headlines “No Immediate plans for Wage Parity—Mulder”, in which the hon. the Minister ends up by saying—

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he were to acknowledge the contribution which those non-Whites are making in the Civil Service, firstly, by putting them on an equal salary scale with their White counterparts, and, secondly, by lifting automatic ceiling which is placed over their development, he could expect greater productivity from them. How can he expect equal productivity from them while he discriminates against them, firstly with regard to salaries and, secondly, with regard to promotion? The hon. member for Rissik, who spoke first in this debate, referred to a “klein begrippie— diskriminasie”. What about the “dis-kriminasie”? Let us look at paragraph 90 on page 28 of the report of the Public Service Commission, a paragraph dealing with the question of the extra payment for inconvenience to members of the service departments. An amount of R360 is paid to Whites, R270 to Coloureds and Indians and R216 to Bantu members of the service departments. Why should there by any discrimination, particularly in the service departments, when it comes to compensation for inconvenience experienced by members of the service? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member who has just spoken of equal wages can tell this hon. House—he has often told us that he is the owner of a supermarket—whether he pays his non-White and White staff exactly the same salaries.

This evening, however, I want to deal with the freedom of the Press. The Press in South Africa is free to criticize whom it likes, how it likes. The Press is free to inform people of things of which it wants to inform the people of South Africa and it may also inform whom it wants to inform. The Press is also free to propagate what it wants to propagate and it is free to do so in its own way. The Press is free to influence the political destiny of South Africa and its people in its own way. We often resent this free institution, the Press of South Africa, because it does things which are not in the interests of South Africa. However, it is in the interests of South Africa that the Press is in fact free and should remain free. It is the duty of all of us to protect and further the freedom of the Press as part of our democracy. The Press, too, has a duty and responsibility to protect its own freedom and to accept the responsibilities which go hand in hand with the freedom of the Press. Therefore the Press in South Africa must act at all times in a way which makes it unnecessary for the Government to take action, that is, the Press must be fair and honest and, within the framework of its own political philosophy, it must most certainly also be objective and unbiased.

I want to refer to the action of the Rand Daily Mail, action which amounts to a scandalous lack of appreciation of the freedom of the Press in South Africa. The Rand Daily Mail is aware of the fact that Mr. Luyt intends launching The Citizen in Johannesburg one of these days and it is obvious that this has given the Rand Daily Mail lock-jaw. This newspaper has called in the assistance of foreign groups in its struggle against this new newspaper envisaged for later this year. The General Manager of the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. John Fairbairn, wrote a letter to Mr. Coyne, the assistant promotion manager of The New York Times. He also wrote letters to Len Boygaard, the vice-president of The Newspaper Advertising Bureau. Furthermore, he also said that he had written to the following newspapers: The News Day, The Columbian, The Washington Post and The New York Times. These are definitely of the most famous newspapers in the world. In these letters the newspapers are called upon to help the Rand Daily Mail in its struggle against The Citizen. The newspapers are even asked to do espionage work on Mr. Luyt so as to obtain information which can be used against Mr. Luyt personally in order to place him under suspicion in the eyes of the people of South Africa. In these letters the Rand Daily Mail says there need be no concern with regard to the newspaper’s complete disappearance from the market. I quote from a translation of the letter—

In other words, here it is a question of money. Therefore, what the Rand Daily Mail is saying here is that America must help it to make more money out of the reading public of South Africa by silencing another voice of South Africa. Not one of us has any reason to believe that the proposed newspaper, The Citizen, will propagate the NP point of view in any way. The reverse is more likely. What we do know, is that the owner and the director of the newspaper have committed themselves to an objective rendering of the political facts of South Africa. The motivation for this action on the part of the Rand Daily Mail is, of course, in the first place money. Naturally there is a very serious aspect at stake here as well. I am referring to freedom of the Press. This also concerns the suppression of the publication of an alternative or objective standpoint to the English-speaking reading public of Johannesburg and the Rand. By approaching these foreign newspapers, the Rand Daily Mail perhaps also wants to create the impression that foreign influence through the medium of the Rand Daily Mail may possibly suffer the circulation of the Rand Daily Mail were to increase. This is purely a South African matter, but one of the parties brings in foreigners to help it fight a South African citizen and a South African institution created with South African money. This action is scandalous, because the Rand Daily Mail is a newspaper which has often paid lip-service to democracy, to the freedom of the Press, to the rights of the individual and to the right of everyone to know. Its action in this case, however, can only be branded as being to the detriment of the freedom of the Press in South Africa and therefore also to the detriment of democracy as such. I pity the English-speaking people in South Africa because they are necessarily dependent on the English-language newspapers of South Africa for their opinion-making. The English-speaking people undoubtedly read Afrikaans-language newspapers far less than Afrikaans-speaking people read English-language newspapers. Therefore the English-speaking South African is necessarily committed to knowing only one side of the coin, and I regret saying that they only know the reverse side of the coin.

The time has now come to afford people the opportunity to show the other, bright side of the coin to English-speaking South Africans. We know that the Rand Daily Mail is a newspaper which is undoubtedly responsible for the fact the PRP are sitting in this House of Assembly today. They managed this, not by means of objective reporting, but by means of image-building. In this way they even succeeded in obtaining a detribalized Free Stater, a deserter, in the House. In this way the English-speaking South African is being discriminated against. After all, the English-speaking South African is entitled to other points of view as well. Our people in the NP read the English-language newspapers in Pretoria. In Pretoria Central they read their “hometown” Up newspaper, the Pretoria News, they read a little of the Rand Daily Mail—for which one is grateful!—and they read The Star. Every time Nationalists read English-language newspapers, they also know why they are Nationalists, and must and will remain Nationalists. I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point across the floor of the House if he agrees that it is correct behaviour on the part of the Rand Daily Mail to call in the aid of the American Press chiefs so as to quell the voice of another newspaper here. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member across the floor of the House to adopt a standpoint on this matter. He must tell us whether he thinks that this is wrong. Does the hon. member perhaps believe that it is right? I know why the hon. member is not saying a word now. We know what the situation was. The Rand Daily Mail, and the other newspapers in its group, cherished the UP. Later however, they discarded the UP. They made of the UP a desented child and what did they get then? Then they got the foundling, the PRP. [Interjections.] We are dealing with the freedom of the Press here, one of the corner-stones of democracy. Is it, then, wrong to adopt a standpoint in this House and say whether one thinks that the conduct of the Rand Daily Mail is correct? I challenge the hon. member for Sea Point once again to state his standpoint.

I hope that the Americans who, for the most part, are great patriots, will correctly judge the Rand Daily Mail’s behaviour to be the behaviour of people who are behaving in an utterly un-South African manner, the behaviour of unpatriotic people, the behaviour of people who cannot risk having the standpoint of the PRP put before the public of South Africa in all its nakedness. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it was just time for the hon. member for Pretoria Central to come to the end of his tether because he was really blowing his top. He honestly did not know what he was talking about. What started this tirade against the Rand Daily Mail heaven alone knows. He tries to get at the Rand Daily Mail and through it at the whole English-language Press. The hon. member is obviously worried about Durban North and therefore he is trying to blow off steam against us. Let me tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central that he does not have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. There is nothing of the kind that the Rand Daily Mail made an appeal to America for support. Does the hon. member know where Mr. Louis Luyt is going to get finance from? He is getting American capital. The English-language Press in this country is not a monopoly. The English-speaking people are not the victims of any kind of monopolistic Press situation. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Pretoria Central know that 25% of the readership of The Star is Afrikaans-speaking and that more than 35% of the readership of the Pretoria News is Afrikaans-speaking? Does he know this? [Interjections.] There is absolutely no monopolistic situation whatsoever. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has no idea what Press freedom means and the sooner he realizes that he is talking in a total vacuum, the better for everybody concerned. I cannot fathom what the genesis of this tirade is. He talks about an unpatriotic South African Press, but this is the greatest nonsense. The whole English-language South African Press is founded in South Africanism, it is based on South Africanism and it deals far more than the Afrikaans-speaking Press does with all sections of the community. It serves both the language groups and it is there to serve all South Africans. I suggest that the hon. members for Pretoria Central and Simonstown should go to some kind of desert island and dream up their tirades against the English-language Press together.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Pretoria Central has introduced this slightly sour note into the debate because out of deference for the hon. the Minister of the Interior and his blood pressure and because of “die gemoedelike stemming” which we have here this evening, I was going to raise a couple of non-contentious issues with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I was not going to tell the hon. the Minister how many good Afrikaners think his censorship system is in a bit of a mess.

