Standing Order No. 183 (2) provides that when a Bill is ultimately passed, no Bill of the same substance shall be introduced again during the current Session. In view of the fact that the Transkei Constitution Bill [A.B. 42—’63] has been read a Third Time it will not be competent for the House to proceed this Session with the Transkei Constitution Bill [A.B. 17—’63], Order of the Day No. XVII for to-day, and the Bill is accordingly discharged.

I am sure that all members on this side of the House will be pleased to receive the memorandum on the policy statement of the hon. Minister particularly in regard to the suggestions he has put forward for improving the methods of the distribution of pensions, and I am sure all members will study the details carefully and will be prepared to make suggestions for improvement, if necessary, as invited by the hon. Minister. At the same time I feel that the hon. Minister did not reply to the kernel of the request put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), namely that there should be some alleviation in regard to the many heartbreaking cases which I am sure are brought to the notice of every member in this House, particularly with regard to the pensions for the aged who have saved something in the course of their lifetime.

But before I come to that point, I would like to refer to cases of hardship of widows of public servants which have been brought to my notice. Firstly I want to refer to the position of a magistrate’s widow who has to stand in a queue every month to collect her pension. I feel that this should be below the dignity of a lady who during her lifetime has done a great deal of public work in the position of magistrate’s wife where she has had to entertain and take the lead in many public functions. It seems to me quite out of keeping that these women in their old age when they become widows should have to stand in a queue to collect their pensions. I am sure something could be done to improve that position, for instance on the lines of what is done in the case of retired teachers. Surely it is possible to do the same thing in the case of these widows. These retired teachers receive cheques at the end of every month, and they can then cash them at their leisure, without having to stand in queues to collect their money. I know the objection has been raised that such a widow might die in the meantime and the cheque might be allowed to run on, other people collecting the money. But surely a similar procedure as that followed in the case of teachers could be followed whereby the endorsement of every cheque has to be witnessed by a commissioner of oaths, and if necessary the cheques could be crossed, so that they must pass through an account, and then if anything went wrong it would be easy to trace who has been receiving the money. I feel that this is a case that really deserves a thorough investigation to save these women having to stand in queues in their old age.

The next case I want to deal with also refers to widows of public servants. I just would like to read a paragraph from a letter which explains my difficulty. This is from a senior magistrate who has gone into the question of what will happen in the case of his wife dying first. He states—

Now this is my point—

That is to say the pension would be reduced by R50 per month—

That means that if the woman dies first, the man’s pension will be reduced by R50 per month, whereas if the man dies first the woman will only get R24 a month. Low as R100 per month is, surely it would only be reasonable and fair that the amount to be paid to the man if the wife dies first should at least be payable to the widow if the man dies first, and it should not be half as is the case here. I feel that that also is a matter of hardship to widows of public servants which should be investigated.

Now I would like to come to the point raised briefly by the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to the heartbreaking hardships which are brought to the notice of Members of Parliament in the case of elderly couples who have saved something all their lives. I had a case in point brought to my notice only this week, and it is by no means the first of such cases brought to my notice. This is a case of a working builder who during the course of his life has been able to save sufficient out of his earnings—as you know builders are not always at work, they have their periods of unemployment—but throughout his life he and his wife stinted and bit by bit he found the material to build his own house, with the idea that when he would be too old to continue to work he at least would have a roof over his head and would get his old-age pension to live on. He was shocked to find that because he has this house he is not entitled to an old-age pension. Of course, these facts are well known to all members of this House. The position obviously is there that the Government is prepared to help the thriftless and to penalize the thrifty. I am concerned particularly about those who have followed the request of the Government from time to time to build their own homes. The Government spends money sending people around the country urging young people to be thrifty, money is spent on advertisements urging people to be thrifty. What is the reward they get for following up the advice of the Government? The result is that in their old age they find that because they have been thrifty nothing can be done for them, whereas those who have been thriftless and who have spent every penny as it has come in are assisted by the Government. If those people who have been thrifty had not provided their own house the Government would have had to provide houses for them in the form of old-age homes. Other hon. members have referred to what the Government is doing by way of building old-age homes all around the country. It is a very laudable effort. But surely these people who have built their own homes are helping the Government and no homes need be built for them. I want to submit as a means of overcoming this difficulty, a temporary means, because the hon. Minister has promised on his trip overseas to investigate schemes for contributory pensions or other means of assistance, perhaps on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Umbilo, that it should be possible to raise the level of the means test by such an amount that the people who have been thrifty will get the same amount as those who have not been thrifty. I would suggest a figure of about R5,000. It is not a new principle. There is at present a very low means test. Raise that means test by a figure of R5,000 or R6,000 and you will bring in the people who have been thrifty enough to build their own homes. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister will probably recall that last year I made a plea here in regard to a certain little group of war veterans from the Anglo-Boer War, but most decidedly not the “Boer War” as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) called it last night. The little group I am referring to are the war veterans who in due course of years migrated to territories to the north of our borders and who have returned to the Republic in consequence of the conditions and the situation there. I am referring to the war veterans who have come from territories such as the Congo, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Nyasaland and perhaps soon also from Northern Rhodesia when we have regard to the developments there. This little group of war veterans sometimes qualify in all respects for the veteran’s pension, but they do not qualify in respect of the residence qualification because the regulation reads that they should have resided for at least five years of the past 10 years preceding their application in the Republic of South West Africa or in one of the Protectorates. The Minister considered this matter very sympathetically last year and in his reply he said the matter would be investigated very carefully. The point was raised, inter alia, that certain undertakings will have to be given when such arrangements can be made, namely, that when they acquire means in consequence of the realization of possessions they have they will once again fall back upon their own resources, as is the position with people in our own fatherland. Mr. Chairman, the means test in respect of war veterans who saw full military service during the Anglo-Boer War has been abolished completely, and now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the restrictions upon the persons I have referred to could not also be removed completely, and whether they could not also fall under the regulations that apply in regard to war veterans from the Anglo-Boer War.

A second point I should like to raise in regard to war veterans is the position of those who are older than 70 years. We are very pleased to hear that the means test, or the application of the means test, has been considerably relaxed in respect of veterans over the age of 70 years, but we should nevertheless like to urge that there should be further relaxation, even if it were to be that the age be raised to 73 or 75, and that those veterans should then be completely exempted from a means test. If that cannot be done, it may be possible that they could be relieved of the means test in respect of one aspect, namely, in respect of earnings or income, or, on the other hand, in respect of the aspect of property ownership that is taken into consideration.

In conclusion I should like to thank the Minister very cordially in regard to the social pensioners for having promised that the means test in respect of people such as these will be applied less strictly in future.

All of us realize and admit that in recent years the basic old age pensions and bonuses have been much improved and everybody is thankful for that. Our one regret is that it is still so small that many of our pensioners are still complaining that they cannot come out on it. We realize of course that it is a question of funds. But what I should like to raise this afternoon is the matter which has also been raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) namely the means test. The hon. the Minister made a statement last night on the simplification of the application of the means test, something all of us gladly welcome, and which will remove many of the existing grievances of the old age pensioners. All of us in this House continually receive complaints about the application of the means test. Of course the argument always is that those who lived thriftily, and who to-day possess something, are being penalized in comparison with those who wasted everything, or perhaps were unable to accumulate something, and who now receive the full benefit of the pension. The unfortunate people among us who never were able to accumulate something cannot of course be neglected by the State. I am not urging the complete abolition of the means test here. There are many reasons why it cannot be done.

We on this side of the House have on various occasions proposed that a national contributory pension scheme should be instituted. The various Governments have not found it possible to do so, but even that contributory pension scheme will not solve the problem of those who are unable to make any contribution to the building up of a pension. There always are people who are poor and under-privileged and who do not earn money and will be unable to contribute, and they are the very ones who later in life need the most assistance in order to eke out an existence. The question is how they can contribute to the colossal cost of a pension scheme in which the means test has been abolished. The well to-do among us, who usually make provision for their own pensions, who join insurance schemes and other schemes to take care of their old age, then must also still contribute, under our existing legislation, in the form of taxation to enable pensions to be paid to those who contribute nothing, and the burden is becoming increasingly great, and the class paying it at the present time will no longer be able to bear the burden later on.

I was very pleased last night to hear from the Minister that he proposes to proceed overseas to investigate the matter. Personally I should like to make the suggestion to him that we have now reached the stage where there should be a radical change in our views on pensions. Large sums of money are required to give the old people a proper pension, and the question is where that money is to come from. We have the case of Canada which does not apply a means test to its old people, and where every old age pensioner receives $65 per month, irrespective of his possessions, over and above other benefits under the social welfare system of that country. Very large sums of money are required for that, and the Canadian Government obtains those funds by way of special taxes. For instance, they have a 3 per cent tax on sales, they have a 3 per cent tax on corporations and companies, and they have a 3 per cent tax on net income-tax. I do not wish to urge to-day that we should have the same types of taxes, but I suggest that the Minister should consider something of that nature, a special tax only to provide for pensions alone. I feel we ought to consider a special pension tax on some commodity that everybody needs. If such a tax were imposed, nobody could object to it, for ultimately the taxpayer gets it back when he reaches the age at which he must receive a pension. I am thinking of a commodity that everybody must have, rich or poor. Then each and every one contributes to swell the fund.

Such as what, for instance?

I expected that question. Permit me to mention something without somebody biting my head off about it: Suppose we were to make it įc on bread. Something in the line. That is something everybody must buy, and for which everybody must pay, and then everybody will make a contribution. I am not saying that such a tax is going to cover all the pensions. It may not be sufficient. But the State is at the present time already contributing R40,000,000 per annum for pensions, and I consider that such a commodity could be selected, and the amount could be worked out properly. Then it may be possible to remove the means test completely, and it may be that the Minister will then have sufficient funds to remove the old complaint we get, namely that the old age pension is not big enough to live on. I feel that if it were possible to work out such a scheme, we might succeed to a large extent in eliminating hardship and suffering among our under-privileged and our aged people. I am leaving this thought with the Minister, and I hope he will keep it in mind when he investigates such schemes overseas.

As I still have to reply in detail to certain representations made to me last night, inter alia by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), I should like to take the opportunity now to do so. I can assure the hon. member for East London (North) that it was always my intention to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo, but last night I was dealing with the policy of my Department in general.

I want to begin where we stopped. I want to begin with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Brig. Bronkhorst) in regard to the means test. Hon. members will agree with me that that is a very difficult problem. The hon. member has made certain suggestions in all good faith. He referred to those who cannot make a contribution if we were to switch over to a contributory scheme. That is true. There are those who cannot make a contribution. There is the difference existing between a person who applies for an old age pension and who has no income at all, and those who still have an income of R180 per annum. It is very difficult for us to point our finger at a person and to say that person has nothing today but he himself is responsible for it, because there may be reasons why he is not responsible for it. The other person has an income of R180 per annum, but there may be factors that enabled him to have that income. That is why we have deemed it fit to implement what I said last year. Last year I said that we would see whether relief could not be given where the need was greatest. That is why we have made this change, that was referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo, that between the persons who have nothing and those with R180 per annum we grant an extra concession of R30 per annum. That was in order to meet the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also. Those people will not be able to make any contribution either. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said we should have a complete change of attitude, and he said we should levy a special tax on a necessary commodity such as bread. But if we were to impose a special tax on bread, we would be taxing the foodstuffs of the poorest among the poor. In other words, we are taxing him in order to obtain the income to give him a pension. Every time we touch on this question, we have to be very careful how we set about things. What I do appreciate is that in this Committee we can discuss these matters objectively so that on all sides of the House we can admit that two factors play a role in the care of our under-privileged people. The one factor playing an important role is the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of children who still look after their parents in their old age. I should like to pay a tribute to them all. I have said here and in the Senate that I think it is proper, in view of the fact that our philosophy of life is based on a certain thing, that when a child can do something for his parents it is very fine and good for the country and the nation and the State that the child should do so, and that met with the approval of all sides of the House and I appreciated it. I have also said that when the parent can do something for his children, and he does not do it, the State should see to it that he is compelled to do so. That is why we have amended the Children’s Act to provide that the parent must assume responsibility for his child. If we take that away, it will be a bad thing. There are instances of parents who have nobody to look after them, and there are thousands of children who do not have parents to look after them, and then it is the responsibility of the State to make a contribution towards their care, but they also remain the responsibility of the community, of the welfare organizations and the church institutions, and the hon. member for Umbilo readily conceded that. There is a very good reason for that. Once we deviate from that point of view, we are moving in the direction of a social welfare state, and hon. members have said that they do not want that any more than we do.

With reference to the plea of the hon. member in front of me, I should like to say that it is my intention to investigate and study every possible scheme, including those of Canada and New Zealand. There are various schemes in operation in different countries. There is the fully contributory scheme, there is the partially contributory scheme and in Denmark there is a non-contributory pension scheme, and there are insurance schemes in various countries of the world. What I propose to do is to study the matter together with an official of my Department, and then I propose to go to the countries of Western Europe and see how those schemes work and what the result is, for it will depend upon the results whether we can apply such a scheme or not. Hon. members will concede that as regards this matter we cannot experiment. We are dealing with intimate affairs of human beings, and that is why a thorough investigation is necessary before we take decisions that may possibly prove to be fatal subsequently.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) also referred to the means test in respect of war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War, and he also referred to the people who come from Kenya. I can just tell him that this matter has been adjusted. I said I would give my attention to it last year, and it has already been rectified in the Pension Act of last year. The people coming from there under the conditions stated by him immediately receive that old age pension when they qualify for it on the basis of age. That also applies to Kenya and the Congo and countries that are included by proclamation by the Minister.

The hon. member further referred to the relaxation of the means test as well as the question of the social pensioners. I do not wish to keep the Committee for long, but the question of the house the people who were thrifty and themselves provided a place to live in, was investigated by me for two years to see whether there is any possibility of meeting them. We were confronted by two problems. The one was that as soon as one extends the means test to include that group on a better basis, there are so many people—a number one cannot estimate—who have made other arrangements in regard to their money. He invested it in a trust company or in a building society or on first mortgage, and he considers it better just to live with his children, or in an hotel, for it will suit him better. There are many of the old people who are still boarding with their children. But as soon as you draw that circle wider, the people will say it is better to build a home for themselves, and apart from the thousands of cases of good sons and daughters who look after their parents, there also are thousands of people who always want the parents to give up more and more so that they can get it. It will be a difficult matter to determine. I have gone into the whole question, and I have considered seeing what we can do if the State were to say that in such a case where someone has provided for his own home the pension will be increased, but then he will do so under the security of a bond which the State will take on that house, for that possession will always be the inheritance of the children of those old people. If the State were to say— that is a suggestion that has been made to me that it must be done on first mortgage bond, and if it were to increase the pension but takes a bond on the house, it must be a first bond, because the State must have security. The people to whom you give it will have to be held responsible for insuring their properties at their own expense against fire and storm damage, etc. They will be responsible for the rates and taxes and the maintenance of the property, and the Department as bondholder will have to keep a watchful eve open to ensure the observance of these obligations. In such cases the Department will have to hold inspections constantly to see exactly what is being done. I am mentioning only a few of the difficulties. Where the payment of pensions will be only against registration of a first bond, which is the only acceptable form of security, only the more privileged people will benefit from such a system. What will be the good of giving the people a first bond as security for the State when it is said that it cannot be interest-free? And when you make it interest-free, you get the old spiral again, that those who have most will get most, and from those who have not will be taken what they have.

*The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) quoted a case in a letter which he read. It is very difficult to reply to such letters. If the hon. member can let me have the letter that specific case will be investigated in due course. The other point which the hon. member raised was the question of finding some way to relax the means test. That was the kernel of the argument of the hon. member for Umbilo. He also referred to cases of hardship of widows of public servants, where they stand in queues, and aged persons who have to get their pensions from the post office over the counter. This question has been gone into time and again. If we have to issue cheques it will mean the issue of 250,000 cheques every month. It has been suggested to my predecessors, but it will increase the work of the Department enormously. I considered the question again and I cannot see my way clear to loading the Department with this extra responsibility of issuing 250.000 cheques every month. The hon. member also raised the question of some civil servants. If he gives me more particulars I may be able to reply to him in due course.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Umbilo and some of the questions he asked me last night. He raised the question of clubs for the aged. That is quite a new development. It renders quite a necessary service, but it is mostly the community itself which assists the aged to combat loneliness. As far as the Department and I myself are concerned it is to be welcomed. Cognizance has been taken of it by the Department and we are very sympathetic to those clubs. In all the bigger centres we have these clubs and also in some of the smaller centres. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the development of these clubs is watched very closely. Granting financial assistance is a point we shall have to consider.

Then the hon. member raised a point in connection with the fees for the actuarial valuations of pension funds. I can tell him that provision has been made from year to year for the payment of actuaries’ fees for services performed by them in regard to the valuation every five years of six State pension funds. The funds are not all valued during the same year: it is done periodically, and the fees paid for the valuation of a large pension fund such as the Public Servants’ Pension Fund are considerably higher than those paid in the case of a small pension fund such as the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund. The amount of the fee, therefore, varies from year to year. This year provision had to be made for valuing four of the largest funds, the Public Service Pension Fund, the S.A. Police and Prison Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund and the Government Servants’ Widows’ Pension Fund, and that is why the fees were so high this year.