I shall not tell him either how many of them think that it is going to stifle the creative arts in South Africa. I am not going to go on about that. I realize that censorship in this country has become part of an interlocking system of restrictive laws. I am afraid that this is absolutely true. I suppose we are going to be saddled with this censorship system as long as we are saddled with this Government. Perhaps what has happened in Durban North today may help to change the situation a little sooner than some of us have dared hope to date.

Seriously, I want to raise one or two non-contentious subjects with the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether there is nothing the hon. the Minister’s department can do to speed up the issuing of visas to intending visitors to this country. At present there is such an inordinate delay. The hon. the Minister and his officials will know of the case I brought to their notice, a case in which there had been a delay of nearly four months to the very considerable inconvenience of scores of people. What is more, I would not have thought that was a particularly difficult case. I am afraid it was not an exceptional case either. There are many others. These delays involve a waste of time and energy and in many cases of money too. Incidentally, I should like to thank the senior officials of the Department of the Interior for the kind of help they extend when there are visa problems of this nature. I suggest that there may be something wrong with the system where there are these delays which really cause an inordinate amount of difficulty.

Sir, it is apparently departmental policy not to grant extensions to visitors’ visas if the visitors decide to apply to become immigrants. I should like to know whether that is in fact so and, if so, why. I suggest that it will save a great deal of money if such visas or work permits could be extended until the result of their immigration applications become known. I should also like to know whether the department could not be a little freer with the work permits for young people who want to spend some time in this country. The hon. the Minister will know that it has become very much a way of life for countless young people all over the world to work their way around the world. One hears frequent complaints about the stickiness of the department in granting work permits to some such people when they reach South Africa. After all, it is unlikely that such people will deprive South Africans of work. In any case, we pride ourselves on having no unemployment problem. Consequently a few score young people working here for limited periods can hardly constitute an economic threat of any nature.

In answer to an hon. member on the other side who spoke earlier this afternoon, I should like to pay a tribute to the Department of the Interior for the role it played in handling thousands of Angolan refugees. We know that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions organized and ran camps such as my colleague and I saw outside Pretoria and, incidentally, they did a splendid job. However, the Department of the Interior was responsible for the overall planning and co-ordination of the vast operation and for providing some of the funds. I should like to think that their work in this connection was in the best tradition of the Public Service. I think the officials concerned deserve the thanks of South Africa since this was a really humanitarian act which redounded to their credit and to the credit of this country.

However, there is one point I should like to stress, and that is that I believe it should be firm Government policy that the humanitarian needs of people must always take precedence over other considerations. I am thinking of the hundreds of luckless, fear-ridden people who spent anxious days and nights in boats in Walvis Bay. I believe that those people should have been succoured without delay and that the political niceties and details should have been sorted out later. People who, for whatever reasons, have been driven from their homes out of fear and who are living in the constant fear that there may be worse to come, need immediate help and succour, such as South Africa was able to give during the Angolan crisis. There is no price that is too high to pay to assist people in such desperate straits.

Finally, I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of allowing South African Indian men, who marry in India, to bring their wives back with them to this country. There are not very many, but there are at least a couple of very hard cases. I particularly have in mind the case of a 37-year-old Indian who holds an M.A. degree in economics and who is manager now of an export/import business in Bombay. He left South Africa 18 years ago to go to study at a university in India. He married there and has one child. However, he cannot bring either his wife or his child with him to South Africa. He wants to remain a South African citizen. He is so anxious to remain in South Africa that he flies out here from India every three years to renew his domicile. Every time he comes here, it costs him thousands of rand. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot show leniency in cases like this. As I have said, there cannot be very many such cases. These are, nevertheless, very hard cases. These people are usually well-educated people with a stake in this country. I want to ask whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to use the discretion given him under the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act to allow people like that to bring their wives and children along with them.

In the case that I have in mind, this young man recently told a newspaper in Johannesburg—

We all know what the law says, but I believe that this is a case in which humanitarian considerations should take precedence over any other considerations. As I have said, there are not many of these cases, and I believe that it will be an act of simple humanity to allow these people to live on a family basis. It surely cannot pose a threat of any kind to anybody.

Yes, let them all in!

Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his very serious and earnest consideration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on the speech he made this afternoon on the Government Printing Works. A contribution on the special service being rendered by the Government Printing Works both to the country and this particular institution was definitely called for. Therefore, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his speech.

This afternoon the hon. member for Green Point used certain terms with regard to race classification. Together with other hon. members of his party, for instance the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, he indicated that they were opposed to race classification. The hon. member for Green Point, however, did express himself in favour of a certain form of registration.

He is still thinking about it!

The hon. member for Green Point speaks of “group identity”, whereas the hon. member for Bezuidenhout refers to a “cultural group” in contradistinction to a “colour group”. According to him people in South Africa should be classified into cultural groups, and not into colour groups. Now one asks oneself how something of this kind is to be effected in practice. In what way will it be possible to implement the Group Areas Act when one is dealing with cultural groups and not with colour groups. Or are we to accept that, under a UP Government—if the UP ever comes into power—the Group Areas Act will not be implemented with regard to residential areas, as is the case at present? The hon. member for Green Point adopted a standpoint with regard to this matter as far back as 1974. He once said the following in this House (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 4390)—

This refers to the identification of children—

Mr. Chairman, I should be grateful if the hon. member, when he replies to my speech later this evening, would explain to this hon. House the way in which the necessary classification of children into schools would be effected on the basis of cultural groups. Who, after such a child has been admitted to a school, is eventually going to decide on such matters, especially if the school community itself does not accept that child. In that case, who is going to take further decisions? To continue, the hon. member put it as follows—

The hon. member went on to say the following (Hansard, Vol. 51, 1974, col. 4391)—

Therefore, am I correct in assuming that what the hon. member has in mind on behalf of his party, is personal choice? Does the hon. member want every member of the population, irrespective of whether he is White, Coloured, Bantu or Indian, to be able to decide, according to his personal choice, to which cultural group he wishes to belong? According to that personal choice the various cultural groups in the community will be arranged. Is this what the hon. member is asking this House, on behalf of his party, to adopt as its standpoint?

†The hon. member for Green Point also made some other interesting remarks concerning the Acts applicable. He said that the Act has no consideration for the individual and the rigid provisions of the Act make it intolerable for the Secretary. The hon. member said the Secretary is bound by the Act and can only correct errors.

*The hon. member for Wynberg—I notice he is not present tonight—is concerned about the Minister having a limited discretion. He wants the Minister’s discretion to be extended and he wants the Secretary to be given a discretion as well because, says he, if this were to happen, the Secretary would be able to deal with many matters which required the Minister’s attention at the present time. Here, unfortunately, we have a typical example of two ex-lawyers who have not been practising for so many years that their interpretation of laws has become rusty. The actual position is that section 1 of the Population Registration Act, as amended in 1967, contains definitions of various population groups, such as “Bantu”, “white person”, “ethnic or other group” and “coloured person”. Section 5(4)(c) is the section at issue as regards discretion. I should like to read it to hon. members—

The other peremptory provision we find in section 5(5) which reads inter alia, as follows—

There are approximately five further provisions, but I am referring only to section 5(5)(a), because I want to link a practical example to it. These sections are important to the argument which was advanced here this evening. Let us look at the practical implementation of this legal provision. In the classification of any person, section 5(5) is the peremptory and overriding one. The instruction to the Secretary, as contained in section 5(1), must be carried out as laid down in section 5(5). If the Secretary exercises the power he has in terms of section 5(4)(c), and this constitutes a deviation from the provisions of sections 5(5) and 5(1) of the Act, there must be sound reasons for this indeed, and he must act consistently in all cases. He must guard against his decisions rendering the peremptory provisions of the Act, through humane considerations and arbitrary action, null and void and indefensible.

Therefore, humane considerations are out.

No. I am coming to that. I am at pains to place the legal implementation on record for the hon. member, so that he will not repeat the same arguments next year. Therefore, if the Secretary considers altering a person’s classification to a classification which, in terms of the peremptory provisions of the Act—i.e. section 5(5)—the person concerned may not be given, he must at least ascertain that it does not conflict with the provisions of section 1 of the Act either. If a person’s classification according to descent—I am now referring to section 5(5)—can not be altered, then there must be no misgivings, as far as his appearance and acceptance are concerned—”accepted as” are the words which are used in the Act—with regard to his definitely being an accepted member of the population group at the time, the group the classification of which he desires. In the case of altering a classification to that of one of the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons may be classified, appearance is not decisive. Consequently very close attention must be paid to acceptance, especially among the Coloured community, including the Cape Coloureds, the Malays and the Griquas, who have serious complaints about the penetration of Bantu and Indians into their community. Therefore, where the Secretary wishes to consider altering a person’s classification, with that person’s concurrence in terms of section 5(4)(c), to the classification of a population group into which he may not in terms of section 5(5) be classified, then the Secretary must be satisfied that he also has the concurrence throughout of the population group concerned—i.e. that the person, without any doubt, is accepted as such and is indeed accepted by his local community as one of them and is not merely tolerated. Regard should also be had to the consequences of altering the classification of a person in so far as that affects his family.

Representations for having the classification of a person altered in terms of section 5(4)(c), are considered in the light of legal provisions and attitudes as I have outlined them in the foregoing, because no other approach can have norms laid down in law. It will not be capable of consistent application in all cases and will result in the Secretary carrying out his instruction, as embodied in an arbitrary manner. Section 5(1), I hope this is clear to the hon. member. What does this mean in practice, however? There are borderline cases in respect of which problems may arise. These are cases of the kind to which the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members referred today. In borderline cases there may be facts according to which, on the basis of descent alone, no other decision can normally be given than in terms of section 5(5). A person who is classified as a Coloured person, for instance, remains a Coloured person. His classification is not altered to that of a white person.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely stand up to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip of the UP for the opportunity he is giving me to complete my speech.

In a case such as the one to which I have just referred, there are facts relating to appearance and acceptance, which may cause the Secretary to decide to give further consideration to the application as though the applicant’s parents have not been classified. As an example in this regard we can take an application by a Coloured person who wishes to be classified as a White person. The Secretary then determines whether the person is able, as regards appearance and acceptance, to comply with the provisions of the definition of the particular population group as set out in section 1 of the Act to which I have referred hon. members. If, in fact, he is able to comply with the provisions of that definition and the Secretary is satisfied that he is acceptable to the specific community into which he aspires to be absorbed and that it is in the interest of the specific applicant, he exercises his discretion in terms of section 5(4)(c) and consequently alters the person’s classification from that of a Coloured person to that of a White person. This is precisely what the Secretary did this year in 122 cases out of a total number of approximately 400 applications received by him. In this regard I refer hon. members specifically to page 8 of the report. It is interesting to see how many alterations were made for example from Cape Coloured to White and vice versa. It is also interesting to take cognizance of alterations in respect of other population groups.

So the Secretary not only rectifies errors, but also exercises the discretion which he, and he alone, has in cases where no error has been made. In this regard we are concerned only with individuals, but also with the community, and we must have proper regard to the standpoint of the community. We have many cases where the community does not want to accept an applicant and refuses to accept the person. Now I ask the hon. member for Green Point: In whose interest is it that we help such an applicant to force himself upon a community that does not want to accept him? I want to give this House the assurance, furthermore, that the Ministry and the Secretary work in close co-operation as the Minister is responsible for the political aspects involved in this legislation. For that reason he, in collaboration with the Secretary, gives special attention to all cases which have been brought to his attention, or which have been brought to his attention by the Secretary on his own initiative. I want to give you the assurance, Sir, that we, i.e. the Secretary and I, as this task has been entrusted to me at the direction of the Minister, as well as the Minister himself in cases to which he has given his personal attention, have been ad idem in every case in respect of which a decision has been given. The Secretary and I or the Minister and I or the Minister and the Secretary have been ad idem in the case of every decision we have given with regard to direct representations made to us and which involved hon. members or people in their private capacity. I gladly give this House that assurance. I ask hon. members to accept this.

Sir, we go to all this trouble and we consider all possible facts which can be taken into consideration, and these matters are considered as sympathetically as possible, because we are dealing with people, after all. Surely we must, to the best of our ability, treat those people in a humane manner as well. For the rest the Secretary and I go out of our way to be, at all times, at the disposal of any member of Parliament who wishes to discuss matters with us personally. We even go to the trouble of asking members to come and see us so that we may discuss the specific problem with them. This was what happened during the past year too. Therefore I content myself with this. I have tried to give the hon. House the actual legal position and to explain its practical implementation. In addition there is the assurance that has already been given today, i.e. that, in all the years in which this Secretary has been Secretary of the department, not a single case has been taken on review. I am fully prepared to have the legal position, which I have explained to this House this evening, tested in any Supreme Court without any hesitation on my part, when it comes to the interpretation of the legal provisions concerned. I trust that the explanation which I have given to this hon. House, will be sufficient, so that there will be clarity in future as regards the implementation of this Act, either in the Ministry or in the Secretary’s office.

Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to deal briefly with the limitation on audiences, which was referred to by the hon. the Minister, before I come to the points raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to repeat that I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his colleagues realize the incalculable harm which is done by the unnecessary imposition of the rule of separate audiences for overseas visitors. The hon. the Minister has received a copy of a cable which was sent to one of the impresarios in connection with the Korean folk company to which I referred earlier. This cable, which was sent as a result of those concerned being informed that they had to perform before separated audiences, reads as follows—

That Government has stopped this company from coming to South Africa. I again impress upon the hon. the Minister that I believe that this whole problem can be simplified and can be taken out of the contentious arena by adopting one principle to start with. Firstly where an amenity such as a theatre is provided by private enterprise and by private capital, the man who has established that amenity should be able to determine the persons that he wishes to cater for within his theatre. Let him start on that principle because, after all, if the public of South Africa do not want to attend theatres where there are mixed audiences, that owner will soon discover it to his financial cost because his theatre will not be a success. It is as simple as that. I believe that the influence of financial implications where private theatres are established should be paramount and that liberty should be given to the investor. I cannot urge too strongly to the hon. the Minister the need for coming to grips with this problem quickly, unless we are going to become isolated in South Africa in so far as entertainment talent in the world is concerned. I mentioned this afternoon that the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Community Development, knows full well that Equity is not asking for an Open Sesamé tomorrow for everything. They are prepared to come to terms with South Africa and to allow us to continue to evolve the policy which is the declared policy of this Government, i.e. to do away with discrimination on the ground of colour alone.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I thank him for giving me a lecture, or explanation, on the interpretation of the Act.

I shall charge you a fee for that.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman had given me a proper and acceptable explanation, I would probably pay the fee. The hon. the Minister cannot get away from the fact that in terms of section 1(2) of this Act, the basic decision as to whether a person is a Coloured or a White is based on appearance and acceptance. That is how the whole basis of this Act started. Section 1(2) states that the basis for acceptance relates to where a person is ordinarily resident, where he is employed or carries on business, where he mixes socially or takes part in other activities with other members of the public, and to his association with theme members of his family, and so on. If I ask the hon. the Minister to apply this Act and to make his determination in terms of that section, how can he say that we are asking him to force people upon a community if they are unacceptable to that community? We have never made a request to the Minister unless the person concerned was accepted within that particular racial group. When this Act first came into effect, it was administered by people like the late Mr. Tom Naudé and Senator De Klerk on the basis of acceptance. I can tell you, Sir, that long before I was in politics, I could as a legal practitioner in Cape Town telephone Mr. Tom Naudé in this connection. If I told him that a wrong classification had been made, he would say: “Send me the identity card and the facts relating to it, and I will adjust it.” That is how it was done. The hon. the Minister nods his head. I want to quote what he said in this House last year—

Sir, that has not been achieved. Then he went on to say that great flexibility was applied throughout the process. I quote further—

The Minister has asked us what our attitude is. I have limited time to explain, but there are two aspects relating to registration. The first is that we have always accepted that the registration of a citizen of this country to identify him as a citizen of South Africa is necessary and acceptable. The second point is registration or identification within a racial group or within a racial community. That registration is for specific purposes and is related to specific Acts. I see that the Minister looks puzzled. He can only look at it as apartheid, the registration of a race for the purposes of everything in life. Our point of view is that where it is necessary, for instance in the case of voters’ rolls or in a federal system, the registration of your race or group identity is for that special purpose. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked whether we say that our own choice is the basis. I say that is the basic approach to registration when it is to identify a person within a racial group for a specific purpose. Sir, the Minister knows what the reaction is when a person attempts to foist himself on a community in which he is not accepted. He is rejected by that community. He is rejected very quickly. And so, over the years, and also in South West Africa, there have been no problems. There are no problems except for the legal definitions and the rigidity of section 5(5) of the Act. You have people who, for the purposes of voting, for the purposes of where they can stay and run their businesses, are registered within their groups or identified within their groups.