*I just want to give the hon. member for Kimberley South (Dr. Venter) more clarity in regard to the position of the accommodation of our old people. Towards the end of 1948-9 there were 25 such homes in the Republic. Four years ago there were 57 for Whites only. Those 25 were not for Whites only. At the present time there are 89 for Whites only. A further 24 have already been approved and are in course of erection. That will bring the total to 113. There are 20 further applications for the erection of such subsidized homes which are now under consideration, and when they are added hon. members will see what tremendous progress there has been. I should like to express my particular appreciation to the welfare organizations, church bodies and others, who took the initiative in erecting those homes. They have done a very important job of work. They receive the assistance we provide, as well as an increase in the subsidy for furniture, but the initiative was theirs, and I am pleased to say that there is not a single case, so far as I know, where the erection of a home for the aged was refused because funds were not available for it. The cases where it has not been approved as yet are the cases where it has not yet been proved that there are sufficient old people in such a place. We also aim at having the homes spread throughout the country, so that there is no accumulation in one part of the country and virtually nothing in another part of the country.

The hon. member for Umbilo furthermore asked me a question with reference to the estimate I gave in the Other Place as to what the position would be if we were to suspend the means test. I can very easily understand the position if the means test were to be changed gradually. Hon. members in the Other Place told me it must disappear. Some immediately urged the complete disappearance of it. Someone rose and said he advised people that if they have a little money left over they should go overseas and travel and spend the money and then return and apply for an old-age pension. I took it very amiss of him. But because of that I made an estimate. At the present time we spend on old-age pensions approximately R25,000,000 per annum, on the basis of R324 per annum per person, the new basis that has been in operation from 1 April. If we take that R324 per annum per person we see that if we abolish the means test altogether between the ages of 60 and 64 it will cost an extra R30,000,000; between 60 and 69 it will be another R25,000,000; and between 69 and 70 and older it will cost another R41,000,000 extra. I obtained these figures from the Department of Census and Statistics, according to their statistics of men and women of those age groups. That means then that you arrive at a figure of R79,000,000 in respect of all above 60 years and that is only for Whites. If you make it above 65 years it is an additional R66,000,000, and if you make it above 70 years it is an additional R41,000,000. So hon. members will see how steeply it rises when we make such a change just like that.

I want to conclude, except that I would just like to reply to the hon. member for Benoni on the matter he has raised. I am quite satisfied that the hon. member has made a serious plea.

As I said last year, I gave the hon. member for Benoni the undertaking that this question would be carefully investigated. The investigations in regard to this matter were carried out in the recess. After careful and sympathetic consideration of all the facts, it was not found possible further to extend the concessions in this regard, and I shall give the hon. member the reasons. The time limit, as the hon. member knows, was originally fixed at two years. It was, however, extended from time to time until it was fixed at ten years in 1946. Whenever representations were made in this regard the matter was on each occasion thoroughly investigated. It was investigated in 1945 by the Brinton Committee, and in 1948 by the Smit Commitee. Although the Brinton Committee recommended an extension of the period to ten years in 1945, it opposed the total abolition of the time limit for the reason that such a concession could in some instances lead to abuse, for example in the case of deathbed marriages. The committee considered that the period of ten years was a fair and reasonable period within which young ex-volunteers, many of whom were under the age of 24 on discharge, could become sufficiently established in civil life before entering into a marriage. That was the finding of the Brinton Committee in 1945.

All the other countries have removed it.

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS: The Smit Committee in 1948 also recommended that the ten-year period should not be departed from. I can tell the hon. member that with the exception of officers the war pensions paid by the Republic to its ex-volunteers are, as the result of bonus additions, considerably higher than those paid by countries like Britain and Australia. There is another fundamental difference and that is this: I am told that in the other countries referred to, war pensions are continually subject to review, and in South Africa that has not been the case. In South Africa such a pension becomes a permanent pension after a period of five years. Sir, I have considered this matter very seriously. I have given instructions to the officers of my Department to investigate this matter thoroughly again, and they are very sympathetic, but I am sorry that in this regard I am not able to comply with the request of the hon. member.

Last night the hon. the Minister referred to certain investigations which had taken place in his Department and certain improvements which he felt would be helpful in dealing with this very vexed problem of the low rate of the old-age pension. I must say that having listened to some of the explanations which the hon. the Minister gave to-day, this side of the House is not very impressed. I believe that there are many ways in which one can deal with this question of pensions rather than adopting a stereotyped approach. One must bear in mind that the cost of living has risen and that the value of money has depreciated. Therefore it is not untoward for this side of the House to press very strongly for an improvement in pensions. The fact that the Minister pays tribute to children who discharge their obligations to parents is not a good reason why parents should be dependent in their old age upon the goodwill of children in order to sustain themselves and to maintain a reasonably decent standard of living. Sir, when one examines the increased provision which is being made in the Estimates this year for pensions, for which the Minister took the credit, one finds that the amount is R630,000 as against a total overall Budget of R841,000,000. In other words, out of a total of nearly R842,000,000, a sum just in excess of half a million rand has been added to the pension bill for approximately 95,000 pensioners in our country.

Then I come to this question of house ownership to which the hon. the Minister referred. This is a very vexed problem. In fact just recently the National Council of Women in Johannesburg at a special meeting of its Johannesburg branch passed a resolution that the Minister of Pensions and Social Welfare be approached to consider inter alia the question of raising the ceiling in respect of property owned by pensioners from R2,400 to R6,000 in order to encourage thrifty old people who have made sacrifices to acquire their own home. Sir, this is a problem which concerns everyone. It is not merely a problem which concerns the Opposition. It is a problem which concerns the women of our country and the families of our country. The hon. the Minister has suggested that there may be cases where people will want to turn their money into a home in order to gain the advantage of a pension. I feel that there would be so few cases of this nature that that is a far-fetched example. Sir, I should like to read out a letter which I received from one of my constituents. I think other members too are constantly receiving letters from their constituents with regard to this matter. This particular person writes—

Then she goes on to say this, and I think this bit of philosophy should impress the hon. the Minister—

I do not know that one can state the case more clearly than this and more correctly. This letter comes from a person who writes from her heart because this problem is one of vital importance to her. Sir, other countries of the world have been a little more progressive in their outlook with regard to pensioners. For instance, what would be wrong with considering a scheme whereby a pensioner can receive an increase to his or her pension every five years, instead of a general all-round increase which the Minister says will involve the expenditure of ten of millions of rand additionally? It could be done concurrently with gradual increases.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) has drawn attention to the fact that in a country like Canada every person of 70 years or over, irrespective of his or her income, receives a pension from the State, Their approach to the subject is to levy a general taxation on companies and large industries. Although the slight increase in taxation which results from this may make a slight difference in the cost of living, that difference is not sufficient in my opinion nor in their opinion to outweigh the advantages which are given to the pensioner and enable the pensioner to live decently. In Australia, for instance, a very much more liberal allowance is made in respect of personal assets. There are many ways in which the cost of increased pensions can be met without forming a direct charge on the Fund. It could be met by way of an indirect charge which, spread over a Budget of R841,000,000, would not affect people as severely as the hon. the Minister thinks Sir, the point is this: It is important in my opinion and in the opinion of many others in this House that the pensioner should have the assurance of security. He should not feel that there is a possibility that he may have to rely on children or friends or members of the family, because circumstances change from time to time.

Then there is another way in which this matter can be approached. There are many people whose circumstances after the age of 60 or 65 are such that they would not be justified in claiming a pension. Persons who do not claim a pension, but who eventually find themselves in the position where they have to claim a pension, could, for instance, receive an additional amount per annum for the years during which they did not claim. That would also take care of persons who remain in employment over the age of 65 in the case of men. That would be an incentive to maintain as large a labour force as possible. In a country like ours, where we have a shortage of technicians and executives, men of 65 to 70 can play an important part in an executive capacity in the industry or undertakings in which they have worked over a considerable number of years. It is not necessary for them to retire on pension merely because they have reached that age. Then there are other people who are employed in positions where they are able to carry on beyond the normal retiring age, and when they do retire and need the old-age pension, some compensation could be given to them for the years during which they saved the State the necessity of paying out a pension to them.

The other question that the hon. Minister dealt with is the question of old-age homes. We have had a number of reports ii our country on old-age homes. Some years ago the province, for example, sent its Director of Medical Services overseas to study the question of hospitals and clinics, and, at the same time, he was able to visit a considerable number of homes for the aged in other countries. In those countries he found that every effort was made to remove the difficulty which faces the average pensioner, and that is to find accommodation. When a pensioner enters an old-age home in our country with money provided by the State, I think the rental is about R4.50 per month. In some cases it is possibly even a little less. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring a small matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister in connection with the application of the means test in the case of old people above the age of 70 years. The present arrangements seem strange to me, and it seems to me it is not justified either. Where a person of 70 years or older draws a certain salary or has a certain income as an employee, that salary or income is not taken into account in the application of the means test. But if such a person works for his own account after the age of 70 years, he is not an employee and, accordingly, he is still subject to the means test, and the amount he earns is taken into account when he applies for a pension. This arrangement gives rise to strange cases. In my constituency, for instance, I had the case of an old man of 73, who was driving a taxi of his own. He did so with the greatest difficulty, as one can imagine. He did not have other possessions. Although he was older than 70 years, his earnings were, nevertheless, taken into account, because he is not an employee. However, had he driven the taxi for somebody else, he would have been entitled to a pension, because he would then be an employee. One finds many cases of this nature. Take, for instance, a person who works as a bookkeeper or as an accountant or even as a shoemaker, and who tries to earn a little money in that way. If these people were employees, they would have been entitled to a pension, but because they are independent and do not work for somebody else they are not entitled to a pension. That seems strange to me, and it also seems unfair to me. I do not know whether this has come to the hon. the Minister’s attention as yet, but I do feel that this is a matter worthy of his attention. If he does that, I feel he will already have done much to encourage the independence of the old people in this regard.

The hon. the Minister has asked us this afternoon to take an objective approach to the question of old-age pensioners. I want to put it to him, with great respect, that in any matter that concerns him personally and directly, he, like most other human beings, will take not an objective, but a subjective approach, and in order to show him what the majority of the old-age pensioners, his dependants, think of the Government’s pension policy, I propose to quote only one of the letters which I have received and which was apparently written the day after the Minister of Finance had introduced his Budget—21 March. It says inter alia—

I have read in the Star of the 20th instant that Dr. Dönges is reported as saying that “the individual was expected to provide for himself against old age and infirmity How easy to be smug! How more than easy when one enjoys a Cabinet Minister’s income and its numerous perquisites! Dr. Dönges needs to be reminded with the utmost forcefulness that those who have made provision, often at great sacrifice through the years, for an independent old age, as they thought, are the first to be penalized by the shameful means test. We have been told repeatedly that without the means test the pension fund will be abused. Is it not a fact that with the means test the pension fund is abused? The remedy for abuse should be directed towards the culprits, and it should not be beyond the powers of departmental administration to detect them. It is no remedy to take the easy way out by penalizing all who have been forced to resort to the State for financial aid. Further, it may well be asked in Parliament what has been done by this Government through the long years of its office to arrest the ever-rising cost of living which hits the old so hardly? And what steps, if any, it intends to take in the future.

That, I submit to the Minister, is typical of the scores of thousands of old-age pensioners throughout the country to-day, who find it impossible to eke out more than a bare existence on the pension which the State gives them. We do not need at this stage to dwell on the misery of people who have to live on a very small income; we do not need to go into the details of those who are not accommodated in old-age homes, because we know that only the minority is accommodated in old-age homes—the majority have to find accommodation somehow for themselves. What does the Minister think happens to a person who pays R12 to R14 per month for a decent room in a city like Johannesburg, or for that matter Cape Town or Pretoria? What is left for food? Here is one analysis of the position; again time does not permit me to give all the details; this comes from Johannesburg—

The Minister should realize that this is more than just a newspaper article. This is reported by the Council for the Care of the Aged, one of the associations of which the Minister has rightly said he is proud. Sir, the Minister will tell us again, as he did this afternoon and last night, that both he and the Department are doing everything they can for the aged; we expect that, and we accept that that is true, but it is not sufficient that the Minister and his officials are oozing with goodwill towards the aged. As far as they are concerned—I take again the subjective view of the old-age pensioners—they could not care less if the Minister had a heart of stone, not a heart of gold, providing they received an adequate pension from him. That is the test, not the Minister’s goodwill, and not the goodwill of the officials of the Department.

I was replying to the case put forward by the other side that so little was being done.

Sir, I want to say to the Minister with the utmost respect, because I believe he is a man of goodwill, that so little has in fact been done when you look at the stream of world affairs as far as the countries of the West are concerned, and those are the ones with which we say we align ourselves, and whose examples we follow. I say that at the very least this country is 25 years behind any other country of the West in regard to its approach to the problem of the aged. The Minister is amused. He is going overseas to find out things that he can and should ascertain now, and I will give him a few examples. Assuming he goes to four or five of the countries of the West; let us assume that he goes to Germany. Let me read out to him what he will find there. In the German Tribune it is reported—

This is the official organ of the Press and Information Office of the German Federal Government and it is further reported—

I think the current rate is 5.5 marks per rand. Does the Minister know that these things are happening in Western countries? Take the case of Italy. Why does one have to go to Italy? The Minister may have been there; I have been there and other people have been there. In the case of Italy, for example, there is the official bulletin of the Italian Government, News from Italy.

About 44,000,000 Italians are currently benefiting in one way or another under the national insurance scheme. Ten years ago, the figure was only 21,000,000.

There has been a rise of more than 100 per cent in the number of beneficiaries within the last ten years, in a very poor country, incidentally, not a country that boasts of booms, as one of our newspapers, for example, did this morning—

That is the position in a country with 55,000,000 people. We know, for example, what the planning is in Britain at the present time, and we know that the present planning of the Labour Party, which according to some opinions may become the next Government, goes far beyond the present state of affairs in Britain. Sir, lest anybody say to me, “we do not want a welfare state,” I am sorry that in some cases we are so diffident about it; what is wrong with a welfare state if by “welfare state” you mean a state in which every old-age pensioner is taken care of properly? Is there anything wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it, you agree. Then, what is wrong with a socialist state? We are not talking about Communism. You can call it a “socialist” state, provided that state takes care of every old-age pensioner. Why do we recoil from the idea of a welfare state? Sir. I will give you the final example, as I tried to give to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark last year, when he said that America was a “socialist” country; I will give you a final example of a capitalist economy like that of Germany, Italy, Britain and South Africa, which operates what some members would call the welfare state or the socialist state, and is proud of it. Surely nobody would call the United States a communist or socialist country! Here we have the United States as an example. In the case of the United States, “the general social security plan administered by the Federal Government now covers 58,000,000 workers”—workers, not people. “It is financed by taxes on wages and salaries and on the earnings of self-employed persons. Employers and employees pay 2.5 per cent on the first $4,800 of wages and salaries; the self-employed pay 3.75 per cent on the first $4,800 of net earnings,” that is to say, earnings after taxes. What is the retirement age for a person covered by the social security system? For women it is 62, for men 65, and all of them are entitled to these retirement pensions. Disabled workers are eligible at 50! This, Sir, is what we find in the prototype of a capitalist and free enterprise society in the entire Western world or in the whole world! Sir, I want to say again that we must get away from this idea that there is something undignified and evil in what has been called the “welfare state”. There is nothing incompatible between what some people call the welfare state and a free enterprise capitalist economy, as the Minister will see for himself, in six or seven countries which I hope he will visit personally …

I thought you said you did not want me to go.

Well, it is not necessary.

Sir, I speak for myself, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will go and that he will see for himself what I have sketched in three minutes, but equally I hope that he will not come back to South Africa and tell us that having seen these schemes in operation, they are still of no use in South Africa. That is what I hope.

I hope the hon. member is speaking for himself.

Obviously I speak for myself and for my constituents of whom there are at least 2,000 who have the sort of circumstances to contend with, which this letter which I read to the Minister, and which I am prepared to hand over to him, typifies. Sir, it is no good dismissing it. Let us assume that my attitude is not the attitude of everybody in this House. I asked the Minister a direct question whether he saw anything wrong in an old-age pensioner receiving enough to live on adequately, and he said that he saw nothing wrong with it. Well, that is the target that the Minister and his Department and this Government should set themselves, instead of the position that we have every year under the Minister’s Vote, when he tells us of all the efforts that his Department makes to apply the money properly… [Time limit.]

The hon. member has really surprised us here this afternoon. He pops up here as a completely socialistic thinker. I wonder whether he was speaking on behalf of his party. He pleads for a welfare state here. He quotes the position in Britain. I wonder when last he went to Britain. Does he know that the position there to-day is what it is because of the welfare state prevailing in Britain to-day?

I went there 15 months ago.

When was he in Moscow last?

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) entitled to ask when last I was in Moscow?

Why cannot he ask that?

I should like to hear from you, Mr. Chairman, whether he is entitled to ask such a question. If you will permit me to do so, I shall reply to that question.

Order! The insinuation that the hon. member has been to Moscow is not permissible, and I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

I withdraw.

I should like to ask hon. members opposite in all seriousness whether they associate themselves with the viewpoint of the hon. member he stated here by implication to-day. We want to know that. The hon. member revealed something here today that has given me a fright. I did not know that those ideas are also entertained on that side.

What ideas?