The trouble is that I must accept that there is a vast difference between the approach of the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and myself. Where the hon. members on the other side of the House believe that the individual exists for the State, we, on this side, believe that the State exists to protect the freedom, the life and the interests of the individual. That, I am afraid, is the cardinal difference in approach between that side of the House and ourselves, and these differences appear to be irreconcilable.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the final few points raised in the debate. We have now come to the end of a very fruitful discussion in regard to this matter and it is as well that a number of matters, about which we were able to hold a very fruitful debate, have been raised here. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already dealt with the issue raised by the hon. member for Losberg concerning the Government Printer. However, now that the hon. member for Green Point has spoken, I want to say something about his concept of “registration” and “classification” as we know these concepts. I repeat the standpoint I stated here last year, viz. that this party, this Government, believes that for the sake of good relations and the elimination of areas of friction in our country, it is necessary for people to be classified into various groups. I want to tell the hon. member at once that he is more aware than I am how people do not accept each other and that ethnic differences between people in other countries have led to clashes and bloodshed on a vast scale. I need not furnish him with examples of this happening throughout the world. The fact is that this leads to endless problems and in view of the particular multi-national composition of our country, the presence of various peoples and colours, cultures and religions, there is a potential for a tremendous clash in southern Africa. We must therefore deal with this variety of personalities, peoples, cultures and ethnic groups with the greatest circumspection in order to maintain peace. We have the necessary proof that the policy as carried out thus far is successful, because South Africa has a record of peaceful co-existence which really stands out among those of most countries of the world. What have we done in this connection? We understand the human problems and I have told the hon. the member that. When the Act was originally submitted, the two concepts which were at once acceptable were those of “acceptability” and “appearance”. The legislation was implemented in this way for many years until the situation was abused by certain liberals in our country. They simply came up with a lot of statements by people—and we had proof of this—saying that they accepted the person concerned as White, that the person only mixed with Whites and that as far as they were concerned, he was White. However, the department could see from the appearance of the person that he was totally unacceptable since he was of different extraction. Owing to the acceptability factor the person had to be classified as White under those circumstances, whereas the officer was fully aware that the person was not White.

There is also the question of appearance, the one does not…

Yes, but that is just the argument. The situation was abused. After the procedure had been followed for a number of years, it was felt that the task of classification had been completed and that every person was classified in accordance with the criteria of appearance and acceptance. This, of course, does not include children born subsequently. Because the groups were then clearly defined, the concept of extraction had to be applied, namely that children of a marriage between Whites had to be White and that children of a marriage between Coloureds had to be Coloured. Extraction, therefore, became the decisive factor. The legislation which came into being in 1967 or 1968 was based on this factor and has been applied on this basis ever since. The discretion with regard to the implementation of the legislation rests with the Secretary and not the Minister or the Deputy Minister. I am pleased that the hon. member for Wynberg is back and I hope that he will go and read the Act again because he was quite wrong in this regard.

And he is a former attorney!

The Secretary’s discretion is, specifically, to take into account the issue of acceptability and appearance in spite of the provisions of the Act as they stand at present. These are factors which may be considered by the Secretary. I have explained to members a number of times how intensive research is carried out with regard to a case of race classification before a decision is taken. A large number of people in the area are asked whether they accept that the person concerned is White or is Coloured or whatever the case may be. The one says “yes” and the other “no”. Some, again, say that they do not know, whereas others say they are not sure. However, an intensive study is made before a decision is taken; the matter is investigated thoroughly. Interviews and discussions are conducted and eventually, after all the information has been obtained, the Secretary exercises his discretion and decides whether he can effect a change within the framework of the Act or not. I told the hon. member this afternoon that 122 such changes have been effected in this year alone. Changes have been refused, too, and since the hon. member has now raised some of these cases again, I want to repeat that the Department considers matters of this nature with the greatest sympathy. However, the official concerned must be convinced in his own mind that the person is also acceptable to the community in which he is going to move. If he does not have that assurance, then he cannot carry out the classification because then it would be to the detriment of the person himself and the whole community will be distressed. Is the hon. member unable to understand that? It is so simple.

I want to exchange a few ideas about the arguments advanced by hon. members who devoted their speeches to the Public Service Commission. However, before dealing with the Public Service Commission in detail I want to say a few words about the standpoint of the hon. member for Florida. I also want to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that he must not think for a moment that the hon. member for Florida is in disfavour with anyone because he made positive suggestions.

I never said that the hon. member was in disfavour.

The hon. member congratulated the hon. member for Florida on his standpoint, but I want to assure him that is nothing unusual. There is no problem as far as that is concerned. Constructive suggestions are welcome at all times, in this House too. However, the hon. member must understand—and I think he has been in politics long enough to understand this—that hon. members on this side of the House have a caucus and groups where they can ask negative questions and where they can be furnished with answers. Should they, then, come and repeat negative questions here in the House in order to bluff and for the sake of the newspapers? Surely that is nonsense. In other words, the problems and the difficulties they have are resolved in a caucus or a group meeting. Why should we deal with negative aspects in the House for the sake of sensation for the hon. member opposite and for the Press? It is so convenient for hon. members to forget this kind of thing, and that is why debates here take the form of fault-finding on the part of the Opposition and thanks on the part of Government members. It is because hon. members have the opportunity of rectifying matters within the caucus or group. The hon. member can do the same; he can raise his problems with me in the Lobbey or at a private interview, because I have never yet refused an interview. However, I understand the political situation and the necessity that this be debated. The hon. member has to make a speech here, even though he has to say something negative. I do not take it amiss of him because he is entitled to do so. However, the hon. member must not take it amiss of us that our people solve our problems in our own way. I think the system is very clear and the hon. member need not be concerned about it.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Florida that I listened carefully to his speech. I think that he has carried out some scientific research and that he analyzed the position in a very scientific way. As far as consultants are concerned, the department already has some experience in this connection. This is a matter to which the Public Service Commission has given a great deal of attention. For some years the commission has made use of the services of the best-known international management consultants and has derived a great deal of benefit from these services.

However, such services are very expensive, and because the consultants do not provide a continuous service, their recommendations were soon outdated and as a result have been of little lasting value in the past. The Public Service Commission then decided to have its own consultants in the form of work study officers and Public Service inspectors. The results achieved have been mentioned in the annual report and it may interest members to know that the efforts of the Public Service Commission to promote efficiency have become so well-known that the private sector is literally queueing up to be trained by members of the staff of the Public Service Commission. Consequently work study officers and efficiency experts have been trained for, inter alia, the OK Bazaars, Volkswagen, Saambou, Barclays Bank, Volkskas, the Old Mutual, Sanlam, the City Councils of Johannesburg and Pretoria, to mention only a few. The Rhodesian and Malawian Governments, too, have sent members of their staff to be trained by the Public Service Commission to perform these duties. Consequently something has in fact been done in this connection and there is experience of these matters. But the hon. member’s idea is not unnecessary, because I shall go into the matter afresh and consider whether this could be implemented in practice.

As regards farming out work to private persons, the matter of the bureau of information science, the utility corporation, etc., are matters which will indeed receive attention as soon as I have the opportunity to devote attention to them. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution in this regard.

Both the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—I should like to reply to both at the same time—spoke about a new approach to our Public Service system in general. They argued that we should use the people we have more effectively, etc. There are a few statements I want to make here in this regard, which in my opinion, must be general knowledge. Just recently, during the debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill, I mentioned investigations which had their origin in the overseas study tour by the commission and were being carried out in order to overhaul the Public Service so that the task and the challenges they were set by present requirements could be dealt with efficiently. I said that if amendments to the Act were necessary, we would effect them next year.

This evening I want to take some of these ideas further. In the first place, there is the investigation into the system of classification as a basis for an efficient cost structure, which has already been dealt with and which can only be referred to again in passing at this stage. The hon. member for Verwoerburg referred specifically to this. However, it can be added that an offer was made to the provincial administrations and the service departments which function autonomously in certain respects, to link up with the project as well, in order that their organizations, too, may be improved. Judging from replies already received from some of these bodies, it appears that they are enthusiastic about this matter and eager to co-operate with the commission in a co-ordinated effort to bring about greater efficiency. I hope that matter will progress rapidly and that we shall be able to do something about it in time.