The ideas the hon. member revealed in his speech. I want to adopt the directly opposite view to that, and I should like to read to the hon. member what has been said in Isvestia, in the Communist Government newspaper in Russia in regard to the old people and in regard to the people: They say this—

This point of view expressed by a communist-controlled newspaper underlies our whole difficulty, and I should like to say a few words on that to-day. In contrast with the idea of large blocks of flats and the creation of a proletariat of old people, I wish to say that I believe in one family per house. [Interjection.] Let me just develop my argument. As against this I believe in the viewpoint of one family per house. That should be our goal in South Africa. I want to pay tribute to the Department of Social Welfare. I do not believe that we have a Department to-day that is as intensely woven into the social structure of our whole State as our Department of Social Welfare, and without being cheap I should like to say that I do not think we can get a more generous Minister. That is qualification No. 1 which I demand for the head of such a Department. I do not think we have a Minister with such a flair for this particular task as this Minister has. It should be our aspiration in South Africa to enable every family to have its own property. Private property is a social institution which is a guarantee against the creation of various evils which in course of time, in the absence thereof, are off-loaded on our Department of Social Welfare and Social Services. I say that a family established on a private property, in a house, however small that house may be, is the guarantee against the evils we have to cope with to-day arising from the congregation of families in blocks of flats, in hostels. That is where the evils are born. We can do what we like, but if we do not get to the root of the cause of these evils our Department of Social Welfare will be burdened to an increasing extent with these problems as becomes clear from the speech of every member who rises to speak.

When such a large number of persons, as you are advocating, all possess their own homes, will you give them a pension when they become old?

Just wait a while, please. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the basis of alleviating the burden of the Department and of our social obligations, as regards social services, is private property, the private home, the closed family circle. I repeat, it is the guarantee against the creation of a proletariat of old people who are loaded upon the shoulders of our Department of Social Welfare. It is the guarantee against the creation of a proletariat of mothers who are off-loaded upon the shoulders of our Department. It is also the guarantee also against the breaking down of the fundamental truths that underly the formation of a good citizen: private family life, private property, private homes, a private possession …

Does that apply to the Bantu also?

I am coming to that. I say a strong healthy family life and a strong education anchored to a specific cultural circle in a closed religious concept and in a tradition that envelops the family and the national group, a tradition that should be cherished and guarded, is the root which must feed the young shoots, the fruit-bearing shoots and also the old shoots. A family with their own tradition, as my family has its own family tradition, a family with its own pride and a family with its own responsibility towards child and parent, a family life that possesses the protective and the enduring characteristics which are brought about by the idea of an own possession, are the things that should enjoy priority in our country. That is where we must start. That is why I am pleading here to-day—perhaps you do not agree with me to-day; perhaps I may be pleading for things here to-day that appear wholly unrealistic for a totally new attitude in South Africa towards the young married couples. I say that every possible facility should be provided for the young married couple to acquire their own property, however small it may be. In order to acquire that, I plead for greater financial support to the married couples who really are the builders of the nation. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the second half-hour? The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) should have made his speech under the Department of Housing. I simply cannot see what the Department of Social Welfare has to do with those cases.

We have heard a great deal about caring for the aged and interesting speeches have been made in this debate. I want to express my appreciation to the Department of the hon. the Minister’s particularly where they assist organizations in the Cape Peninsula with the care of the aged. There was something in the report of the Department of Social Welfare which struck me forcibly. They talk about the principle of a social purpose and then they say this—

Then they talk about the members of the Department who take part and the mental state of mind which these people should have. They say—

That to my mind is the basis of the entire Department, Sir, I want to deal with child welfare in particular but I found it interesting to note who were the members of this organization which cares for the aged here in Cape Town. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Avondrust Utility Company, the Rotarians, the Stellenbosch University, the Cape Province Tuberculosis Board, the City Council, the Jewish Old People’s Home, the Roman Catholic Bishopric, the Divisional Council of the Cape, the A.C.V.V., the Urban Housing Board, etc. That being so these words become a reality that we should engender a spiritual affinity towards this Department, as is stated here, a social conscience as well as the expert attitude accompanied by an objective approach to these matters. Before I leave this subject there are a few suggestions I want to make to the hon. the Minister in connection with the state of health of many old people and the medicine they can afford. Many of these old people cannot afford the vitamins which they need in order to keep themselves in good health. They cannot afford it on the pension they receive from the Minister. We also know that because the body gets old it cannot extract the necessary vitamins from the ordinary food which is eaten daily. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Department should institute an inquiry to see whether vitamins can be made available in cheap form to the aged people.

That brings me to the second point namely those old people who are too ill to live in a home and those who are too ill to live in private homes. We know that provincial hospitals do not undertake the care of such old people to-day. According to the rules of an ordinary old people’s home an old person should be able to help herself or himself. I know a few homes admit old people who are ill but an insufficient number do so. Sonop is one of them. The position of these people gives one cause for alarm. I should be grateful if the Minister’s Department would give attention to this matter so that more old people’s homes can be erected where those sick old people can be cared for.

Then I should like the hon. the Minister’s Department to try to give a lead as far as labour therapy for the aged is concerned. That may sound strange.

That falls under the Department of Labour.

If only the hon. member knew what he was talking about, Sir. The Department of Labour has nothing to do with old people in homes. Most of the time these old people are very bored. It has already been tried in some places. I know a special person has been appointed here in Cape Town. That person goes to the various old people’s homes and gives lessons in the small little things which old people can do. Some of them cannot do anything else than cut out Christmas cards and paste them in a book. But it is nevertheless something which they can do and it gives them a great amount of pleasure. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to do more in this regard than is being done at the moment.

I have said that social welfare was an effort on the part of both the State and private initiative. I have emphasized the importance that the officials of the Department of Social Welfare should be suitable for their risk. I now want to confine myself to child welfare. As far as child welfare is concerned I am inclined to say that the demands made upon the staff of the Department are even higher than in other cases. Since the Children’s Act has been placed on the Statute Book there great progress has been made but I nevertheless want to make a few suggestions. As the hon. the Minister knows any magistrate is a child welfare officer to-day and any magistrate’s court can be declared a children’s court. I suggest that senior officials of the Department be appointed to supervise those cases which appear before a children’s court. I should also like to see the following idea emanate from the hon. the Minister’s Department namely that the family as such—funnily enough here I have to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp although he spoke in a totally different trend—if possible, should not be broken up; that the first duty of the Department of Social Welfare should be to keep the family intact. I want to go so far as to say that no child should be declared a child in need of care because one of its parents is anti-social. You will appreciate, Mr. Chairman, what I am pleading for here. I am pleading for it that there should be much better supervision over families; I am asking that people with statutory authority should be appointed to look after these families, people who will have the force of law behind them to rehabilitate these families. This is much more than has been done in the past. I have in mind, for example, the family which does not spend its income properly, where the income is spent on unnecessary things. I know of one family, for example, where the father got into trouble and was sent to prison. The mother remained behind with eight children and work was found for her. We found at the end of the month that she was spending her salary on cool drinks, cigarettes and packets of biscuits. She did not spend it in the right direction to the benefit of her children. That is why I say there should be people with statutory power to step in in such cases. They ought to have the power to spend that money properly on behalf of the family. What is the result? When there is bad administration in such a family the children are neglected. The ultimate result is that such a child is declared to be in need of care, that it is taken away and probably placed in an institution. Before I leave this subject, Sir, I just want to say that I notice in this report that they talk about various powers which different Departments had in the past and which will in future all devolve upon the Department of the hon. the Minister.

There is another direction in which I should like the hon. the Minister to use his influence. At the moment industrial schools and trade schools are not administered by the Minister’s Department. They are administered by a different Department. Where those children are sent to industrial and trade schools by the Department of Social Welfare I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how much influence he exercises in the management of those schools.

Then there is something else which has been worrying me for a long time and that is those cases where complaints are made to the police by a mother that the father is assaulting her or the children. When the police arrive there they find that an assault has actually taken place but because it is a domestic affair they cannot prosecute unless the mother or a member of the family lays a charge. As we know that happens very rarely. In such cases I should like the hon. member to co-operate with the Minister of Justice so that where complaints of this nature are made they must of necessity be reported to the officials of the Minister’s Department. We often read in the newspapers about murders and so forth and then they say that there had been complaints but that the police were unable to do anything in that connection. Such cases ought of necessity to be brought to the notice of the officials of the Minister’s Department. I have said that persons should have statutory power to act when it comes to family life and I added that there ought to be senior officials who should examine all cases heard by an ordinary children’s court. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should appoint certain boards in certain areas, boards which should study these reports and then decide what measure should be taken.

Then I should also like to learn from the Minister what the position is in regard to persons who are specialists in certain fields. Is his Department suffering from the same shortage as many other Departments? Or has he got enough experts? How many people has he got in his Department who can give specialized training? I said at the beginning of my speech that no child should be sent to an institution because of the anti-social behaviour of its parents. It is only when all efforts have failed that such a child should be declared in need of care. You find that a child is anti-social. That child is then taken away from its parents and placed in an institution. Mr. Chairman, I have a holy horror of an institution because I feel that whether there are 200 or 700 children, you cannot make any spiritual contact with such a child and that is the only way in which you can rehabilitate him. The child who is anti-social and who does not behave himself is the last child to be sent to an institution. I want to ask that more child guidance clinics be established. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot appoint more child psychologists to handle these children? I want to repeat that the last thing should be to send such a child to an institution.

Then I come to the orphan. Naturally various classes of children fall under the hon. the Minister’s Department. There are those children who come from homes where the parents are incapable of looking after them; secondly, there are those children who cannot be controlled, the anti-social children; and thirdly, we have the orphans or those children whose parents are unable to care for them; fourthly, we have those children who come from poverty-stricken homes. Some of these children must of necessity go to an institution and I wish to suggest that where we are dealing with the child who cannot be controlled the emphasis should be placed on his rehabilitation and not on punishment. That is where my difficulty lies; the hon. the Minister has no control over those industrial and trade schools. The important thing as far as the uncontrollable child is concerned, is to make him realize that he is part of society. If we place the main emphasis on keeping the family together I think the need for institutions will become less. I have referred to the fourth type where the parents are too poor to look after their children themselves. In this connection I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has seriously considered erecting crèches for the young children of those mothers who have to work in our big cities so that when they go to work they can leave their small children there. Then we have the case of the child who goes to school but who comes home at one o’clock. Provision must be made for that child to go somewhere until such time as its mother comes from work, which is usually five o’clock in the afternoon. If we take these steps I am sure we shall have far fewer uncontrollable and antisocial children.

I now come to the institutions. I want to return to what I said a moment ago, namely that without love nobody can thrive. That is why I want to ask that where we have to have institutions we should bear the new method in mind and run our industrial schools and institutions on the home basis so that 12 or 14 children fall under the supervision and control of one person. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has drawn my attention to it that there is a place in Durban where 8 or 9 or 10 children are under the care of one person. This place falls under the Methodist Church. We have a place near by, namely the Rudolph Steiner School, where they treat Mongolian children. They follow the same idea in that institution. It is a big institution but every 7 or 8 children are under the personal supervision day and night, of one person. That person takes the place of a mother or foster-mother. It is not necessarily always a woman. In the case of the Rudolph Steiner school there is a male person who has 7 or 8 boys under him. The result is that the child gets the special attention which it requires in order to make a decent citizen out of him. I know what I am asking the Minister is something which is going to cost a great deal of money but as I said at the beginning I have a holy horror of a big institution. No institution, no matter how wonderful it is, can offer personal attention and love to a few hundred children. The Minister’s Department says in its own report that their welfare officers must have experience, must have knowledge, must have balanced personalities, must have a mature philosophy in life. I emphasize this because we must realize that the future of many children depend on these officials.

I was very interested in a report which came out under the heading “An Analysis of the Family Background of White Children in need of care in South Africa and the Methods of Rehabilitation employed in this connection ’’. It is distributed by the University of Pretoria and was written by I. J. J. van Rooyen, senior lecturer in social welfare work. He refers to various reports which have appeared in other parts of the world and the trends which are followed in other parts of the world. Then he says that our difficulty in South Africa is the following—

1. (1) A lack of the necessary personnel.
2. (2) The size of our institutions.
3. (3) A shortage of staff trained in psychology and educational methods.
4. (4) A lack of the necessary knowledge of the needs and the nature of the child and of personal problems.
5. (5) A lack of freedom and family life.
6. (6) An over-emphasis of health and hygiene at the expense of childishness and happiness.
7. (7) Moving children continually from one institution to another.
8. (8) The separation of brothers and sisters.

He suggests (a) the cottage-type system where children form a family group and receive individual attention. Each cottage must house preferably 12 but not more than 20 children.

Old news.

It may be old news to the hon. member but as far as I am concerned anything to do with the welfare of our children is never old. Various other suggestions are put forward but you will notice, Sir, that I have made far-reaching suggestions which the Minister’s Department can go into. I think if we set about it in this way we shall achieve more than we have in the past, that we shall not only be looking after the material welfare of the child, but that we shall be making a start to look after the spiritual welfare of such a child as well. I have said that I have a horror of big institutions. I have studied the reports of various big institutions, industrial schools, trade schools, those places to which children are sent by way of punishment, and I was shocked to learn from the report of one of those that 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the children who leave are unimproved, that they are the same as they were when they went there. I am not blaming the institutions. I have said that it is impossible to make any spiritual progress where you have 700, 200 or 150 children. If we can get the Department to place the emphasis on the family and to see to it that the child who is in need of care and whose parents cannot look after him is placed with a member of the family, which is in conformity with our Children’s Act, we shall be taking a big step forward, and where institutions have to be resorted to the home system should be applied.

I want to submit one suggestion to the Minister in all humility for his consideration, and that is that when he investigates the question of general relief as far as the stringent application of the means test and so forth is concerned, when it comes to the granting of pensions, he should also consider the question of granting of pensions, he should also consider the question of granting relief to old age pensioners and other pensioners who have already qualified for a pension or a grant and who, through their own industry or as a result of their being employed by somebody else, earn something extra, that such meagre income should not again be taken into account in the application of the means test, but that that income should be exempt and that they should be allowed to enjoy this extra income and to use it in relieving their own position. It can raise their own standard of living and in that way their own happiness as well. These people apply, their applications are properly investigated and considered and eventually they do qualify for a pension. Some of them are still strong and able to do something, to do an odd job here and there whereby they can earn something, only to find out that the moment the Department discovers that they have that income, and that they have enjoyed it for a few months, there has been an over-payment which they have to refund. That causes a great deal of trouble, misery and dissatisfaction. That is why I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider, once old people have qualified, not to take additional income which is earned subsequently into account. I accept that the Minister cannot simply ignore it if they fortuitously come into possession of too large an amount or if some windfall places a large amount into their pockets. But I do believe that a maximum could be laid down and as long as the additional income does not exceed the amount of the grant or pension they receive monthly, it should perhaps be ignored. I am asking for this more in particular to support the plea of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser).

The Government is like the human body which has many limbs performing many functions, a body which is controlled by a head and the power to reason but with only one heart. To me the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is the heart of the Government. When a government makes funds available in its Estimates it does so to stimulate and to accelerate the tempo of economic development, to provide more services for the State and the country, to pay proper wages to its officials, to invest money profitably in the interest of the country. That means that it is looking ahead, that it is moving ahead positively. But when it makes funds available for social welfare and pensions then it is its heart which is in action. Then it is not a question of the head or the power of reasoning. Then the Minister stands still; he looks backwards and he looks downwards; he looks to those people who have fallen out and who have been left behind on the road because of circumstances and reasons beyond their control: Weakened bodies on account of age and other ailments and disabilities. Then he looks to the cripples who cannot get away, to the neglected children, the little ones who have been left behind on the road. That brings the State into the field where it performs a compassionate service which is usually performed by churches and welfare organizations. It is gratifying to know that your State, your Government, not only have the head and the power to reason, that it does not only calculate and plan the welfare of the country positively for economic development and prosperity, but that it also has a heart and is willing to put out its hand to those people who are unable to help themselves. When various members on this side and on that side plead, therefore, it is really simply an appeal to the State to soften its heart and to be more indulgent, to bend down even lower and to look back even further to those who have fallen by the way in order to try to uplift them and to improve their standard of living.

Before I conclude I want to refer to the sneering remarks made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) when he compared the services which this Department rendered in such a wide field, and belittle those services in comparison with those rendered in other states in Europe, states which, according to him, are supposed to have established welfare services at an increased tempo during the past ten years and more. I am convinced that the first states to which he referred, states like Germany, Italy and even England, had to do so in consequence of the devastating effects of the last World War, a war which brought about general economic and social disruption which made it necessary for them to introduce those welfare services at an increased tempo. He now wants to compare those with our welfare services in an attempt to show that the tempo in our case has not been at the same high rate. I do not think there is any rhyme or reason in that comparison; I think it is quite unsuitable in this connection.

I want to conclude by addressing a few words of thanks to the officials and to the secretary of Social Welfare and Pensions with his staff, for the sympathetic manner in which they have dealt with every request directed to them. I am particularly grateful for one concession to our old people who are forced to make repayments when overpayments have been made to them. The Department is willing to accept exceedingly small monthly amounts in repayment, in some cases as little as R1 up to R2 per month. This is a great concession to those people. I know of a case where R1400 has to be refunded and where the Department is willing to accept R4 per month in repayment of that amount. This benevolent gesture is much appreciated.

I think hon. members on both sides of the House are agreed that while the present position is an improvement when we look back over the years, we on this side of the House feel that there is an urgent necessity for the hon. Minister to consider the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) yesterday evening for the gradual relaxation to a greater extent of the means test.

Mr. Chairman, we listened with great interest to the hon. Minister yesterday evening and his announcement that his Department would soon introduce the simplified basis that he explained to us upon which the means test for old-age pensions would be applied. The hon. Minister gave some details to us. He mentioned for example the use made of assets and that they would not be calculated, but that instead the real value of such assets would be taken into account; he also mentioned certain fixed sums that were going to be laid down such as R140 per annum in subsistence and income from farming, and also depreciation of R500 per annum after the disposal of assets, and he mentioned that the income from casual employment would be taken into account not as is being done at the moment, but on an annual basis of 12 months. All these points that the hon. Minister put forward yesterday evening, while appreciated, nonetheless it seems to me, serve more to simplify departmental work and may bring about a saving in time and manpower and ease organization, rather than directly help the pensioners.