In the second place, the hon. member for Pitermaritzburg South raised the issue of officials’ grievances. He suggested that they should be able to submit their grievances to a tribunal or something of the sort. I have already announced that, as the hon. member quite rightly remarked, we were already giving attention to this matter. I am told that this matter is already at an advanced stage. It is expected that proposals in this regard will be submitted to the Cabinet in the course of the next few months. It must be possible for the official to air his problem or grievances or whatever they may be to someone other than his immediate chief, as the hon. member also said. Thirdly, some time ago the commission was requested to have another look at the system of merit assessment, the so-called merit system. The commission has already reported to the Cabinet on this matter and it will shortly be considered by the Cabinet. This is a third matter which is in the pipeline at the moment and which will probably be attended to before long.

Another matter which the commission was directed to investigate by the Cabinet, is the issue of the liaison between the service departments and the commission. For certain purposes the service departments are in fact subordinate to the commission and for other purposes they are not. The investigation, which was carried out in consultation with the heads of the Defence Force, the Police and Prisons has also been finalized and will be submitted to the Cabinet in due course.

In the fifth place, there is the issue of a greater degree of management autonomy of departments. I personally believe that there should be greater autonomy in departments. This would give rise to a greater degree of flexibility in the whole concept of the Public Service. It will of course have to be coordinated under the umbrella of the Public Service Commission, but there must undoubtedly be more efficiency and a greater say on the part of the departments. This principle has already been accepted as policy and will be carried to its logical conclusion as further criteria and directives with regard to personnel administration come into effect. However, this does not mean that the matter is remaining static in the meantime. The commission is continuing to delegate greater powers to departments as circumstances permit, in other words without prejudicing the interests of the State or the officials.

I can also think of questions closer to home to which we could give attention. One of the matters which troubles me personally and which, in my opinion, justifies a thorough investigation, concerns the question whether it is chiefly as a result of salaries that we have such an enormous turnover of officials, or whether there are other contributory factors, too, which one could consider. In my opinion this is a matter which must definitely receive attention. Are young officials afforded greater opportunities to display their own initiative? I ask this in ignorance, specifically because this must be arranged administratively and one cannot supervise every case. Is the young official at the lower levels given responsibility within the framework of the existing situation so that he can have the satisfaction of doing positive work? These are questions one asks oneself. Can he express himself fully in his work and enjoy his work? Can he develop a pride in the work in which he is engaged? Can his frustration be prevented in that way? Let me go further and state that the Public Service as such is a giant firm or company. There should therefore be a strong loyalty to the firm. Do the Commission and the Public Service enjoy prestige? I believe that these matters are deserving of our urgent attention and that we should make sure that the problems being experienced by the Public Service do not concern salaries only, but also concern other issues which we would do well to investigate. I hope it will be possible to do something about this shortly.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised a few other minor matters. He referred, inter alia, to the issue of overlapping among departments, and integrating and doing away with certain departments. In the nature of the matter, the Public Service Commission considers this matter from time to time. They have an instruction to attend to this and to try and reduce the number of departments. In fact, not too long ago there was in fact a recommendation along the lines of the hon. members’ request. The recommendation was that the Department of Immigration be integrated with either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Labour. The Cabinet considered the recommendation and at that stage decided against it.

The reason for the decision was that the position of immigration and the need for immigrants in South Africa at that stage— remember, that was before the situation we had to contend with a short time ago—would have been wrongly interpreted if the Department of Immigration had been done away with and integrated into another department as a subdivision. The Cabinet felt that this would have the wrong political effect overseas if we were to lay less emphasis on immigration which would result in our no longer being able to make as great an effort in this connection. At that stage, therefore, it was decided that it would not be desirable politically to take such a step.

Will it be considered again?

Yes, in the nature of the matter it may be considered again from time to time.

The hon. member also referred to the issue of applications for permanent residence where the temporary residence permit had expired and to the overlapping in this regard between the Departments of the Interior and Immigration. I want to say at once that this is indeed a troublesome question which does cause problems. The public is confused on this score. The hon. member for Parktown also raised this matter. What the hon. member for Parktown is really asking for is whether we could not grant an extension and extend temporary residence permits for so long as the application for permanent residence of such people was being considered. I think we should be realistic in this connection. When a person comes to South Africa on a temporary residence permit, he comes as a visitor and as a tourist. He is therefore not selected in any way, except as regards ascertaining whether he has had the necessary injections and whether he has sufficient money to return. Those are about the only tests applied. There is no investigation of his past, because we want to encourage tourists and my colleague would like to be able to boast a high tourist figure every year. A certain degree of selection does therefore take place in regard to people who come here on a temporary basis. It cannot really even be called selection. As I have said, there is only a check to ensure that they have had their injections and that their financial position is sound. If such people satisfy us in that regard, they enter the country without any further check. Such people indicate in the forms they have to fill in, that they have come to South Africa on holiday for, say, three months.

If there were only a few cases of people who applied for permanent residence after they had acquired a temporary residence permit, we should still be able to sympathize with them. However, our problem is that this is abused by a large number of people. Many people state on the form that they are coming here on holiday, and then, when they are already in the country, try to twist our arms. We then discover that it has by no means been their intention merely to come here on holiday. One then finds, for example, that such a person already has a loved one or a fiancé here and has come to get married. Such a person then wants work immediately and asks an MP, a clergyman or a Senator to twist my arm to extend his temporary residence permit while his application for permanent residence is being considered. This causes problems. The MPs who deal with these matters find themselves in a difficult position. I was an MP myself, and I therefore have experience of this. One’s voters broach the matter with one and one has then to make representations on their behalf. I quite understand this. I realize the position. The department’s problem is that we have limited control over the people who have obtained a temporary residence permit. As I have said, such a person states on his form that he has come on holiday. I do not go to a country on holiday if I want to marry there and seek work. If I go to a country on holiday, then I go on holiday. If there were only a few bona fide cases, one could argue the matter differently. But we have gained the impression that too many people are abusing this. They acquire temporary residence permits and in this way they enter the country with ease. They then try to exercise pressure from within to obtain permanent residence. The investigation with regard to applications for permanent residence takes a long time. The Department of Immigration has to investigate the matter thoroughly. The Immigrants’ Selection Board, too, has a special task to perform in this connection. In the world we are living in today, they have to research a number of things. They check whether the applicant has had communist affiliations in the past or not. They have to determine whether he is a security risk or not. Then there is still the question of the man’s qualifications which usually have to be evaluated. Often some certificate has to be obtained from Italy, Portugal or whatever the case may be. Then the value of the certificate in the South African set-up has to be ascertained. It is therefore a very long drawn-out matter. Then again, the extension of the temporary residence permit of such an applicant creates other problems. There is a possibility that in the meantime he may fall in love and want to marry, or that a baby is on the way, or something of the kind.

Gradually he becomes more firmly established, but then the Immigrants’ Selection Board states that they now have all the facts at their disposal and they refuse him permanent residence. Then it is a tremendous disruption to get that person, and his family, out of this country. Sannie van der Merwe, who grew up on a farm, must now go to Portugal because she has, in the meantime, married a Portuguese and her husband is refused permanent residence. This is the kind of problem which crops up. Consequently we do not believe that it is in the interests of that person, or of South Africa, to extend his temporary residence pending the approval of permanent residence. The fact of the matter is that in the meantime he gradually becomes more firmly established, and will experience even greater problems if he has to leave the country. From time to time I use my own discretion to decide on such cases, but it is no easy matter to deal with.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also mentioned the pension position. I could get out of this at once, if I so preferred, by saying that he should raise the matter under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions when it comes up for discussion next week, since this is a matter which falls under him. I accept that the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter when it is raised, but as the former Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions I am in fact aware of the situation. For very obvious reasons it is not customary to make an improvement in pension benefits applicable with retrospective effect to persons who retired from the service in earlier years. If this were to be done, the question would immediately arise how far back it should be made applicable. If there is an improvement on 1 April 1976 and it is decided to make it applicable with retrospective effect, the question immediately arises how far back it should be made applicable. Attendant upon that the question also arises what additional financial burden this being with retrospective effect would entail. Of course it is almost impossible to determine the extent of the additional burden, but even if it could be determined, funds still have to be found to be able to bear the burden. One must remember that when the persons who retired from the service in earlier years made their contributions to the pension funds, the improved benefits were not taken into consideration. Therefore they have not contributed anything to the improved benefits, and the full extent of the improved benefits will consequently have to be borne by the State. Therefore it is extremely difficult to make pension benefits which have been announced for the present generation of workers applicable to all previous servants. Wherever one draws the line, even if one draws the line 10 or 15 years back, there will always be a group which says that it should have been drawn even further back. The reply is of course logical: It should be made applicable to everyone, regardless of how long ago they retired from the service. If such a decision were reached, the financial implications would be unpredictable, and the necessary funds would have to come from somewhere, for those who retired from the service in earlier years did not contribute to the increased benefits. I think the hon. member should rather ask the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions for an answer, for I am actually encroaching on his territory by trying to reply to the matter now. I shall of course take up the matter with the hon. the Minister if the hon. member raises it in the course of a discussion of his Vote.

Next I want to reply to the matters raised by the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member asked us please to speed up the decisions on the issuing of visas. If an ordinary visitor applies for a visa and his name does not appear on a black list—there are many sound reasons why virtually all countries, and not only South Africa, keep black lists—it is normally not difficult to approve his application. However, the moment a person applies for a work permit which gives him a greater measure of permanence than a mere visitor, it is necessary to go into the matter in greater detail. Such an application has to be thoroughly investigated, and one has to apply to various bodies for reports. Then it is not simply a question of reports by the officials of my department, but also reports from other departments. Unfortunately this takes time, but I can do nothing about it. I, as the responsible Minister, ask myself: Why is there such a thing as visa control? It is there because every Western country wants to be in a position to allow certain people to enter the country, but to refuse to allow other people to do so. If this were not the case, there would be no control. In fact, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to say that I approve all visas; we have no control. Of course all our problems would then be solved at once, but unfortunately there are certain people who, whatever the reasons may be, are not welcome in a foreign country. It is no use asking me what I am hiding. Such an argument simply does not hold water. America, and various other countries have visa control. If I have to exercise control then, it follows logically that I have to acquaint myself with the actual background of the applicant. If a mistake is made, a finger is so easily pointed at the Minister concerned. I still remember very well how, in a very emotionally charged period after the death of the late Dr. Verwoerd in this debating chamber, a finger was pointed at the then Minister of the Interior. Everyone wanted to know how it could have happened that person obtained a visa to enter the country. I am not exaggerating, for it is a fact that the Minister concerned is held ultimately responsible. It is almost impossible to accept responsibility for the conduct of everyone. A person who at first sight may appear to be desirable may subsequently commit all kinds of misdeeds. It is your duty at least to make as certain as possible beforehand, before one issues the visa, but unfortunately this takes time. However, it is the aim of the department to dispose of matters in this regard as quickly as possible.

Actually, my plea was simply that the issuing of visas should be expedited.

I have already discussed the extension of temporary permits. I also appreciate the expression of thanks to the department for its handling of refugees.

I come now to the question of the ships in Walvis Bay. I want to point out at once that we were dealing in that case with an international situation. Any person conveying another person to a country is responsible for making certain that the person has the necessary documents to enable him to be accepted in the country of destination. If the person does not have the necessary documents, the person who conveyed him there may be held responsible and may be ordered to convey that person back to the place where he found him. If an aircraft lands in South Africa with a person on board who does not have the necessary documents, we can instruct the airline concerned to convey the person back at once to the country in which he boarded the aircraft. This is the only way in which control can be exercised. In law this was the rule that applied in the case of the refugees, despite the fact that it was an emergency. I concede that the ship’s captain concerned was forced to take the refugees aboard, but in practice he did not have the right to bring those people to our country without their having the necessary documents at their disposal to enable them to enter the country. In actual fact, he was contravening international law, but the moment we accepted them, we would of course have been guilty of a partial contravention of the law, and if the refugees had then refused to go elsewhere, we would not have been able to send them anywhere.

Were we not able to keep them temporarily?

We could have kept them temporarily, but then I would have had to accept all of them as temporary inhabitants. What we did, however, was to leave them aboard ship, and we then immediately did everything humanly possible for them. We sent the Red Cross to them, and we sent medical practitioners to the ships to examine the refugees and provide them with medical services in order to prevent the outbreak of any diseases. We also provided the refugees with food. We did everything that was necessary except bring them ashore. However, after we had made arrangements with the Portuguese Government for their acceptance in Portugal, there was a place of refuge to which we could send them, and consequently we were able to allow them ashore. They were then conveyed to Windhoek, from where they departed by air for Portugal. In that way we were able to overcome the problem. Before we had the assurance from Portugal that the refugees would be accepted there, I could not allow them to be brought ashore without getting myself into serious difficulties. This is the explanation to the hon. member in that regard.

The hon. member also made a request to me in regard to Indian men who marry Indian women in India and who would then like to bring them out to our country. I must point out to the hon. member that I made a concession towards the end of last year after receiving representations from the Indian Council. The concession was as far as I could go under the circumstances. The concession which I made was that Indian men who had married women in India prior to 1962—women who, when the port of entry was closed to them on a certain date, were left behind in India—could make arrangements so that their wives could join them in South Africa.

Prior to 1962?

Yes, prior to 1962. With those who were married after 1962, I have a problem, because I do not know what effect it would have if I were also to allow them to come to South Africa. I cannot even make an estimate of how many Indian women would then be able to come to South Africa. I have received representations, but I first want to investigate the matter very thoroughly. I want to know precisely what I am letting myself in for before I am able to make further concessions. At present I am not in a position to make any further concessions. Naturally, this matter is being considered with human sympathy and all factors attendant upon it are being taken into consideration.

The last speech to which I want to react is that of the hon. member for Pretoria Central in regard to Press Freedom and to the handling of the Press. I want to repeat what I have already said before. We believe in the freedom of the Press. How many times have I not said this already? As a Western country we place a high premium on the freedom of the Press.

Say it again.

I shall do so gladly. We believe in the freedom of speech. As Minister of Information it is one of the strongest arguments I am able to use overseas when I say that we have a free Press. What is more, I think it is one of the surprising experiences of overseas visitors when they arrive in South Africa. Because they have the idea, due to reports which have reached them, that South Africa is a Police state, they are astounded when they open The Cape Times or the Rand Daily Mail on their first morning here and see the criticism of the Government and the tremendous freedom of the Press. They then come to see me in my office and say that they cannot believe that the Press is so free because they thought South Africa was a Police state.

Let us keep it that way.

I would very much like to keep it that way, but then the Press must also co-operate.

Then they must not abuse it.

I think there is also a heavy responsibility on the Press in South Africa, in a country such as this with its specific population structure and consequent possibilities of friction—greater possibilities then in homogeneous countries— to display responsibility in its reporting and to refrain from such reporting which could prejudice the relations between peoples. I want to state this matter emphatically now. I think there is a direct link between Press freedom and Press responsibility, and if the responsibility is not there, the freedom cannot remain unimpaired. However, if responsibility is displayed, there can certainly be freedom as well.

I have a few problems here in regard to the Press. These matters have no bearing on the specific aspects which the hon. member discussed. I am referring to the question of pornographic articles and photographs in the daily Press. The vast majority of members of the public are not aware that members of the Press Union are excluded from the provisions of the Publications Act. That is why they are constantly bringing complaints against the Press to the attention of the Publications Board. We then inform this person that the newspaper in question does not fall under the Publications Board and that we cannot therefore take steps against the newspaper, but at the same time we send copies of the complaints to the National Press Union so that the Press Union knows what the position is.

I am now going to read out only a few of the complaints I have already received. There are hundreds of them in my office. I quote—

I am not certain whose constituency this is, but I am certain it is not a National Party constituency. I quote further—

Where is the photograph? Let us see it.

I do not have the photograph with me, but this is the kind of complaint we receive. Now I want to refer to a complaint from Alberton. I quote—

I have to reply to that. The complaint continues—

And an ugly one, what is more.

That is the kind of thing I get. I quote further—

But that comes from cranks. [Interjections.]

No, those complaints come from John Citizen; in this case from a medical doctor. Is he just anybody? In all fondness, the hon. member is saying that a medical doctor is a crank. I shall now quote another example—

Oh, tripe!