Speaking of old-age pensions, Mr. Chairman, we have more than 150,000 people today over the age of 60, many of them living out their last years on R50 or less a month, and this provides at the most only the bare needs of existence, leaving nothing over for medical care (unless they get it free), and of course medical care is an increasing item in the budget of the aged.

In this report of the sociologist of the Department of Education, Arts and Science which reports on the living conditions of the truly old, the sociologists indicate that there is room in the homes for the aged for only one in 20 elderly people, and some of the rest live in their own houses, or with their children, and many eke out the remaining years of their lives in great discomfort, in unhappiness and in loneliness, which has been stressed by hon. members on this side of the House. I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to what this report says regarding the aged people—

No welfare organization, no other organization—

That was reported by the research workers in this report, and they add that old people fall an easy prey to loneliness. The hon. Minister himself mentioned earlier that children should give some support to their parents, but I want to point out that children are very often concerned with bringing up their own families, and therein perhaps lies some of the difficulty.

In regard to the pensions for the aged, I too have received a letter—I have received many letters—that I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to. This is a letter from a constituent in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, and here she states what is received in New Zealand in the way of pensions—

In New Zealand where my cousin over the age of 70 lives, pensioners are at least able to live with dignity and security. My cousin says that pensioners are allowed to own their own home and a motorcar and may have up to £750 (R1,500) in the bank at the age of 60. All New Zealanders get free medicines prescribed by doctors and doctors seldom charge pensioners for a visit, while some doctors who are in the Government service charge 7s. 6d. for a visit and get 7s. 6d. refund from the Government.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of the aged is a problem that will stay with us and it will grow in the coming years. To-day more than 10 per cent of South Africa’s population is over the age of 60, and with the advent of the new drugs since the end of the last war the antibiotics, we will find that the lifespan of individuals is increasing up to ten years, and surely the suggestions offered by the hon. member for Umbilo deserve very careful consideration by the hon. Minister.

There is another point I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to and that is sub-head N: “Work colonies, retreats and related services.” In the breakdown of this subhead on page 93 we find that work colonies and state retreats are given R82,200 compared with R82,800 last year and that certified retreats receive R85,000, which is the same as last year; for rehabilitation of alcoholics the amount is R20,000, whereas it was R14,000 last year, an increase of R6,000, and the grant-in-aid to the Salvation Army remains the same at R2,200. Now in relation to the rehabilitation of alcoholics, the hon. Minister will recollect that in the report that hon. members have had of the Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry investigating the treatment of the alcoholics, the over-all sum that was recommended as an increase was R400,000, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister if he considers that this sum of R20,000 is going to be adequate for the future? I would like to ask if the hon. Minister would give us some facts concerning the R400,000 and whether this amount is going to cover any future improvements for the rehabilitation and the treatment of alocholics.

I really feel the need to participate in this debate, particularly after having heard from the Opposition how they belittle the concessions made in recent years in respect of our old age pensioners. Recently an announcement was again made by the hon. the Minister, and I have not heard a single person opposite lauding the latest pension increase granted by the Minister and his Department. They speak as if it is of no account. Now I would just like to mention that those people who have to count every penny, those old people who are absolutely dependent on their old age pension, appreciate every additional cent they get, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that they are very grateful for this increase in their pensions and all the concessions which have been made from time to time. I also want to mention the concessions made to social pensioners who are employed temporarily. It sometimes happens that these people for a month, or a few months, get the opportunity of earning something extra, and where that is spread over the year it will not affect their pensions.

I am glad of the further concession made, particularly because it is a matter I have repeatedly pleaded for, namely in respect of the house owned by the pensioner. We know that it is the tendency of our people to save every possible penny so as to have a roof over their heads, and this is surely one of the best investments one can make whilst working, to have a roof over one’s head. I am glad that a concession has now been made in that respect, so that it will not count against a person as a disqualification. The concession made in respect of the reduction in the value of donations, the reduction of R500 annually on the amount of a donation, is one which is highly valued by pensioners. Then there is the further matter of the repayment of over-payments. Sometimes people find it very difficult to make these repayments, and seeing that a period of not less than three years has now been fixed for retrospective repayments, we want to express our particular thanks on behalf of these people. Here I want to mention that the United Party refers with contempt to all the concessions made as if they amount to nothing. But they are particularly valuable. Hon. members opposite allege that the increased pensions are not commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. Since 1958 the cost of living has increased by 65 per cent, whilst pensions have been increased by at least 80 per cent, and in certain cases by even more than that. I mention this because hon. members opposite are trying to create a false impression.

I want to say, further, that I regard the care of our old people as a task which is the responsibility of all of us, and we must ensure that when they have done their life’s work they should at least be cared for somewhere. Now the homes for the aged White people have increased to 103, and I cannot neglect to thank the Minister for that, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister is always willing to make money available for that purpose. Sir, the prevention of family disintegration is also an important matter in regard to which the Department has taken special steps. The maintenance of family life and the care of children are matters of the greatest importance, and in that regard I also want to pay tribute for what has been done, and also for the rehabilitation of alcoholics. In that respect much has been done. In regard to the care of children, the allowances have been increased to such an extent that it may even be 66 per cent, up to R340 per child. We feel that this Department goes out of its way to care for children who are not properly cared for by their parents, or who are orphans.

I particularly want to make a plea, too, for the families with a large number of children. We devote much money to obtaining immigrants, whilst we have the potential here. We should just give a little more encouragement to people to have larger families. I should like to experience the day when we will be able to tell young couples who get married that although they may find conditions difficult, they may rest assured that if they have children the State will render assistance, which will help to build up our nation. I want to ask the Minister to devote attention to that. In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the Minister intends to go overseas himself to make a study as to what improvements can be brought about in his Department, and we are sure that it will lead to good results.

I should like to assure the hon. member for Kimberley (District) that the money spent on immigration will create wealth in this country and enable the Government to pay better old-age pensions and to contribute more to social welfare. I think the Minister realizes that the means test hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of all those who contemplate applying for old-age or invalidity pensions, and I hope that in the provisions that the Minister now contemplates further consideration will be given to relieving from the means test all those over the age of 70 years. I make this plea because many people work until they are over 70 to-day and in that way they are not a burden on the State, and I think those who are able to carry on light duties after the age of 70 should have some consideration given to them and that their earnings after 70 should not be subject to the means test when applying for a social pension.

In the limited time allotted to me on this Vote I will confine myself to Vote “L”, Child Welfare. I am pleased to see that under this Vote, apart from the provisions made for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians under their respective Votes, this Vote has been increased by over R607,000, for which I would like to compliment the Minister. [Hear, hear!] But in spite of that, this Vote is still hopelessly inadequate. This sum is a long way short from covering all the aspects of child welfare. Our gratitude must also go to the members of the Child Welfare Societies and all those who work for the interests of the children. We realize that their responsibilities are not only the provision of food and money for starving families, but especially the care they provide for undernourished children. Although this Vote for child welfare totals R5,132,000, it is hopelessly inadequate to cope with what one should regard not as a problem but as a responsibility. [Hear, hear!] I hope the hon. member for Cradock will use his influence with the Minister of Finance to be a little more generous in regard to the demands of the Minister of Social Welfare, who has demonstrated that his whole heart is in this work he does. The future of our country is in the hands of our children, and for that reason it is essential that every child of whatever colour should be able to become a decent citizen. They are an asset to us, but an asset is of no value unless it is properly cared for. We are also appreciative of the hundreds of thousands of rand contributed annually by the public. Our thanks go out to the public who so generously contribute to this noble work which is associated not only with the evils of illegitimacy, the ill-treatment of children and the domestic difficulties which unemployment and other reasons bring about. It is only with public support that we can hope in any way to cope with the responsibilities which the Child Welfare Societies have to face. A child is the produce of love, and on how we shape its health and future our destiny depends. If we neglect our children, we will fail to stabilize our future, and we will be responsible for creating the product of the forces of destruction. We know that in this country our infantile mortality rate is disgraceful. It is among some of the highest in the world. Until we can face up to that problem and reduce that mortality rate, we cannot feel satisfied with what is being done for the children of this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down elicited an occasional “hear, hear” from this side of the House and that is quite understandable because he used an expression which is not often used on that side of the House. He used the expression “thank you” and he expressed his gratitude for what the Minister had done. What we found ridiculous, however, was the fact that the hon. members for Hospital, Florida and North-East Rand came here and made demands! They said they demanded it and that the Minister must give those increases which are being given here. A party which has such a record in connection with old-age pensions must not make such demands. [Interjections.] Then they come forward and suggest super de luxe and fancy schemes. They go so far as to say that we should abolish the means test completely. That was what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) pleaded for. Where would that lead us to? To a position where every millionaire in South Africa will draw an old-age pension. And where must the money come from? They say it must come from a tax levied on such a commodity as bread. In other words, you must let the poor man pay for the pension of the rich man. The poor man eats much more bread than the rich man because the rich man does not want to get fat, but you must now let the poor man pay for the pension of the rich man. I do not think the Minister will pay any attention to those fancy schemes suggested by those hon. members. We want to assure the hon. the Minister that the people are grateful for the concessions which are once again made this year. Year after year concessions are made to our pensioners and they are grateful for the increases.

However, I did not rise to discuss those hon. members. I think there are more topical matters than to waste our money by abolishing the means test and to make everybody in South Africa eligible for a pension even if he is a millionaire. I want to take up the cudgels on behalf of the mineworker. I am referring more in particular to the pneumoconiosis sufferer. He gets a pension, or rather he is compensated. He receives pneumoconiosis compensation. The point is this: It is really a debt towards him which is being discharged. He has lost his health and he should be compensated for that.

Order! Does pneumoconiosis fall under this Minister’s Vote?

No, it does not fall under it, but the point is that he receives compensation for the health he has lost and that is regarded as income and because of that he cannot apply for an old-age pension because his income places him within the ambit of the means test. What he receives as compensation is regarded as income and I say it is not fair and reasonable that it should be regarded as such, because it is nothing else than compensation. If anybody damages my motor car he has to pay compensation. If a miner’s health is taken away from him he receives pneumoconiosis compensation for it and that is nothing else than a debt which is being discharged and that debt is now regarded as ordinary income and I believe that is entirely wrong. If a debt is repaid or you receive compensation it is not regarded as income and in this case I plead that pneumoconiosis compensation too should not be regarded as income so that the mineworker can receive his pneumocioniosis pension and yet come into consideration for the old-age pension.

Then I want to refer to the case of a man who has to care for his family. Suddenly he becomes 100 per cent disabled and he is entitled to a disability pension. It may be that his wife has to go to work because they cannot make a living on that meagre sum of money. If his wife earns over a certain amount the husband does not qualify for that disability pension. I feel that where the wife is forced to go and work it is not fair that the husband should not draw any disability pension. That is not reasonable. I therefore want to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to these two cases, namely the mineworker who receives pneumoconiosis compensation and the person who is 100 per cent disabled and that where the wife has to go and work, like the pneumoconiosis compensation which a pneumoconiosis sufferer receives, the salary which she earns must not be taken into consideration in the application of the means test when it comes to the question of granting a pension, whether it be a disability or an old-age pension.

I want to agree, firstly, with the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). However, not only should the recipients of pneumoconiosis compensation receive additional relief from the Minister of Pensions, but all people who receive pensions because of some sickness or some disability should not have that amount included when the means test is applied. I want to take the opportunity to say to the Minister and to his officials that we on this side of the House appreciate what he has done in the past to ease the lot of the less privileged. There are two reasons why I say that, firstly because of the good that these people have done in the past, and secondly because I think this is a Department which should not be broken up. Now I fear that, because of the tendency of this Government to divide the various posts and allow a new set of officials and a new Minister to determine social welfare and pensions for the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloured people, in this case, particularly because of the work that has been done by the Department of Social Welfare, it should be kept intact. I do not think the time has come for us to have this Department broken up and sub-divided. The proposals made by the Minister are naturally welcomed by this side of the House, and I want to say that the recipients of pensions appreciate the increases that have come in past years, but I would like to know whether those rises in pensions have kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. That is the most important aspect. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Odendaalsrus says it has, but I do not know whether he is right. I feel that this has not been the case. I speak from experience and I know what great difficulties pensioners have in meeting the rising living costs. I say that when the Minister investigates this problem of the rise in the cost of living he must work out a scheme whereby a rise in the pensions must at least keep pace with it. When the Minister studies the methods of social welfare practised in the countries he will visit, I trust he will pay special attention to some of these things. He should investigate the possibility of having a contributory pension scheme here. That is one of the most important aspects of the social welfare set-up. Secondly, I want him to investigate how social centres are run overseas and what their functions are. I will come back to that in a moment. I want him to investigate cripple care and the rehabilitation of cripples so as to make them people who can earn money towards their own upkeep. I want to know whether he will see to the education of the educable retarded child. This is a difficult problem which is being studied especially in Scotland. I hope he will take the opportunity when he goes overseas to visit these homes and to bring back the knowledge that has already been gained overseas.

I want him also to investigate the housing for pensioners. It is my idea that the village type of housing scheme should be introduced in this country where there are shopping centres and rehabilitation centres, so that the inhabitants of the village can run their own affairs. For instance, I would like to see little cake shops established in these villages, and dressmaking shops, and invitations should be sent out to the public to come and purchase goods from these people. Anything they earn should not be taken off their pensions. They should be given the opportunity of spending their days actively. I have said over and over again that there is nothing more frustrating for the elderly person than loneliness and having nothing to do. Some of these old people are still active and they should be given the opportunity to do something useful and to produce something useful, and the proceeds should go to them. Then I want the Minister to go into the question of the war veterans’ pensions and the allowances for their dependants. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has mentioned this time and again, but unfortunately it has been shelved year after year, but I hope the Minister will see to it and make sure that the matter is settled. We in South Africa have some of the best schools for educating the blind and the deaf. I would like the Minister to set up—and he will see how it is done overseas—a proper liaison between these schools for the deaf and the blind, and industry and commerce. Here I want to pause to say that it is not only sufficient for us to have liaison between the schools and the other institutions for White people, but he should also go into the problem of how he will get the blind and the deaf Bantu established, so that they can earn a living. There are far too many of these people walking the streets begging, and we want to do something to take them off the streets and to give them some means whereby they can earn a living. Then I would like the Minister to introduce a register for pensioners. From this register he should be able to get the personnel who are employed, particularly by the Government, in temporary employment. For instance, we are soon to have a registration of the population. The new Voters’ Rolls are going to be drawn up and advertisements will be published in the Press asking people to offer their services for this work. I want him from this register to be able to take these people who are able to walk and give them a chance to earn some money. If they cannot do a long day’s walking, they can be occupied in the offices of the Department and earn an amount of money which will help to see them through. But again I must emphasize that the money earned by these people must not be considered in applying the means test and they should not lose any part of their pensions while temporarily earning this money. [Time limit.]

I want to thank the Minister on behalf of the old people in my constituency for the increase they have now received. A few days ago I thanked the Minister of Finance for it and he told me that it was due to the Minister of Pensions, and I accordingly want to thank this Minister. It is very welcome, but I think the Minister will agree that there are still many defects which can be remedied. These people were the pioneers who paved the way for us in this country so that to-day we can live a better life then they ever had and I think the time has arrived for us to care for them, and that there should be a better dispensation for the old folk. I am very glad that the Minister intends going overseas to make investigations, because the time has arrived for us to make improvements. So, e.g., the Minister has in mind arranging the homes for old people in such a way that there will be different sections and that there will even be a nursing section as part of it, so that instead of going to hospital they can be sent there. I have long had that idea in mind, and I hope the Minister will come back convinced that something like that can be done.

In reply to certain hon. members opposite who have asked for the means test to be abolished, I want to say that it is absolutely impossible to do so. We need not go back very far to see what happened in regard to free hospitalization. Why was free hospitalization stopped? Because rich people made use of it, and when the poor people needed a bed that bed was occupied. Here we will again have the same position if the means test is to be abolished, that rich people will shamelessly draw a pension, and in fact they will be entitled to do so. I have no doubt that the Minister will not even consider it, but I ask that further relief should be granted and that the value of the house should be raised a little, and that they will not be dealt with so strictly when they own a property, but will still be allowed to apply for a pension, because even though they may own a property they perhaps do not have the necessary means to provide for themselves and still pay taxes on that property. I repeat that the time has arrived for a new dispensation; that we must now forget the past and that we should make life as easy as possible for these old people in the short time that still remains to them. But there is something else that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the matter of one spouse predeceasing the other. The pension is then suspended until investigation has been made, and sometimes it takes a long while before that pension is restored, and one can appreciate the inconvenience and discomfort endured by the surviving spouse in the meantime. I would like the hon. the Minister to go into the matter and ascertain whether it would not be possible for the pension of the remaining spouse to continue to be paid while the investigation is taking place. There are other instances where through an error on the part of either the Department or the pensioner himself, the pensioner is overpaid, and then that overpayment has to be deducted from the pension. This results in that pensioner barely being able to keep body and soul together. I want to ask the Minister to see whether something cannot be done in that regard.

In conclusion I would like to refer to something which lies very close to my heart, and that is the question of the compensation for pneumoconiosis sufferers. Here I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). It was not so much that he was concerned about pleading for compensation for pneumoconiosis sufferers, nor am I, but I do want to draw attention to the parlous position of those mineworkers who earned a meagre wage at the cost of their health and who to-day draw a very small pension. They are not entitled to apply for a pension, as that pension is regarded as income. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister and ask him to discuss it with the Minister of Mines. There are still people to-day who were put off under the old dispensation, under the Miners Phthisis Act, and who draw R30 a month, that is to say, for a man and his wife, and that man is not entitled to an old age penion. These are the people for whom we plead, who surely ought to be taken into consideration as far as pensions are concerned.

I am sure the hon. the Minister knows now what he should do with the funds at his disposal. He has had a great deal of advice from both sides of the House, I wish on the other hand to suggest that there is more to his post than merely to give pensions or to relax the means test. Before doing this I would like to support the plea of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) that pneumoconiosis sufferers should receive special consideration under the circumstances. Sir, the problem of the aged has been with the civilized State as far back as anybody can remember, and it is only now that it is becoming acute, I think largely because of the static mentality of those who handle public affairs. They have not yet realized that we live in a changing society as regards the age factor. I am sorry that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) is not here because I wanted to ask him to what society he belongs. In primitive societies the old were always excluded. If they were infirm they were pushed over a cliff, the old sacrificial cliff, such as you can find to-day in the Transkei, or they were buried up to their necks and left. In the old days if you were a feudal baron or a Native chief you could be fairly certain that your son would undertake your assassination. In less primitive times the old were regarded as wise men and were listened to, but as soon as their advice was unsatisfactory they were disposed of. It was only in the Victorian age that people started to work as long as they could, saved their money and looked forward to a life of leisure. That is really the position in which we are to-day, where people save for their old age and look forward to a period of leisure. But times have changed and pension funds and insurance companies can no longer provide for the old, if you are going to start with the static age which is now taken as roughly about 60 to 65. There are too many people at that age for the working group of the population to support, and it is to this point that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister because I think he should give careful study to this question as to what can be done for the aged, quite apart from giving them a pension. A pension is no solution. As fast as the Minister increases pensions the cost of living goes up and the greater the demands from the old people because they need extra care and help because they cannot prepare their own food. Sir, the solution is not to provide villages or homes. That is not the way to treat old people unless you can find no other means. The proper place for old people is in their own homes with their own families. The problem that the Minister must meet is how to keep them there; how to help them to earn a living. I think this is a problem which he alone cannot tackle, it concerns other Departments besides his own. I think the Department of Labour should be asked to co-operate and to find a way of keeping the older, fit people employed. It should put a bounty on the employment of old people. It must not allow people who are old in years alone and not in working capacity to be pensioned merely because their birthdays add up to 60. Sir, of all the ways of counting a man’s age the most stupid is to add up his birthdays. Some men are old at 40 and some are young at 70. That is the way to count your men and that is the problem that faces the hon. the Minister. His problem is to persuade his colleague in the Department of Labour to help to find work for these people. In addition to that he must call in the help of the Department of Education to find a way of teaching these old people who cannot work to employ their leisure usefully; to find some way of perhaps supplementing their income, and at least not to make them a burden on their own children who have to amuse them. These old people age more rapidly because their minds are not occupied or because their hands are not occupied. Last, and I might almost say least, the Minister should call in the Department of Healthy to survey these people occasionally, it is a fallacy to think that old people have more illnesses than younger people. They are more difficult to bring round the difficult corners of illness; they take longer to recuperate, but they are not more liable to illness if they are looked after occasionally. Sir, the elderly people are an inescapable fact in society, and the main thing to do for these elderly people is to keep them occupied, to keep them happy, to keep them in their own family.

I also want to express my appreciation of the fact that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has succeeded over the past years in providing more and more services for that section of our people for whom we all have such a soft spot. We not only thank the hon. the Minister for what he has been able to do for these people but we also thank him and his Department for the manner in which they have always been prepared to investigate each specific case. The Department is most sympathetic and all praise is due to the hon. the Minister in this regard. But I actually rose to raise a matter which was put very capably by the previous speaker. I am disturbed because we are slow in doing the right thing for our old people receiving pensions to-day, people who ought to receive a pension but who are not able to do work of some kind or other in order to supplement their pensions. I think that the best way to kill a person is to tell him to sit quietly and to do nothing. In my humble opinion our policy is not as it ought to be in this respect. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to make a thorough study of the matter to find out how we can effect a saving for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions by making use of the services of our old people. Can we not encourage our old people to find employment for which they will be remunerated? If this is done and they earn a certain amount, we may be able to reduce their pensions by one-quarter. I feel more and more convinced of the fact that notwithstanding these good services that are rendered by this Department, we are doing a great injustice to our old people by forcing them to remain inactive. This is what kills them. We must assist them to do productive work up to the ends of their lives, no matter how small their contribution may be. Life will then not be a burden to them in their old age; they will enjoy it right up to the end. This is the request that I want to make of the hon. the Minister.

At the opening of an old age home recently, I advised a number of old people to grow old gracefully and if they were not able to do that, to be graceful in their old age. After having listened to what hon. members have had to say, particularly the last two speakers, I am convinced of the fact that they will be people who will grow old gracefully or who will remain graceful in their old age. I listened with interest to what was said here about our old people who feel that in spite of their age they are still able to do some kind of work or other and who want to do that work. I have already said that this is a matter to which we will certainly give our attention. We are already simplifying our system. To some extent we have already made provision whereby people are allowed to have additional earnings without those additional earnings counting against them in the application of the means test. In saying this I am not merely paying lip service. This has been proved in the new and simplified system that we are introducing; it is being done to-day. This proves that we are interested in any suggestion that may be forthcoming to improve the lot of our pensioners.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) was quite correct when he summed up this debate in the following words: “The Minister knows what he should do with the funds at his disposal”. That is my difficulty. I know what everybody expects me to do but I do not know what funds I have at my disposal from year to year.

Cannot you find out?

I have been finding out all along, and with the funds at my disposal I have tried all along to increase pensions. But as I said before social welfare work is not static; that is my difficulty.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) has asked what these old people can do. That is a matter to which, in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, I am giving my attention almost daily. The hon. member also said that we must make it possible for old people to look forward to a life of leisure in their last days. Of course, if people are able to accumulate sufficient means to be able to lead a life of leisure in their old age, then we should encourage them to do so. I think we are agreed on both sides of the House that we do not want to propagate a welfare state at the present time. We still adhere to the fundamental principle that social welfare work should not be left to the State only but should be the concern of everybody.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) and other hon. members referred to the amount of room for improvement that still remains. There will always be room for improvement. I have already said that new circumstances are continually arising and we will always experience new demands for improvements. The hon. member referred to nursing institutions. I can just say that we are making provisions for clinics at all the new old age homes that are being built. This matter has already been discussed with the four Administrators and we have agreed—this has always been the position—that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will be responsible for the expense incurred where old people who are chronic invalids need hospitalization. But where old people require medical treatment in clinics and old age homes, besides being cared for then they will have to pay for the services of the doctors attending to them.

Did the hon. the Minister say that in the case of old people who suffer from chronic illnesses and who are cared for in hospitals, the Department pays the Bill?

We pay a subsidy of R3 per bed where old people suffering from chronic conditions are cared for in hospitals.

In reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) I just want to say that there is no idea of splitting the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Pensions. The hon. member also wants to know whether the rise in pensions has kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. I have some figures here which I can give the hon. member briefly or later on in writing if he wishes to have the full figures. Since 1946 old-age pensions have been increased by 170 per cent while the rise in the cost of living has been 68.2 per cent. As far as war veterans are concerned there has been a rise of 250 per cent in their pensions, and in the case of blind persons there has been an increase of 235 per cent.

*The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) and the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to miner’s phthisis suffers. The hon. member for Boksburg will of course realize that this is not a matter on which I can make an immediate decision. It is a matter which will require very thorough investigation. I just want to tell the hon. member that if one does not take the income of the miner’s phthisis sufferer into account in applying the means test, there will probably be people who will say that a person who has fought in the war has also sacrificed his health just like the man who has worked in a mine, and that because the ex-soldier was motivated by a feeling of patriotism he should receive an old age pension besides his war veteran’s pension. The same argument can hold good there and that is why I say that this is not a matter which can be lightly disposed of.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) spoke with much feeling about what has been done in connection with child welfare and other hon. members also associated themselves with his remarks. Mr. Chairman, we have had a very long and a very fruitful debate and I just want to say that the speeches that have been made here dealing with the care of our children made me think of what someone once said—that a nation that forgets its past places its future in jeopardy. We all agree with that. A nation should not forget its past. But to this statement that a nation that forgets is past places its future in jeopardy, I just want to add the following: A nation that forgets its children has no future and that is why I appreciate the fact that hon. members on both sides of the House have been able to speak with so much feeling about the question of child care.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) advocated the gradual relaxation of the means test. I have given this question my attention during the course of this debate. The only point which she stressed was that I should give effect to the request of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I would remind the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) of what I said to the hon. member for Umbilo, namely that I take cognizance of everything that is said in this debate. We usually look up the debate again and that if it is possible to improve the lot of the pensioners then of course we shall have no hesitation in doing so but I do not want to make any promises except to say that we take cognizance of everything that is said by all members on both sides of the House.

The hon. member also referred to the report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. As I have said before this is a very valuable report in my opinion. It is being studied by officers of my Department and by myself, and if we can learn anything from this report we shall take cognizance of it.

Would the hon. the Minister please reply to my question with regard to rehabilitation centres for alcoholics?

The position is that after the passing of the new Bill there will be a complete change-over as far as the treatment of alcoholics is concerned, and it stands to reason that when we embark on the new scheme it will cost much more than R20,000. The hon. member may rest assured that the money will be found for these rehabilitation centres once the Bill has been passed.

Are we going to get copies of this report?

I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, to see whether copies can be made available to every Member of Parliament. I think they should have it.

I think that is very necessary.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Votes Nos. 21 to 25 (Interior and Education, Arts and Science) and to Loan Vote M (Education, Arts, and Science).

On Revenue Vote No. 21,—“Interior,” R2,236,000,

There are two matters in respect of this Vote which I should like to deal with in the short time at my disposal. The first is that I should like to ask the Minister whether we could get his annual report in respect of the Press Commission. I do not want to dwell on this matter; I am unable to do so because I do not know what the circumstances are. I do not know whether the Press Commission has been reduced to one person or what the position is in regard to finality being reached. A colleague of the Minister referred to the fact the other day that for the first time in the history of South Africa a Commission had worked itself out of business and was now proclaiming its own demise. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate whether the Press Commission has had a similar end.

The other point I should like to deal with is the question of the Population Register under item F. The whole question of race classification is wrapped up with the Population Register. I have listened to the colleague of the hon. Minister whose Vote we have just disposed of. I think we are all agreed that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is a person whose heart is full of the milk of human kindness and I want to appeal to the hon. Minister of the Interior to try to find this side of the House on the same wavelength, to use modern jargon, in regard to this particular matter. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me when I say it is essential that we should find common grounds. The application of the race classification policy in practice has led to a tremendous amount of heartache and difficulties of all sorts. I do not know what the present position is in regard to people who are not yet classified. There is a large group of people who is not yet classified. The hon. Minister will remember that efforts were made from time to time by reference to a special committee to find a new formula whereby it would be possible to classify everybody who fell outside the competence of the existing formula. I hope that I shall not in any way be looked upon as supporting the idea of race classification and that is why I am trying to get the Minister to agree with me that there has been a lot of heartache, to agree with me that bitterness has been engendered in the minds of many people who have had to submit to race classification because it is the law of the land. They have to obey the law whether they like it or not. I experience it every month how much deeper and deeper the pain goes which arises from race classification. Let me say at once that I am not referring to the officials of the Department who are administering the law. I have had nothing but the greatest courtesy from them; I have had nothing but the greatest assistance from them. I will go so far as to say that they have on one or two occasions allowed some kind of pity and sympathy to enter into their minds when they were dealing with some of the cases. Mr. Chairman, these are human beings; they are our fellow South Africans. It does not matter what the colour of their skin is. They are people who, because of a law passed in this Parliament, have to submit themselves to the application of the law. Is it not possible for us to temper the wind some how or other in regard to these extremely difficult cases? It is so important that where a person is classified he should in the main—I want to emphasize this; in the main, not generally—be classified in the higher group because of the privileges that go with it. I know there are cases where application is not made for the higher classification. I have come across cases like that myself. There are cases where the superior partner says that he will rather be classified in the lower classification, so that in the case of a married couple the classification sought has been the lower classification. But in the main the classification always seeks to be upwards. It seems to me that we are placing such a barrier in the way of those people who try to better themselves. Where we can allow a group which is in the lower classification to-day, like the Coloured group, to come to the higher group, why should we not allow them to do so? Are we doing ourselves any harm by allowing them into our group? I hope the Minister’s own feeling will be in the direction of allowing those people who can take their place in the White group to do so. Why should we close the door in their face and tell them that they shall forever remain with the lower group? In other words. Sir, the pressure is forever downwards instead of leaving the door slightly ajar to allow those people to come upwards. I plead for that not because I have in mind a particular group of Coloured people. There is no group of Coloured people in South Africa, Sir. There is a group of people which the law says are Coloured people for the purposes of that law but the Coloured people are divided into groups. Everybody knows that. Even in the Cape they are divided into groups. What did we have on the Select Committee on which the hon. Minister of Finance sat? We had people who admitted that they were Malays. Whether that was true in the strict sense of the word I do not know but they claimed that they were Malays yet they are Coloured people. In terms of our law an Indian can come to the Cape from Natal and he is regarded as a Coloured person here for the purposes of one law and for the purposes of another law he becomes an Asiatic. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion there are people in my province who have no bond whatsoever with the Coloured people of the Cape. That does not mean to say that they are better or worse. We have the Mauritian people there who are of European parentage on the one side and of Asiatic parentage on the other side. In India they will be called Eurasians; here we call them Mauritians. They are people with a greater or a lesser mixture of European blood; they are people who by tradition, upbringing, religion, etc., have played the part of the White man in the country from which they have come. Many of them have of course been born in this country and have played their part here; they are not Cape Coloured people. The position is the same in the case of another group of Coloured people, who have no Cape Coloured blood in them. Then you get the Cape Coloured group itself. Yet all these groups are termed Cape Coloured people. Is there to be no hope whatsoever for these folk?’ Are they forever to be told: “You have been classified as Coloured people and Coloured people you will remain for the rest of your life and your children forever after.” [Time limit.]

I want to deal with another aspect of the many fuctions of the hon. the Minister and that is the question of the electoral machinery. The first question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister is whether he is prepared at this stage to tell the country whether he is going to accept the main recommendations of the Select Committee in connection with the postal vote system and the registration system and whether it is his intention to introduced legislation in this regard. That report was tabled quite a few months ago and we are all interested to see whether those recommendations will be given effect to by the Government. I do not want to say anything further in this regard until such time as the hon. the Minister has replied.

My second question is in connection with the general registration taking place this year. The hon. the Minister announced that new machinery will be used for this registration. He said that more registration offices would be used, that there would be better supervision and that he thought that it would be possible to have all the voters throughout the whole of the Republic registered within a month. The new mechanized system will come into operation for the first time. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the arrangements are in order, whether he will have sufficient people available and to what extent he will seek the assistance of the political parties in connection with registration. The entire Voters’ Roll by means of which Members of Parliament will be elected at the next general election depends upon this registration. Our experience in the past has always been that even when names remain on the Voters’ Roll, the percentage of new names added is rather small. The political parties have then to try to rectify that shortcoming. The position now will be that every voter in the country will have to complete a new card. Then there is the question of identity numbers. In this connection I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the position still applies that even though a person cannot produce his identity number, he may nevertheless complete the card and that this number will be obtained from the population register by the Department at a later stage. There may be people who want to register and who are entitled to register but who will not be able to produce their numbers immediately.

The third practical problem that the registration officer will experience will be in connection with the cards which they will leave at various homes for completion. The registration officers will have to return four or five times before the card will eventually be completed. The position is particularly bad in urban areas. Any urban candidate will confirm the fact that one will be fortunate to find 5 per cent of the tenants of a block of flats at home at certain times of the evening. In the case of bachelor flats, it is very seldom that there is anyone at home during meal times or in the evenings, and these people work during the day. What does the hon. the Minister intend doing to ensure that those people will be registered? It is important for us to have the greatest possible number of people registered because from this flows the next point that I want to raise—the delimitation which will have to be made within the next four years. The last delimitation took place in 1957—six years ago. We have now reached the position where certain constituencies have as many as 16.648 voters. I want to refer you to your own constituency, Mr. Chairman, Klerksdorp. A constituency like Welkom has 16,400 voters, Umhlatuzana has 14,000 and Sunnyside has more than 16,000. In contrast to this, we have a constituency like Graaff Reinet which has 8,742 voters and other constituencies with 9,000 voters. I want to leave out South West Africa for the moment because it is a special case. But within the Republic we have constituencies which have twice the number of voters that other constituencies have. Your own constituency, Mr. Chairman, has practically twice the number of voters as other constituencies have. Let me just say in passing that in the past it was chiefly the United Party constituencies, the urban constituencies, in which this increase took place, but the position has now changed. We are now experiencing this increase in the constituencies of Government members, and so it is no longer the party matter that it was in the past; it is a question of fairness. It is not fair that in one constituency 16,000 voters are represented by one person while in another constituency 8,000 voters are represented by one person. We noticed recently that representations were made by the Burger for a further increase in the loading and unloading of seats. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to assure us that it is not his intention to interfere with the present system. If he wants to do something he should rather lower that percentage. With modern transport at our disposal our aim must be for every member to represent the same number of voters. We must aim at a fair representation of the people on an even basis. We all understand that it is impossible to have absolute equality as far as numbers are concerned. We know that under the present quota there will be an average of 11,800 voters per constituency. Because we have the present position where some constituencies have 16,000 voters and others have 8,700, it is clear that even with loading and unloading, unbalanced constituencies do come about. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to make a delimitation before the Provincial Council elections, which are to take place towards the end of next year or before the parliamentary general election, which if held when it should be held, will take place in 1966. If he makes the delimitation after the Provincial Council elections it will then mean that the members of the Provincial Councils who are elected will be elected on the basis of the old constituency, while the Members of Parliament who would have represented those same constituencies will represent different constituencies entirely.