The fact remains that this is the way the people feel about this matter, and I am the sounding board for the peoples’ complaints. Consequently I have to take notice of them. What would the hon. member do if I were to describe all the letters which I receive from her every day, in regard to all kinds of provisions, as tripe and throw them away? As in the case of her letters, I must take cognizance of those letters as well. Democracy means “one man, one vote”. And that man’s vote is worth just as much as her vote. Therefore I must take just as much notice of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can mention many other examples, but I just want to quote one more complaint—

So it goes on, complaint after complaint after complaint. We have spoken to the Press Union about this. The hon. the Prime Minister is negotiating with the Press Union on a code. Therefore I do not want to go into this matter any further, except to say that John Voter is submitting a constant stream of complaints in regard to this matter to the directorate and to myself. Therefore, I want to make an appeal to the Press, for the umpteenth time, please to control their own affairs, to apply self-discipline and not to act as in the case I have here before me. This example shows with how much contempt the Press itself regards their own Press Union. Here I have a photograph which was published on 23 November 1975 in the Sunday Express. The caption reads—

This refers to the painting by Tretchikoff. I quote—

After the Press Union had applied censorship and had stated that the advertisement may not be published, the photographs prior to the prohibition and after the prohibition were placed side by side to challenge the Press Union. In actual fact what was being said to the Press Union was: “What of it! You impose restrictions upon us, but we shall publish the photograph to show what it looked like prior to the prohibition. ’ ’

Could I see that please?

I shall send it to you if you are interested.

I am.

If this is not a flagrant rejection of the Press Union’s own discipline by a member of the Press Union, then I do not know what it is! Then it illustrates beyond all doubt that the Press Union itself is completely powerless to accomplish anything. At the moment, for the sake of sensation, as a result of the tremendous battle for circulation, or whatever, the Press is carrying on in a reckless manner in this specific field.

There is just one aspect in regard to this matter which I should like to raise before I conclude. I think it is necessary now to say that during the past few weeks—or perhaps months, but in any case since Angola— seemingly deliberate attempts have been in progress in certain newspapers to prompt the Black man by implication that he is now being oppressed more than ever before. I am referring to specific articles in the morning newspapers, but I am referring pre-eminently to the Rand Daily Mail. To tell the truth, I want to refer specifically to a cartoon in the Rand Daily Mail last week, a day after the announcement of the increased maize price. In the cartoon a Black man is shown on his knees, trying to struggle to his feet. Upon him is written: “The loading zone.” On top of him is a bus with the caption “City Transport”. This is the first burden the Black man has to bear. On the roof of the bus is loaded virtually every commodity which has been subject to price increases. These price increases, however, apply to the entire population, but in the cartoon everything is being loaded on to this “loading zone”, the poor Black man who is being oppressed. The new maize price has been loaded on to the bus, as well as the possibility of future television sets for Black people. We know that newspaper has a tremendous circulation among the Black people on the Witwatersrand, and if such a cartoon is not deliberately aimed at inciting Black people against White people, then I honestly do not know!

As if Blacks don’t know about increased prices anyway.

Wait a minute: we are now coming to the facts. The hon. members know as well as I do that one can argue about this for a long time, but she knows that salaries and wages for the Black people are being increased from time to time. I do not have the statistics with me now; I am therefore speaking off the cuff. But salaries and wages have been increased fourfold during the past few years. This is all in order, but what happens if there should be other increases, of whatever nature they may be? Let us take increased bus fares. Fuel has been increased, the price of tyres has been increased, and therefore the expenditure of the bus company in general has been increased, but the moment that company increases the fares by a few cents or so, an increase which all of them have to pay, then this group of newspapers immediately exploits this fact as a complete injustice which is being done to the Black man.

Who else should pay those increased fares? The salaries of the Black man have been increased and prices have also gone up. Who, then should pay the increased bus fare? Should the bus company do it? Instead of those newspapers acting in a responsible manner and saying: “Although we are sorry that the fares have been raised, the facts are as follows …” and then revealing the facts, we get a reprehensible cartoon of “the loading zone” with the poor Black man being the person on to whom everything is loaded. If this is not a flagrant attempt to mar Black/White relations in South Africa in a subtle way, then I do not know what it is. It is not merely news. It goes far further than that. I want to say at once that this irresponsibility, this racial incitement cannot be tolerated in an unrestricted measure by any responsible Government in South Africa. I want to request the newspapers to put a stop to it and to act in a responsible way, otherwise they will force the Government not to leave the prized Press freedom so free in future.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is intended to regulate and to promote in-service training of Bantu employees in industry.

Allow me to say at once that the impression must not be created by this that a start is now being made with in-service training for Bantu persons. Several systems are already in existence, of course. Many industrialists have their own training schemes, and there are training schemes which have been introduced in terms of the provisions of section 48 and 48A of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956. There are other industrial training institutions as well, such as ad hoc industrial schools, which are presently being administered in terms of the Bantu Education Act, 1953. However, it has become necessary to place industrial training for the Bantu on a more solid foundation. The Bantu Education Act, of course, is mainly intended to regulate school or academic training. Although industrial training can be administered in terms of the Bantu Education Act, therefore, it naturally does not provide sufficiently for the kind of training which is envisaged, because there are certain important aspects for which no provision exists.

In-service training differs completely from the formal training for which the Bantu Education Act was introduced in the first place. The Bantu Education Act could have been amended to cover all aspects of industrial training, of course, but because industrial training—and by this I refer specifically to in-service training—differs so greatly from ordinary education and because different principles apply, it was decided rather to introduce a separate Bill on this subject. In order to separate the two, it is provided in clause 6 that the Bantu Education Act is not applicable in respect of training envisaged in terms of the provisions of this Bill.

But the Bill is not only intended to regulate existing industrial training by means of a new Act; it makes specific provision for training institutions which have not existed up to now. Although certain steps were taken in terms of the Bantu Education Act as an interim measure for getting the new institutions started, the new type of institution to which I shall refer later will only assume its final form when this measure is on the Statute Book. The new type of institution has actually resulted from the approved recommendations of an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the late Dr. H. J. van Zyl, the previous Secretary for Bantu Education. This committee was instructed to investigate the desirability and practicability of a system of pre-service and in-service training for Bantu workers in White areas in permissible categories of work. For the implementation of the approved recommendations, it wás deemed necessary to establish a committee consisting of interested employees’ and employers’ organizations to draw up a meaningful plan for the proposed training. The committee is presently known as the Permanent Committee for In-service Industrial Training of Bantu Employees in White Areas. Clause 2 now grants statutory status to the committee, and it will henceforth be known as the Co-ordinating Council for In-service Training of Bantu Employees. As hon. members will perceive from its composition—clause 3—the bodies represented, apart from the State departments concerned, include eight large employers’ organizations and two large employees’ or ganizations. The former group must assist in advising and establishing needs, while the latter group must guard against the introduction of a training project which may cause labour unrest.

At the recommendation of the abovementioned Permanent Committee, the Government took three important decisions. Firstly it was decided that the Department of Bantu Education would make a direct contribution by offering industrially orientated courses to pupils at school, as a part of, and supplementary to, the normal tuition at school. For this purpose, centralized departmental centres have been planned and erected in the densely populated urban Bantu residential areas. Pupils are conveyed to these centres from surrounding schools to attend industrial training sessions of two to 2½ hours once a week. Eight of the centres have been built at a total cost of approximately R2 720 000 and a further three are being planned for this year. Approval has also been granted for the existing ones to be expanded. When all these centres are functioning at full capacity, an estimated number of 60 000 pupils a year will receive industrially orientated training here. As I have said, this training is supplementary to the normal tuition. Consequently it is not the intention that this training should be regulated in terms of the proposed Bill which is before us, because it remains formal education.

In the second place it was decided to encourage employers, by means of tax concessions, to train their own employees. Generous tax benefits were announced in 1974 and the Income Tax Act, 1962, was amended by the insertion of section 11 sept., which regulates the tax reductions. In order to qualify for the tax reduction, employers must have their training schemes registrated by the Department of Bantu Education and the training must be approved by the Secretary. This means that every scheme must be inspected before being approved, in order to determine whether in-service training really does take place there, apart from normal production. Up to now, 142 such schemes have been approved, in which employees are trained in 423 different industrial courses. The approval, or rather recognition, of this type of training will be regulated in the Bill by clause 12.

However, the permanent committee realized that training schemes provided by employers themselves were not the final solution to the problem. There are too many smaller employers who cannot offer the training themselves, as well as bigger employers with too limited an employment in certain categories of work to justify training schemes of their own. In order to provide in the common training needs of such a group of industrialists, therefore, it was decided, in the third place, to establish centrally situated public centres in the bigger urban industrial complexes. Clause 7 provides for this. The State erects the buildings and provides the initial equipment (clause 10), but does not accept responsibility for the operating costs. Eight of these public centres have been planned to begin with. The costs entailed by the erection of the buildings and the provisions of equipment amount to approximately R250 000 a centre. Four of the centres are already functioning at full capacity, and it is expected that the other four, one of which is intended for the agricultural sector, will also start training this year.