What is the position now?

The position is now that both Members of Parliament and Provincial Council members have been elected according to the same delimitation. [Time limit.]

I wish to deal with another matter falling within the province of the Minister namely the Censor Board. I wish to refer to one case in particular. In terms of the Act the Censor Board has a direct injunction to determine under certain conditions whether or not to ban a film. If in the opinion of the Censor Board, which is representative of wide interests in the community, a film offends against the law they ban that film. As the Minister knows he recently exercised his prerogative. That prerogative has been exercised on very few occasions in the history of our country. The Minister has recently exercised that prerogative in regard to the film “Boccaccio 70 This film deals with a call-girl racket and at the same time the theme of the story is the offering of a woman in a lottery. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not personally expressing any views on that film whatsoever. But there are certain principles at stake. Firstly the film has been advertised as a banned film by the distributors. They also advertised the film as a film full of wit and sensuality.

I should like to ask the Minister a question because I think it is pertinent because this film is to-day being shown in South Africa on the sole decision of the Minister. I should like to know from the Minister what reasons the Censor Board gave for refusing to allow the film to be shown, which decision was overruled by the Minister. In releasing the film the Minister has exercised his discretion, he has used his judgment and he decided, against the opinion of the Censor Board, that the film could be shown with one or two minor cuts. I raise this matter because of the Bill recently introduced and passed by the House in terms of which a new Censor Board will be constituted. That board will have similar powers to the present board under existing legislation as far as the showing of films is concerned. Under the new Bill great play was made of the right of appeal to the courts against the decision of the Censor Board. The Minister has not got discretionary power under this new Bill. I know there are people who are offended by this film and I think because the Minister has exercised his discretion on this rare occasion he should state publicly what the reasons were which the Censor Board advanced for banning the film in the first instance and what the Minister’s reasons were for permitting a general showing of that film.

There is another aspect about the matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I believe that this film is being released by a company which has not long been in business called Ster Film Import. Can the Minister give us any occasion where a film has been released under ministerial edicts where application was made for such release by any of the old-established companies? Can the Minister give us the reason why this particular company has been granted this permission to show the film and to publicize it in the manner in which it has been publicized? I should also like to ask the hon. Minister if he can tell us who the directors of this company are. Did they apply to him personally for the release of this film? Did they make a special plea to the Minister to override the decision of the Censor Board? I think it is in the interests of the public that the Minister should give us a clear-cut reply to the questions I have put to him.

I just want to complete my argument in connection with delimitation. This is a matter of general importance and it is a matter which can have a fairly important influence on the Government of our country. I was saying that if delimitation does not take place before the provincial elections, it must in any case take place before 1967. It will have to take place before the next parliamentary election. We will then not have the position which we have at present where a Member of Parliament and a member of the Provincial Council represent the same constituency. [Interjections.] The position of the Free State and Natal is different. It is far easier if one has a member of the Provincial Council and a Member of Parliament representing the same constituency. In Natal and in the Free State it is a different matter. There we know that the constituencies are different; usually they do not have the same names. Personally I would like to see two members of the Provincial Council elected for every parliamentary constituency in those provinces. This will make things far easier for all political and election office purposes. It will however require legislation. Because of the fact that we already have this great discrepancy between the densely populated constituencies and the thinly populated constituencies I feel that we must have a delimitation as soon as possible, in any case, before the Provincial Council elections. If this happens, it will have to take place on the basis of the new registration.

The hon. member who spoke just before me asked about the Publications Control Board; when we would be given further information about that board and when the legislation which has already been passed will be implemented. I put a question to the hon. the Minister in the same connection but unfortunately the hon. the Minister avoided it. This Publications Board is a particularly important body. The time has come for it to be appointed so that it can gradually start building up a law of its own —if I may put it in this way—and try to formulate rules by means of which it will exercise control in the future and by means of which publications will be judged in the future. At the moment, the present Board of Censors is completely in the air. The members of that board do not know what is to become of them and whether the board will continue to function. The hon. the Minister did not reply to a question that I put to him in regard to the headquarters of this new Publications Control Board. The sooner finality is reached in regard to this matter, the better.

Mention has been made of the fact that the hon. the Minister who has the final say when an appeal is lodged in connection with films recently made use of this right to view a controversial film entitled “Boccaccio 70”, and that he and the hon. Deputy Minister of the Interior then decided—I think, together with the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town—to pass that film. I do not know what the reasons were for passing the film, but I want to express as my personal opinion the fact that I think that the hon. the Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister of the Interior acted correctly when they decided to pass that film with a few alterations. I think that this has given a little more encouragement to the film distribution industry in South Africa. In the past they showed signs of apathy simply because they fought shy of the Censorship Board. In this case, they plucked up their courage and lodged an appeal and a decision was taken in favour of a specific film. I hope that the film industry will have the courage of its convictions more often and that there will be more action of this nature taken in the case of films which do have a basic artistic value and which are rejected for some reason or other, films the artistic value of which is so great that appeals can be lodged and so that those films can then be passed.

They always have that right.

Yes, but in the past the position was that the film industry was so afraid of the Censorhip Board that they did not import a large number of films of a high artistic value into this country and submit them to the Censorship Board because they feared that the Censorship Board would reject those films and that because of that fact they would be saddled with a great deal of expense. I hope that the film industry will submit more films of this nature to the Censorship Board. Having said this, I want to express my disapproval of the decision that was taken to ban another film, a film which I believe has a high moral value. The film is called “Men from Brazil”, a film that was issued by the Moral Re-armament Organization and was shown to numbers of Members of Parliament who are present here this evening. For some obscure reason this film was rejected by the Censorship Board. I put a question to the hon. the Minister in this connection. His reply was that it was rejected because the board could not approve of any film which in its opinion presented in an objectionable manner (a) scenes dealing with polemic or international politics, or (b) scenes showing the mixing of Whites and non-Whites. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us or to ask the Censorship Board to explain to us where political scenes or scenes showing the mixing of Whites and non-Whies are shown in that film in an “objectionable manner”—these are the key words. I think that the hon. the Minister and the Censorship Board made a great mistake in banning that film of the Moral Rearmament Organization, and I hope that something can be done in this regard to make it possible for the film to be shown in South Africa.

There is another body which also deals with censorship and that is the Press Reference Board. A strong attack was recently made on this Press Board of Reference by no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister even said that other steps might have to be taken in connection with the censorship of newspapers. The hon. the Prime Minister was apparently very dissatisfied about a certain decision in connection with the Press Board of Reference in regard to an accusation against the Sunday Times. I am not quite as impartial in this matter as I would like to be because the charge that I made against the Transvaler through the Press Board of Reference was successful and the Transvaler was found guilty of having condensed certain reports in such a way as to give a completely false picture of a certain speech that was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But apart from that, I think that the fact that newspapers are exempted from the legislation that we adopted this year in connection with censorship is a very good thing and that it is therefore a good thing that the Press Board of Reference is being given the opportunity to show what it can really do. It is an independent body that has been set up by the Press Union, an independent body that can do good work in that way.

In the few minutes still available to me I want to mention another matter and that is the reception accorded the deputation of South African writers who came to see the hon. the Minister. About 130 writers and another 41 plastic artists were represented by the deputation which came to see him. That deputation asked him to give certain assurances in connection with the operation of the Publications and Entertainment Act which was passed recently. I do not want to say that the hon. the Minister was surly but he was very unaccommodating.

Hear, hear!

There we have confirmation of the fact that the hon. the Minister was disobliging, and apparently the hon. member approves of it.

I hope that he told them their fortunes!

I am sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister told those 130 writers their fortunes. Amongst them were some of our important leading writers and artists in Afrikaans culture and literature.

Most of them did not even know what it was all about.

Now the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) is accusing these leading writers of ignorance, and is expressing his pleasure at the fact that the hon. the Minister told them their fortunes which he said he hoped the hon. the Minister did. I think that it was quite wrong of the hon. the Minister not to be more amenable towards those writers and the deputation who came to see him in this connection.

What was their request?

I am sure that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) would under different circumstances, have asked to have been a member of the deputation which went to see the hon. the Minister in connection with the censorship of books and the manner in which that censorship is applied, particularly too with a view to our domestic literature in the future. [Time limit.]

I rise to reply to only one of the matters which have been raised here and that is the question of film censorship because this is one of the duties assigned to me by the Minister. I rise to discuss this matter in pursuance of the attack made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) on the passing of the film entitled “Boccaccio 70”. I want to start by saying that I appreciate the difference of opinion which exists, as manifested by the way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) supported the decision. Since the time 20 or 30 years ago when we sat together on the same school benches I have unfortunately not often had the opportunity of agreeing with him, but I do agree with him this evening in his condemnation of the views of the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. member for Turffontein said that certain principles were at stake and he put certain questions to us in regard to these principles. He wanted to know what the reasons were for the Censorship Board’s rejection of this film. He wanted to know what caused the Minister “to overrule” the decision of the Censorship Board. And then he also wanted to know who the Directors were of the drive-in theatres wanting to distribute this film. It appears to me that the last-mentioned question may perhaps form the basis of all the questions asked by the hon. member. As far as the principles are concerned about which the hon. member is so disturbed, I want to say that the principles in connection with film censorship are of course included in the Entertainment Censorship Act of which the hon. member is aware, the provisions of which were recently quoted extensively in this House— actually it was quoted ad nauseam. Section 45 (1) (2) lays down all the provisions and requirements for the passing of films. This section provides that no passionate love scenes shall appear in films. If the scenes are too passionate, the film is liable to be banned. Furthermore, the film as a whole must not be morally objectionable. Because the hon. member has asked these questions, I am prepared to give him details of the manner in which this film was passed. The Censorship Board viewed this film and on the grounds of the provisions in the Act that the film should not be morally objectionable and that it should not contain love scenes of a too passionate nature, the board felt that this film was offensive and on those grounds the board rejected the film entirely. If a film is rejected the distributors of the film have the opportunity of appealing if they are not satisfied either with the rejection or with the provisions dealing with the cutting of certain scenes which the Censorship Board will not allow to remain in the film. The distributors then appealed against this decision of the Censorship Board When this happened, the Department asked the Chier Magistrate of Cape Town to view the film and to give his opinion of it before the matter reached the Minister. This was done after the Censorship Board had rejected the film and after the distributors had lodged an appeal.

Did the Chief Magistrate view it alone?

The Chief Magistrate then submitted a report to me. Three reports were submitted to me, the report of the Censorship Board, the report of the appellant and the report of the Chief Magistrate, and all three reports differed. What was objectionable to the Censorship Board was not objectionable to the Chief Magistrate and vice versa. In the light of these divergent opinions, I felt that it would be a good thing if I were to view the film myself. I do not view all films because if I were to do so it would take up too much of my time. In most cases at least two of the reports agree but in this case the views expressed in all three reports differed from one another. I then went along to view the film and decided that with one or two small cuts, the film could be shown to White audiences over the age of 18 years. As far as the themes of the film were concerned I did not find the themes any more strange than the themes of numbers of other films that hon. members and I have already seen in this country, themes which I do not think it necessary to mention here. As far as the complaint of the Censorship Board is concerned that the film contained passionate love scenes, I think the only disappointing feature of the film is that there is so little in the way of passionate love scenes. Indeed, I have seen scenes in films based on Bible stories in which there have been far more passionate love scenes than in this film. Therefore, following the norm that I usually follow, I felt that this film could be passed with those few cuts. I do not believe that our norm should be one of excessive primness in judging films. But because I felt that a decision such as this which went against the Censorship Board—particularly in regard to the banning of a film starring famous actresses—could possibly have repercussions even in Turffontein, I though that it would be a good thing if I asked Minister de Klerk who had nothing to do with the matter because he had delegated it to me, to view the film with me. I felt that I would like another opinion. Minister de Klerk went with me and he agreed with me that the film could be passed with the exception of the few cuts that I have mentioned.

The fact that amazes me in connection with the raising of this matter by the hon. member for Turffontein is that during the recent debate on the Publications and Entertainment Bill he was one of the hon. members opposite who accused the hon. the Minister—indeed, the whole Government—of introducing that legislation to protect the prudes. He also accused us of wanting to smother art and of wanting to canalize everything in such a way that there would be no real freedom as far as the exhibition of art was concerned. One is surprised that this hon. member should come to light with this criticism and link it up with the question of who the directors of this distributing organization are. If the hon. member wants to know who the directors are, he can ask the same question in regard to any other film of any other company which may be treated in the same way in the future. What interests me and what I feel is my duty in judging a matter of this nature and in exercising my responsibility is not who the directors are of Fox or whatever the distributing organization may be, but whether that film that has been submitted to me for decision is really objectionable, morally objectionable to such an extent that something has to be done about it. I shall perform this duty without respect of persons, or without fear of any political criticism of the kind that I have just experienced. That is my duty and my task and I can only say that as far as my decision in this particular matter is concerned I do not have a guilty conscience at all.

I made it quite clear when I raised the matter that I did not want to express an opinion on the film. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that three different reports were received. He neglected to say what the opinions of the other two parties were although we know what the opinion of the Censorship Board was.

There was a difference of opinion and in saying this I think that I have said enough. I have the reports here but it is not my intention to read out the opinion of the Chief Magistrate or of the appellant or of the Censorship Board here. Hon. members must accept it when I say that there was a difference of opinion between those three parties and the difference of opinion was such that I as the person who had to make the final decision could not make that decision on the grounds of those three divergent opinions.

As I said just now, I have no opinion about the picture itself for the very good reason that I have not seen the picture. I do not know what the specific contents of the picture are or what it purports to depict. Why I raised it was because of the manner in which this film had publicly been presented. The hon. Minister says that he had three opinions. Let us face the facts. The first fact is that the Censor Board that is ordinarily charged with examining these films, did examine the film. Now the Censor Board was not one person, but it consists of at least 12 persons who sat and viewed the film and gave an opinion. What was their recommendation? In the Minister’s own words their recommendation was a total ban on the film, not even allowing the film with certain cuts. Now the Minister comes with a second opinion, namely the opinion of the appellants. Obviously the distributor has a favourable opinion about the film, and we do not have to consider that opinion. Then we have only one further piece of evidence, namely the opinion of the Chief Magistrate. The Minister says that he is not going to read it out. I ask the Minister to give us the views of the Chief Magistrate. The Minister thought he would go and look at it himself. He saw the film and after seeing the film he was still in doubt and wanted another opinion.

I was in no doubt about it at all.

Why then did he have to get the opinion of the Minister of the Interior if he was in no doubt? It is clear that it is not a film depicting a national issue, it is not an historical film, it is not a film dealing with matters of an educational nature in respect of which there may be a doubt whether it should be shown to the public because it is of a technical nature. No, this is purely a film on an entertainment basis, described by the distributor as a sensual film, one to depict the lower emotions. What does the word “sensual” mean? To whip up sensuality. What is more, it is advertised by the distributors as such. And the film itself in order to get a sort of Press for it, had to have a Press conference, and then it had to be advertised to the general public as a banned film. In other words the meaning is clear. This film depicts scenes which normally the cinema-goer would not be allowed to see because of the Act passed by this Parliament, but because the Minister has authority in the matter, on this occasion, for whatever reason he may have had, decided to permit the cinema-goers to view something that may be questionable. The film has been advertised as a questionable film without a shadow of a doubt, and whatever the Minister may say he cannot get past that simple fact. Now the Minister goes a little bit further in order to throw a red-herring across the trail. He says that the hon. member for Turffontein had a certain approach to the Publications Bill when that was under consideration. I want to refresh the hon. Minister’s memory that when these provisions were under consideration, especially this clause in the Entertainment and Publications Bill, certain amendments were moved, amendments which the hon. Minister refused point blank to accept. In fact he accepted not a single amendment from this side in order to relax the application of the Act; but the fact remains that in the whole history of our country there have been exceptions made only under most peculiar circumstances in regard to a film. I want to show the hon. Minister what actually happened in regard to the Censor Board in the past. A film such as “South Pacific”, which is known as a musical classic, was cut to ribbons and only certain scenes of that film were shown to the public of South Africa. There was an appeal then. Did the Minister uphold that appeal? No, he stood behind the Censor Board. What is the use of legislation of this nature if we are now going to have the moral standards of a Minister to decide what shall and what shall not be shown as far as films are concerned? I stand for the principle that was contained in the Bill and we supported it on this side of the House that this Parliament should lay down what may not be shown to the public of South Africa in clear categorical terms. But now we have got to hear from the hon. Minister that he, on the flimsy little evidence that he gave, decided that his moral standards in fact differ very widely from those of the Censor Board which, if the Minister had done his job properly, should be representative of the wide interests of the community as a whole. I repeat that I raised this issue for one reason only, namely for the manner in which this Bill has been publicized to the public of South Africa by virtue of its contents, and I am surprised that the hon. Minister has in regard to a matter of this nature to come with such a flimsy excuse, and that he adopts such an irresponsible approach in reply to the issue that I raised, I hope in a responsible manner.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked me whether we have dealt with the report in regard to the electoral legislation and particularly the postal votes, and whether I could indicate whether the Government is adopting this report. I want to begin by saying immediately that it is a very sound report and that I have to thank the hon. members on both sides who served on this commission and congratulate them on the thorough work they did. But the hon. members know that they also made very drastic suggestions. It is really something which affects every Member of Parliament. It is not a question of its affecting only the Minister and a few other people. I wonder whether, if we were to ask hon. members how many of them have made a thorough study of the report and know precisely what its implications are, how many of them could put up their hands and say they did. This is not a reflection on hon. members for not having done their duty, but I fear that very few of them would be able to put up their hands. It also contains many implications for the Department as such. A thorough study of it has already been made and the Department has submitted various matters to me, but the Cabinet has not yet expressed an opinion on these matters because I still differ from my Department in regard to certain matters. However, I want to give the assurance that in view of the fact that we do not really need this legislation before next year, and in view of the fact that we already have a heavy programme, legislation will definitely be introduced next year. As the provincial elections will be the first elections to be held under this revised system of postal votes and the other matters which will be applied, it is not necessary to introduce legislation now.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the general registration which is in hand and which will commence on 5 August. The question was whether we have enough machines to deal with this matter. I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the mechanization really applies to the duplication of the Voters’ Roll. The small amount of mechanization used in registration is not really relevant now, nor is it of any interest. In regard to the general registration, use will be made, as in the past, of persons outside the Department, not as the hon. member put it, of political parties, but of individuals who from the very nature of the matter of course belong to the various political parties. The Department will try as far as possible not to use these persons in the areas where they themselves are registered and where they are known to be United Party supporters or Nationalists, so that they will really be strangers who will have to help in other parts of the city where there can then be proper coordination. In that way these people will be able to do better work. We admit that hitherto surveys have to a large extent been incomplete. After the surveys have been made, the political parties usually have to work very hard to include on the lists additional people and those who have been omitted.