The Government is of the opinion that the training of Bantu industrial workers is basically the responsibility of industry, and consequently does not intend to bear the operating costs of public centres. The reason for this is obvious, i.e. that employers already receive very generous tax concessions in respect of all costs involved in training Bantu employees.

However, the employer’s organizations foresaw serious problems in meeting the operating costs. After several possibilities had been investigated, it was decided that a legally enforceable levy was the only practical method for finding the money. In clause 14, therefore, provision is made for the imposition of a levy at the request of the governing body of a centre. The intention is that only employers who may benefit directly or indirectly from the training which is offered will be required to pay the levy. Clause 14(2) provides for a notice in the Gazette to announce the Minister’s intention to impose a levy. Employers in the area concerned who believe that the levy should not be applicable to them are then granted a period of at least two months in which they may make representations and apply for exemption. The Minister may then have a notice published in the Gazette in terms of which a levy is then imposed on certain employers. Employers who are involved in the training and who can therefore be forced to pay the levy will also qualify for the double deduction for tax purposes, since the levy is applied for training purposes, and the employer who pays it will send employees to the centre to be trained. Employers will have to wait their turn, of course, since only a limited number can be trained at a time.

It is expected that the basis on which the levy will be payable will be that a specific amount will have to be paid every month in respect of every Bantu employee in the service of the industry concerned. Because of the proportions that may be assumed by the collection of the levy, clause 15 provides for the Minister to authorize by notice in the Gazette any person to collect the levy on behalf of the governing body concerned. The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards already have the necessary records of all Bantu workers in their areas, and if these boards are prepared to act as agents for this purpose, the collection is expected to function smoothly. However, each case will be considered on merit.

Up to now I have explained two kinds of training institutions proposed in the Bill, namely public centres to provide in the common training needs of a group of industrialists in a fixed area and, secondly, schemes in terms of which an employer provides training to his own employees. However, the Bill provides in clause 11 for a third kind of training institution, the so-called private centre. This is more or less a cross between a public centre and a scheme. The intention with private schemes, as in the case of public centres, is also to provide training to employees who are employed by a person. This can be a group of industrialists with common needs or it may be a big industrialist who is using his own scheme for training employees of his subsidiaries or agents as well. Hon. members will realize that we may also find persons in this category who want to make money out of training by establishing an institution and collecting fees for the training which is offered. It is even possible that such a person may take absolutely no interest in the industry as such and may do this with a view to profit alone.

Consequently it will be realized that this provision will have to be very strictly enforced, because a person who enters this sphere with ulterior motives may adversely affect the other training which is provided with State assistance and State recognition. But this is not all. If there is no control over this type of training, training may be provided in work categories which are not permissible. Workers may even be provided with training which will not enable them to be effectively employed. For this reason it is absolutely essential to exercise control over the training of employees employed by another person. Clause 11(1) accordingly prohibits such training, unless it takes place at a centre approved as a private centre by the Secretary. This prohibition is nothing new. It is actually a continuation of a prohibition which is presently imposed by section 9(1) of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, which provides the following—

The definition of “Bantu school” in section 1 of the said Act includes any school, class, college, or institution for the education of Bantu children or persons. “Education” has a very wide meaning. The word is defined as follows in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary—

Consequently there is no doubt about the fact that any education, schooling or training given to Bantu persons must be registered in terms of the Bantu Education Act, otherwise it is prohibited. Therefore this prohibition is perpetuated in clause 11. It is pointed out to hon. members that clause 6 provides that the Bantu Education Act is not applicable, inter alia, to training provided at a private centre.

The provisions of the clauses I have not yet explained are relatively simple and self-explanatory. I shall just refer to them briefly, for the sake of completeness.

Clause 4 regulates the appointment of a chairman and a vice-chairman to be appointed by the Minister from all the members. The procedure to be followed at meetings of the council is regulated by clause 5. Clause 8 provides that a public centre will be controlled and managed by a governing body which will be a juristic person and which will be constituted in terms of a constitution drawn up by the council. Clause 9 defines the powers of such a governing body. Clause 13 provides for grants-in-aid in respect of a scheme—referred to in clause 12—which is situated in an economic development area. We already have the schemes in border areas which are presently registered with the department as ad hoc border industry schools. The department pays a grant-in-aid in respect of the salaries of the instructors. Therefore the provision in clause 13 is merely a continuation of the existing practice.

Clause 17 provides for departmental inspections at public and private centres and schemes.

Clause 18 provides for the making of regulations. The effect of this clause, read together with clause 2(3), is that the Minister must consult the council before making regulations. Clause 19 contains penalty provisions for making certain provisions enforceable, especially the prohibition imposed by clause 11(1), and provisions in respect of the levy—clause 14—and secrecy—clause 20.

Clause 20 contains provisions relating to secrecy. To prevent particulars concerning training systems from becoming known to the wrong people, all information received or gathered from employers will be absolutely confidential.

To ensure that the Bill would be as acceptable as possible to all employers’ organizations, it was submitted from the start to the Permanent Committee, on which some of the biggest organizations serve, for recommendations and comment. This was a time-consuming procedure, because interests are naturally divergent. To make absolutely sure that all possible aspects had been covered and were acceptable, the Bill was published in the Gazette for information and comment in November 1975. The comment which was received was again referred to the Permanent Committee. So in drafting the Bill, regard was had to employers’ organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I have now explained the important provisions of this Bill, but I think it is still necessary for me to emphasize the primary purpose of this training. By means of this measure, the Government wishes to make a positive contribution to increasing the productivity of the Black worker. Problems in regard to the national economic growth and the shortage of trained manpower from the non-White population group have highlighted the need for the effective utilization of Bantu workers in those categories of work in which Bantu persons may legally be employed in the White area. Sustained economic growth in the country can only be ensured by the maximum utilization of its available manpower. Maximum utilization of manpower is very closely related to an increase in productivity, which in turn is best achieved by means of improved training. It is probably necessary to point out the advantages to be derived by the industrialist and by the Government from more highly trained workers. To industry this means that greater production is possible at a lower cost. As far as the Government is concerned, there is the expectation that the reduced production cost will help combat inflation, and the direct advantage is that higher productivity means that fewer Bantu workers need be employed by an industry in the White area. It must also be pointed out that the proposed training will take place in terms of existing labour regulations. It is in-service training, so the workers to be trained must already be legally employed.

There is no intention of training a labour pool for subsequent employment. The people must already be employed for a particular job, and the training must be aimed at increasing their skill at the work for which they were employed. Nor is it the intention to provide academic training of any kind—not even literacy classes—in terms of this Bill. This training, even though it is for adults, will continue to be provided in terms of the Bantu Education Act at institutions specially established for this purpose.

With this I want to conclude and to express the hope that I shall receive the support of all the members for this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, as a first reaction to the proposed legislation one is forced to say that the legislation has taken a long time to hatch out. It was proposed two years ago and was certainly running strong last year. It has only just reached us, and we think it is a great pity that what, after all this time, should have been produced, is in fact so puny and inadequate. This is the first legislation introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps it does not augur very well for the future, because we think it is a slap-dash piece of legislation which ignores much of existing legislation. If it were passed in its existing form it will lead to a very great degree of confusion.

We will support this measure only in the sense that it ought to stimulate a greater degree of industrial training of Black workers, which is something that we certainly have been advocating for a long time. However, even in this early stage I must state that we are most unhappy about the form it has taken. We regard it as a sloppy piece of legislation.

The irony of the situation cannot escape one. I had the honour of coming to this House about 10 years ago. Conscious of the need of industrial training for all our workers, I put forward, as a private member, a Manpower Training Act. Among other things it embodied three main provisions. It asked, firstly, for the establishment of a co-ordinating training council. We find that provided for in this legislation, in clauses 2 and 3. I also asked at the time that there should be a system of levies and grants to stimulate industrial activity. We find that provided for in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. At the time it was quite clear that if one had a system of grants and levies difficulties could arise and that there ought to be a tribunal to adjudicate these matters. I proposed that at the time. This is not provided for in the Bill, but I submit that the need for it will manifest itself later on.

The point is that we had to wait 10 years in order to get two-thirds of what we could have had 10 years ago. I think this gives us an indication of how, from this side of the House, we have often had to lead from behind. However, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour we cannot be expected to debate this measure in any detail. We would like to come back to it on a later occasion. With your permission I should therefore like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.