The hon. member asked what would happen if a person was not at home. If a person is not at home the canvasser will leave a card, with an envelope, with a request that this person should fill it in and send it on. The cards are torn out and have a counterfoil on which it will be noted that the card has been delivered at that address and it will also be numbered, so that there will be proper control, and if within a reasonable time the person has not yet replied to it we will even go so far as to visit him a second time. We cannot do more than once again write to this person and tell him to make use of the opportunity, because otherwise his name will not appear on the Voters’ Roll. Any political party which is keen to register votes cannot do more either. If the hon. member wants to advise us as to what more can be done, we will listen to him.

The hon. member also referred to the registration number and he asked whether the Department would require it from a person who does not have it. Hon. members know that we issued a proclamation to the effect that the use of the identity cards would be made compulsory from a certain date. We expect that by 5 August—I shall give more details in a moment in reply to the hon. member for South Coast—all identity cards should be in the possession of the persons who should have them. But I want to say that we expect them to have these cards and to use them, although it will not be a disqualification if a person at that moment does not happen to have his card with him. I hope, however, that our people will be so well disciplined that they will be in possession of their identity cards and appreciate the value of the cards by the time they come into full use.

The hon. member had much to say about the question of delimitation. We had a delimitation six years ago and the hon. member mentioned a few extreme cases of constituencies which were loaded particularly heavily, and he also mentioned a few where the number of voters was particularly low. The middle group, however, and that is the largest group, remains more or less as it was. After every five years delimitation the number of removals and the increase is such that one really cannot act according to the conditions for delimitation allowed by the Act, and everything one can advance as arguments to load or to unload certain constituencies. That is therefore a problem with which we are faced, but it is not such a terrible problem. If one considers the constituencies in the Republic and compares them with those of the United Kingdom, it appears that there they differ by hundreds of thousands of votes and the position is not as it is here, where the one has 8,000 and the other 16,000. It is not in the least the intention of the Government to change the loading or unloading by 15 per cent. If it were the intention to do so it could have been done in the constitution, but it is not the intention either to increase or to lower these percentages.

In so far as the date of delimitation is concerned, no decision has yet been taken, nor is it necessary to decide now. The provincial elections will only take place at the end of 1964, or maybe at the beginning of 1965. Nine months in which to arrange for a delimitation. In other words, we still have slightly less than two years in which to decide. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is here now. He raised the hardy annual of the Press Commission. When I took over the Press Commission I told the House what had been done. I am not able to write the report. I can only ask them what we can expect. On 15 November last year the chairman Of the Press Commission informed me that the second and final part of the report would be ready for final signature at the end of March or the beginning of April this year. On 9 April I wrote a letter to the chairman asking when I could expect it. In reply I received the following telex from the chairman of the Press Commission—

That is, to the end of June 1963—

That brings us to the middle of August. That is the latest information I have received from the chairman.

Is it 3,000 or 300,000 pages?

There are 300,000 pages to be dealt with. That includes all the copies of the report.

The second point raised by the hon. member for South Coast was in regard to the registers, the race classifications. I want to remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) put a question to me on 12 February 1963 and the first point he raised was—

That is more or less the same question which was asked by the hon. member. I shall read out only the relevant paragraph of my reply to that question—

So I was really surprised when the hon member raised the point to-night that there are still such “heartburn cases”. We are not as a Department aware of these cases. I have here a list of the people who objected to their classification, and this list contains nine people who are still awaiting the result of their appeal. It includes five Chinese, two Bantu and one Coloured. They are awaiting the outcome of their appeals. On the other hand, I have a list here showing what happened since Proclamation No. 268 of 1962 was issued. It reads as follows—

*I think it is just as well to give the list. There was a total of 485,900, Whites as well as Coloureds. There are still an additional 13,000 Asians. That is the total number of applications for the issue of identity cards. During the period from November 1962 to 2 May, of the almost 500,000 applications 285,200 were issued and there are still the following outstanding: Whites 16,300, Coloureds 141,400, and Asians 43,000, making a total of 200,700. We can issue approximately 22,000 a week; some weeks it is a little more and other weeks a little less. That means that in approximately 8,000 cases in respect of Whites and 40,000 cases of Asians the citizenship of the applicants still has to be determined before the identity cards can be issued to them. Of the applications in respect of Coloureds approximately 71,000 cases have already been classified and are waiting to be dealt with further. The work in the Registration, where the post is received, is up to date, and the work in the Machine Room is dealt with as it comes in, and the position is normal. Here there are approximately 2,000 cases on hand. But now I just want to say that since the institution of the population register and up to 2 May 1963, 3,258,794 identity cards have been issued, as follows: Whites 2,282,254; Coloureds 777,245, and Asians 199,295. I therefore want to say that the position is quite normal, and that the problems the hon. member has in connection with the borderline cases— or the “heartburn cases”—do not really exist. On the contrary, I suppose the hon. member has, like all of us, read what Mr. Golding said the other day when he expressed his objections. He said he objected because too many of these people were classified as White. As a Coloured he objected to the fact that they were treated too mercifully. But the hon. member for South Coast complains about it. I gave instructions to my Department to investigate Mr. Golding’s complaints. It now appears that all these wild stories we had when the Act was passed last year are untrue. I do not know whether hon. members are sorry to hear it, but we have no difficulties. The investigations which take place are all done simply according to the appearance of the person. But now I want to tell the hon. member something else. I do not want to mention names but there are two supporters of his party sitting in the benches over there from whom I have had two different statements in regard to one family. The one Member of Parliament declared that these persons were definitely Coloured, while the other said that as far as he could ascertain they are accepted as Whites. Here two members of this House differ from each other. Can the hon. member for South Coast now understand what the difficulties are?

That just proves my case.

No, the hon. member has proved nothing. On the contrary. I do not know whether the hon. member can mention specific cases. I challenge him and any other hon. member opposite to mention a case which was brought to the notice of my Department and where the person properly lodged his objections and proper investigation was made and where justice was not done to that person. Do not let us just talk theoretically. Bring me the cases. Any hon. member opposite who has had to deal with the matter, and particularly in the Peninsula, will give evidence that they were treated in the most conciliatory manner, not only by the Department but also by myself. The following are the instructions I issued on 20 June 1962 when the new Act was promulgated. These are the instructions I issued to the secretary of the Interior in regard to the application of this Act about which such a fuss was made. I will read them—

1. (1) where a person claims that he usually passes as a White, he must adduce proof not only that he is treated as a White but that he is generally accepted as being a member of the racial group to which he alleges he belongs: There must be proof that, possibly through a process of evolution, he has finally broken with the Coloured community;

That is precisely what the hon. member for South Coast said should be done—

1. (2) the phrase “and who is not in appearance obviously not a White” in paragraph (b) of the definition of the word “White” should be interpreted as “is obviously a Coloured or a Native”;
2. (3) under no circumstances, however, should investigations be made as to the descent of a person, unless the person admits that he is a Coloured or a Native and he obviously is not, and then also only if we want to prove that he is not what he admits he is;
3. (4) Persons already classified should not, in the light of the new definition of the word “White”, be reclassified by you on your own initiative. It should be left to the public either formally in terms of Section 11 of the Act to object to the existing classification, or on its own initiative to provide proof that the person was wrongly classified. Only in the last case should a reclassification of the person be considered in terms of the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Act;
4. (5) the proof of being “generally accepted” should be tightened up and persons who are not satisfied with their classification should adduce evidence to enable you to determine the person’s racial group. This evidence should be obtained by way of questionnaires;

I referred a moment ago to the questionnaires and how they sometimes differ, and how confused the poor person is who has to make the classification. And, finally—

1. (6) In applying the provisions of the Act you should act humanely, and if, after all the evidence has been adduced, there is still a measure of doubt, the person should receive the benefit of the doubt.

That is precisely what the hon. member for South Coast asked for, and now I want to ask that we should leave this point, or else let us adduce clear proof that these people were not humanely treated and did not receive the benefit of the doubt. Then I will be satisfied to discuss the matter with hon. members again.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has been fully replied to by my Deputy Minister. I just want to tell the hon. member this. If he compares the speech he made tonight with the one he made in this House last year, I think he will ask his wife: Is it the same man who spoke here, or did they put the name of the wrong member on this speech? What was done here is nothing unusual. The hon. member advocated, together with this side of the House, what the film companies wanted to have, viz. that the final decision on appeal should rest with the Minister, and what sort of argument is this that the hon. member now advances that history is being made by the Censor Board’s decision being upset by the Minister? Then what is the meaning of the word “appeal”? Do the words “final appeal to the Minister” not mean that he has the right to decide that he does not agree with the opinion of the Censor Board? Surely that is why it is there. Or should the Deputy Minister to whom I delegated it be a rubber-stamp and simply say “Yes”? What would the appeal amount to then? I just want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that in any case he has made history here to-night by judging a matter on its merits, and I want to thank him for it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that it was time we knew more about the Publications Board. The Committee will remember that I was very insistent that it should be a high-standing board. I was laughed at, and I am still being laughed at because it was said that I would not manage to get such a board. I want to admit frankly that although I have no trouble in finding suitable people, all the best ones are in permanent positions. But I have succeeded in the first place in obtaining a chairman. He is a man who studied in South Africa at the old Transvaal University College, where in 1919 he obtained the M.A. degree in modern languages with honours, and after having served for a year as a lecturer at his Alma Mater he went to Amsterdam, in Holland, at the end of 1920. where he studied Nederlands and literature. He also devoted much time to the graphic arts, and with this object in view undertook lengthy journeys in Belgium. France, Germany, Austria and Italy. In 1925 he was appointed as lecturer in Nederlands and the Afrikaans language and literature at the Potchefstroom University for Christian National Education. In 1926 he graduated in Amsterdam and obtained the D.Litt. et Phil, with his thesis on “The Influence of Keats and Shelley in Holland During the Nineteenth Century ”—cum laude. This thesis is still regarded as a standard work on the subject. After his return Dr. Dekker—that is his name —regularly wrote critiques and essays on Afrikaans, Nederlands and foreign literature and became a prominent critic. He also published numerous Nederlands classics in anthologies for South African students. He was closely associated as a reviser with the Afrikaans versification of the Psalms and also with the revision of the Afrikaans Bible. Since 1940 he has been teaching the history of art at the Potchefstroom University for Christian National Education. In 1952 he undertook a study tour of eight months on a stipend from the Council for Social Sciences in order to make a particular study of the latest developments in the graphic arts. For that purpose he stayed in Paris for about three months and also visited Holland, England, Belgium and Italy. In 1958 he visited the Netherlands universities to give lectures, under the cultural agreement with Holland. He also visited Spain for six weeks in order to study Spanish art. In 1960-1 he lectured for three months at the Free University of Amsterdam. He is a member of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns and serves on its various Committees for Literature and Art. He is a member of the Nederlandse Maatskappy voor Taal en Letteren at Leiden. He is also a member of the Suid-Nederlandse Maatskappy voor Taal en Letteren. He served on the various committees for the judging of works of art. Of his numerous publications only the following need be mentioned: (1) His treatise on the influence of Keats and Shelley in Holland; (2) a volume of thoughts and criticisms; (3) the Afrikaanse Psalmberyming; (4) impressionism in Netherlands literature; (5) the seventh edition has been printed of his “Afrikaanse Letterkunde”; (6) translations of romances from the French and Ancient Nordic. For 12 years he was a member of the Joint Matriculation Board. He also served on the Transvaal Board of Moderators for examinations of the secondary schools, and is chairman of the Book Committees for Afrikaans and French and a member of the Book Committee for English. He is also a member of the Selection Committee appointed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, for the selection of works of art, for the Biennales of Venice and of Sao Paolo.

I have mentioned this because I want to inform the House and the entire Republic that we were able to secure the services of such a prominent person as Dr. G Dekker as Chairman of this Board. [Hear, hear!] I want to give the assurance that it was not easy as the result of all the prejudice engendered by certain persons. But I am convinced that the artists in the Republic of South Africa will have so much confidence in this Board, with this man at the head of it, that I will have no further difficulty in obtaining the best people to serve on this Publications Board. Apart from this, the position is that this board can start functioning at the earliest on 1 September this year. The regulations which have to be framed and all the other work that has to be done will certainly not permit of our appointing this new board before 1 September. In the meantime the present board will function until such time as the new board takes over. I think I have now replied sufficiently to the hon. member. We are busy dealing with the matter and I can give the assurance that this board which I have in mind has now become a reality to me, and I have received the assurance of the most prominent artists in the graphic arts and literatures as well as critics, that with Dr. G. Dekker as chairman we need have no fears, and all these scare stories will disappear like dew before the sun. I hope that not a single hon. member opposite will be so foolish as to try to disparage the person who holds this high post. Should anyone try to do so, he will get his just desserts.

The hon. member again came along with information—and I do not know where he got it from—that when these authors handed me their protest I gave them a poor reception and that I had to give them certain assurances and that I was abrupt and unconciliatory. Those are the words the hon. member used. I do not know where the hon. member gets that from, but this manifesto was handed to me by two persons, Mr. W. A. de Klerk and Miss Reynolds. I immediately asked these two persons what their object was, and Mr. de Klerk stated: “We are handing it to you in all courtesy and we are immediately warning you that we are now going to hand it to the Press; we did not want you to read it in the Press before we had given it to you personally.” I remarked that under the circumstances I supposed they did not expect any comment from me, to which Mr. W. A. de Klerk replied: None at all. I read the six points contained in the manifesto and we had a very friendly conversation. The hon. member got hold of certain information which he sucked out somewhere, but he is of course a past master at ferreting out information the source of which one does not know. I wish the hon. member would stop sowing this suspicion. In fact this manifesto is such that the first five points of it contain their objections, whilst the final point eliminates all their objections. Now the Act is there and we must obey it. I can just assure the hon. member that I have never in the least blamed any of the authors who signed it. I refrained from making any comment in the Press, and I still refrain from doing so. I do not know what the hon. member hopes to achieve by sowing this suspicion, and whom he thinks he is serving, but I do not blame these authors for a moment for having voiced their opinions. I also want to tell the hon. member that we will get the co-operation of those writers, and I am quite convinced that when this board is appointed the persons who signed this manifesto will yet take their seats on the board of control. The hon. member may be assured that they will not listen to him, but they will judge the matter on its merits. I think these are the main points on which I had to reply.

I should like to come back to the question of race classification. When the Minister read out his instructions to his officials, I felt that there could be no exception taken to them whatever because they were fair, generous and sympathetic. Quite frankly, I must say that in all my experience—and I have had a great deal of contact with the officials—they have been most courteous and sympathetic in every single case, just as the hon. member for South Coast said. I would like to say, however, that I was deeply touched by the plea made by the hon. member for South Coast. The Minister referred to these “heartburn cases” and he said there were only about nine still awaiting decision. There are many borderline cases which have been turned down but who in their hearts feel strongly that they should not have been turned down, and that their background is such that they should have been accepted as Whites.

There might be only nine outstanding cases but there are many whom the decision has gone against …

These nine cases are cases where an appeal has been lodged. In addition, there are other cases which the Department is still handling.

I did not follow the hon. the Minister correctly then in the first instance. I have seen many of these cases. Living in a constituency in the Cape Peninsula, one comes across such cases perhaps more than anywhere else. I have then come across many of them who come and see me as their public representative. In the last week I have seen one particularly pathetic case. It was a woman who was turned down. She then came to see me and brought with her a charming young man, an immigrant from Central Europe, who was anxious to become engaged to her. But there it was: There was no future for them because she had been turned down. From what she told me and from the information she gave me it appeared that up to that time she had always been accepted as a White —where she was working, where she was at school and by her clergyman. But, for reasons which were not stated, the Department turned her down. Quite frankly, one could see that there was a touch of colour. I want to be perfectly frank about this, but no more than one sees frequently who have the White status. But nevertheless she said that for her whole life up to now she had been associating with Whites and consequently under the Minister’s instructions she could have been regarded as White and be allowed to cross the border.

I felt extremely sorry for this woman because she has no future now at all. She is now to go back to people with whom she never really associated. I am not interested in Mr. Golding’s views. Every man is entitled to his own views. Although I have the utmost respect for Mr. Golding, but if he is talking about the borderline cases and objects where people want to get back to those people with whom they have been associating for a long time, then I am afraid I do not agree with him. I am speaking from my own experience. The hon. the Minister pointed to this side of the House and said that from two hon. members of this side two different opinions had come. That is quite possible without it making any real difference in the ultimate result. One, when he saw the person for the first time, thought there was a dash of colour while the other one could have known that for the entire life of that person that person had been accepted as a White. It is perfectly understandable that two such views could have been formed without them being contradictory to one another. Under the Minister’s instructions a person who has been associating with Whites could be allowed to be classified as a White.

In the case about which I was talking just now, the trouble was started by a birth or marriage certificate which showed that one of the grandparents had been of mixed blood. From that the whole trouble started. I wish the hon. the Minister could for a short time be a member of a Peninsula constituency so that he could see the tragedies which go on here. People with a dash of colour have become so intermixed socially and in every way with the Whites that they have come to be accepted as Whites. I wonder whether the Minister realizes the heartburn and the misery and the pathetic cases which come to the notice of members of Parliament for this area practically every week. It seems to me a ghastly thing that people’s lives should be ruined and made miserable because of this fact that they are neither one nor the other—they are not accepted by the people with whom they have been classified and they are not allowed to associate with the people with whom they have associated such a long time. How many people do we not know in every walk of life, in every profession and at every social meeting who, although they have a dash of colour, have been associating with Whites all their lives. Everyone of us knows of people like that. These managed to get across the border because they were lucky. In many cases they show their background more distinctly than in cases which have been turned down.

I feel more sympathy should be given to these people. For heaven’s sake where there is a doubt, let them come under the people with whom they wish to be and with whom they have associated with and with whom their future lies. There can be no more cruel thing than to turn such a person down. Consequently I should like to support the appeal made here by my hon. friend the member for Natal (South Coast). Many of these people come to their Member of Parliament for a letter. Of course one cannot give them such a letter if you are not acquainted with their background. You can only investigate it and ask other people about it but you cannot honestly say that you have known them for a sufficient length of time to be able to say that they should be accepted as Whites. I have come across case after case where I have felt that people should have been allowed to cross the border. We are creating a bitterness and a misery which is unbelievable. Sooner or later these people looking across the fence will see that their own sisters in some cases and their own family enjoy the privileges of a White while they are on the wrong side of the fence, will turn against us and may very well cause severe trouble in this country.

We should all be cautious to prevent that.

Of course we should be cautious but when we realize really how mixed the country is …

What else do you want the Department to do?

When there is any doubt about a case, let us give that doubt in favour of the individual involved.

But that is what we are doing.

But I have just given the hon. the Minister one case which has come to my notice. I have myself seen the person concerned. It is pathetic. I know, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot criticize the legislation that lays this down because if I do you will immediately call me to order but there it is. A dreadful thing has been done and a lot of misery has been caused. This legislation, as we warned at the time, has caused more misery than probably any in our history.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said that the hon. member for Turffontein had been replied to fully by the Deputy Minister of the Interior. But he ventured rather coyly. I think—one comment on “Boccaccio 70”. This film is the subject of our discussion to-night in relation to the workings of the Censor Board. What puzzles me is that the Minister raises this question of his right to reverse the decision of the Board, as if anyone on this side of the House had questioned that right. Obviously, Sir, that is sidestepping the issue, because naturally the Minister has the right. One knows that and one accepts that. One is, however, still entitled to examine the circumstances under which that, one might almost say, royal prerogative—because one can go no higher in regard to the banning of a film—was exercised in regard to a particular film. I want to say that South Africa has the distinction of being the only country or certainly one of the few countries in the world where the film “Battleship Potemkin” was banned. This film was hailed as a masterpiece, of photography and of other things. It was the story of a battleship. There were, therefore, no busts, no nudes and no sex. And yet it was banned! Another film which was banned here was “Inherit the Wind”. I have drawn the Minister’s attention to this before to-day. This, too, was a film which had no sex or love scenes whatsoever, but merely the history of a trial in Tennessee in the 1920’s, arising from the fact that a young teacher by the name of Scopes chose, against the State law, to teach his pupils the Darwinian theory of evolution. This was shown here as a stage play and was very successful. Not a second of time was devoted to love or sex. But yet the film was banned. Then there is the film “A Taste of Honey” which was also shown here as a stage play. Nobody complained about it; it was very popular, and won certain awards as a film. Yet it was banned, too!

Now, in a country having this distinction, one wonders why the film described as Boccaccio 70 has been released for public exhibition in this country. Here, for instance, is the advertisement of this film in the Rand Daily Mail. It quotes the critic of the film as having described it as “sopping with sex, enough sin and cynicism, sex and suggestion … to make this a star essay in modern sophistication ”.

And yet the Minister saw nothing wrong in it!

Here I have another advertisement which is a very expensive one, because it covered a quarter page of the Sunday Times. The captions of this advertisement are—

Nineteen shows per week are being given in each cinema! One of the extraordinary things is that this film is now given the “roadshow” treatment, requiring the reader of the newspaper to fill in a coupon in which he has to indicate how many seats he requires, on which date he wants to attend, etc. And the prices in the Capri, for instance, are: evenings. R1.26, 93c and 66c.

Do you want us to control that?

Of course you are responsible for that.

Last week I asked the question whether there was any form of control over the prices of admission to cinemas in South Africa. I was then told by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs that there was no such control. Of course there is no such control. In this Capri cinema, which has been open now for about three to four months and which is a converted auction mart, a barn— not a 2,000-seat theatre costing R600.000 to build—a top price of R1.26 is being charged for a film which normally would not get more than 51c in a cinema like the Colosseum of Johannesburg. Now, who is the monkey in this deal? Who made the market for this film?

By continuing this discussion you are creating greater demands for this film. You are acting as its publicity agent.

Unfortunately, Sir, the market is established already—before I entered this discussion. I have another advertisement here, namely in the Burger, which is known as a conservative newspaper, and which has often criticized this side of the House for our criticism of the Government’s policy in regard to the control of morals. The Burger took the unprecendented step of giving “Boccaccio 70” front-page treatment. A review of that film is given on the front page. You have never before seen this in your life in South Africa! And what is more significant, on the date of this issue, i.e. 10 May the posters of the Burger had the words “Boccaccio 70” on them—world news!

Now, Sir, one asks oneself how is it that this rather insignificant film—from the artistic point of view—not from the sex-selling point of view—gets this wonderful treatment? The name of the company which imported this film and is showing it is given as “Ster” Film-Import. Truly, Sir, this company was born under a lucky star! Here you have the position where a market was created firstly, by the banning of the film, and then by its un-banning—if I may use that word—and all the private screenings in between which were all publicized in the Press: First the Board saw it, then the magistrate saw it, and the Deputy Minister saw it—and the Deputy Minister then took the matter to the Minister, who has said to-night that he was too busy to supervise the Censor Board, and had therefore delegated his duties to the Deputy Minister.

You are acting as its publicity agent.

The distributors and exhibitors of this film, Sir, do not need me as their publicity agent. Circumstances have created a market for this film which I can assure the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister has never been seen in the history of the film business of South Africa. Let me give you another example of this. Cape Town is believed to be a very conservative city as regards admission prices to cinemas. Nevertheless you find that in a cinema on the Foreshore the top admission price is R1.05. Here again the public are being asked to fill in a coupon, return it with the necessary money—and if they are lucky, they will be accommodated on those dates they have selected to see the film!

This, I think, requires a little explanation. As far as the public is concerned, there is more in this situation than meets the eye. The hon. the Minister, I think, should, far from relying on the rather tenuous explanation or answer given by the hon. Deputy Minister to the hon. member for Turffontein, stand up in this House and give a full explanation as to how it was possible for a situation to be created in which an obscure film which does nothing more, according to its own promoters, than to sell sex, managed to find this market. The article in the Burger about this film said, inter alia, about one of the women in the film—“sy is skatryk en van die adelstand, en gaan ’n weddenskap met haar vader aan dat sy wel ’n bestaan kan maak deur self te werk. Sy word ’n foonsnol en haar eerste ‘klant ’ is haar eie man! Maar die hantering van die situasie bly smaakvol…” Can you imagine it, Sir! A situation in which a call-girl sets herself up in business, her husband fortuituously turns up as her first client —but the situation, according to the Burger, is “tastefully” handled! I have never read such nonsense in my life, in any newspaper. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that this description of one of the three cameos in the film takes some beating as an attempt to publicize a film. This may be due to the fact that in the first place, apparently, the film should never have been banned. I must assume that if the Minister had been sitting on the Board of Censors in the first place, he would have passed the film. Then the position would have been very different. The film would then have been shown at a top price in the largest cinemas of 51c and not R1.26, and the public would not have been mulcted of a high premium in regard to this film on account of an “artistic” merit which is not inherent in the film, but which has been bestowed upon it by the Board of Censors, resulting in a 150 per cent increase in the admission prices.

Who is the company involved?

The company concerned is the Ster Film Import. According to the report of the Norval Commission dated December 1961 into the film industry, the forerunner of this company was the Film Import Ko-op. Beperk. It started in 1958 but apparently did not get very far. It was then converted into Ster Film Import which is now from three to four years old. In its effort to get what the Americans call “the product”, the goods to sell, it has obviously had some difficulty in competing with the older-established film distributors in this country. In one fell swoop, however, the antics of the Board of Censors, apparently assisted thereto by the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister, have created an interest in a film which has resulted in a particular company being able to establish for itself a “nest egg” which is unprecedented in the film industry in this country. The hon. the Minister owes this House, as well as the public, an explanation in this regard.

I do not want to follow the discussion in connection with race classification because it is clear that there is a fundamental difference. We on this side of the House feel that lives are unnecessarily ruined and that families are broken up. Consequently it will serve no purpose to try to find common ground between the two sides of the House as far as this matter is concerned.

It was interesting to listen to the hon. the Minister’s announcement as to who the chairman is going to be of the new Publication Board. I do not want to comment on the suitability of Dr. Dekker for this specific post but I think the Minister announced it in a very peculiar manner. He said that all the best people were busy people but that he had nevertheless succeeded in getting a chairman. Well, that is a very peculiar way of putting it, namely, to say that he could not get the best people but that he did eventually, after a struggle …

I did not say that I could not find the best people.

Then the Minister created the impression.

Your impressions are always wrong.

The impression which the hon. the Minister created in this connection was an unfortunate one. I think this Committee is so shocked about the further 300,000 pages which still have to come from the Press Commission that it would be better if we returned to a lighter subject such as Boccaccio.

The hon. the Minister knows that I do not hide the fact that I am a critic of the Censor Board and because the hon. the Minister appoints this Censor Board I could unfortunately not allow him to get off scott free. Apart from that I am not one of those who favour a thank-the-Minister speech. However, as far as this particular film is concerned I do not hesitate to say this evening that I thank the Minister for his decision. This is not a party political matter. The hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Hospital apparently feel that there has been favouritism. Whether or not that is the case is a matter for the Minister to settle with them. As far as I am concerned I want to thank the Minister for having given the decision which he did give. I have not yet seen the picture but I am going to see it. The Press was, however, unanimous in saying that the film does not deserve the label of “shocking”. Dr. W. E. G. Louw has written an article in connection with this matter in which he says that the Censor Board can learn a lesson from the history of this film. He says—

Then he goes on to describe the film as “remarkable, in one word”. He then expresses concern at the thought of what the power of censorship can bungle if it is exercised “without discernment” and he adds—

That is why I say “thank you” to the Minister for his decision. I am not saying that because it is essential for us to see Boccaccio but because this side has consistently maintained that the Censor Board was too narrow minded in its judgment, not only of films, but also of books. The fact that the hon. the Minister reversed the decision of the Censor Board and that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Censor Board had said there was too much passion in the film whereas he found too little in it, is, I think the best proof that this side was right in our judgment when we said that the Censor Board was too narrow-minded in the way it handled matters. I look upon the action of the hon. the Minister as a motion of no-confidence in the Censor Board and that he subscribes to the attitude which this side has consistently adopted. I do not want to create the impression that I am against the members of the Censor Board. On the contrary. They are honourable people and those whom I know are an asset to our society. I also think that when they decide to ban a film or whatever it may be their motives are good. Perhaps their peculiar action can be attributed to the fact that so many of them are teachers. The hon. the Minister was also a teacher but he has already been in contact with the hard realities of life for a long time. Teachers are dedicated people and I have a very high regard for them. However, because they are dedicated people the thing uppermost in their mind is always the child, and I sometimes wonder whether they are not over influenced in their judgment by the fact that they always view things from the point of view of what is in the interest of the child and that they forget that to most adults, particularly married people, a somewhat daring scene here and there, is nothing funny at all.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Orange Grove when he objected to the banning of the documentary film “Men of Brazil Many members on this side have seen that film. It is a documentary film and it deals with the struggle between the dock workers in Brazil and communist influences. The whole theme of the film is elevating. Obviously this film depicts life as it really is in Brazil. And because Brazil has an equal variety of colour groups as South Africa you see life as it really is there and to a great extent as it is in South Africa as well. Nowhere in the film is there any suggestion of depicting or propagating miscegenation as such.

I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to lay down a norm in this connection otherwise where will it end? Take Cape Town—its docks, its streets, its shops— where the colour groups are working together everywhere. South Africa is a multi-racial country and if you want to make a documentary film of South Africa, if it is to be correct, you will have to depict the life of all racial groups, as is done in “Men of Brazil”, I think the banning of this film is stupid. I regard the decision of the Minister in the case of the film “Boccaccio 70” as a ray of light, whether there were any ulterior motives or not. I have recommended to the producers of “Men of Brazil” to lodge an appeal and to resubmit their case to the Minister. I think it is time the Censor Board stopped treating the general public like children. Surely we are sufficiently mature. We know what is happening in other countries because thousands of our people travel overseas and see life as it is in other countries. I think, therefore, that it is unnecessary for us to close our eyes to the facts of life as they manifest themselves in other countries. I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he does receive an appeal from the producers of this film, to give it the same attention which he gave “Boccaccio 70” and to give a decision in the same spirit as far as it is concerned.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) suggested that the Board of Censors treated adults like children. I want to remind him that the Board of Censors as it exists now was not set up in terms of an Act of this Government, but in terms of an Act of the previous Government.

But the members of the Board were appointed by this Government.

That makes no difference.

Of course, it makes a difference.

Very well, if it makes so much difference will the hon. member tell us whether he knows the name of the book classic that was banned by Senator Clarkson when he was still Minister of the Interior? Does he know about that book, a well-known classic? So I shall pay no attention to the childishness of that hon. member. I want now to come back to the question of “Boccaccio 70”. I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to have the courage of their convictions and tell us what their accusation against the hon. the Minister is. The hon. member for Bezuidenhouťs view of the attitude of these two hon. members is that a certain amount of favouritism was shown in regard to this film. Indeed, his words were “there was favouritism”. He said that this was his impression of the attitude of the hon. member for Turffontein and of the hon. member for Hospital. I challenge the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Hospital to tell us precisely what their accusation is against the hon. Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister. Why are they being accused? One cannot but conclude that they are accusing the hon. the Minister of having virtually conspired with the Board of Censors to give publicity to this film.

You are saying so, not I.

The hon. member does not want to say so because he does not have the courage to make that accusation. The impression that he created here was that this was not a film of the Schlesinger Organization, but that it was a film which was imported by a person whom he considers to be a friend of the Minister; that the Minister and the Deputy Minister therefore conspired with the Board of Censors to have the film rejected by the Board in the first instance so that the film could be given publicity. They would then ask the magistrate to view it and give the necessary additional publicity to it. They would then ask the Deputy Minister to view it so that more publicity would be given to the film. They would then ask the Minister to view it and then the Minister would pass the film. The impression created by the hon. member here was that this whole process took place with the exclusive idea of giving publicity to this film.

I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Hospital that is only a person with a mean disposition who would do something of this nature.

Order! The hon. member is now going very far.

Why do they not come right out with an accusation of that nature? Why do they not move a substantive motion against the Minister and the Deputy Minister? What are these hon. members trying to do here? Why are they asking these questions? What is the purpose of their questions? This is surely not the only film that has been banned by the Board of Censors, nor is it the only film that has ever been passed by the Minister. Why do they not ask who the owners and the importers of this picture are? Why do they not ask who the directors of the company are? They ask these questions with the express puropse of insinuating that this whole process took place simply in order to benefit a member on this side of the House.

I mentioned no names.

The hon. member is too cowardly to mention names. I say that this is a shocking business. What have the directors of the company to do with the merits of the film? What difference does it make who the importers of this film are? What has this to do with the merits of the film? Can the hon. member for Turffontein tell me what it has to do with the merits of the film? What else can be behind these questions than that the Minister abused his powers in this regard? If the hon. Minister did abuse his powers, why do those two courageous hon. members not have the courage to tell us precisely what they mean?

What happened here was no different to what usually happens in these cases. I remember that a few years ago the Board of Censors banned a film entitled “Ohm Kruger”. At that time the present Minister of Finance was Minister of the Interior. An appeal was lodged with him and he upheld the decision of the Board of Censors. I saw that film myself and I could not understand why the hon. the Minister had upheld the decision of the Board of Censors in regard to that film. I could not understand why he had not released the film. But that film was also imported by a company with predominantly Afrikaans interests. When this happens all this suspicion has to be created. The entire speech of the hon. member for Hospital was based on the suggestion that this entire process was nothing less than a build-up of publicity for this film. He ought to be ashamed of himself. I have never seen a more shocking exhibition, Mr. Chairman. Let the hon. member for Hospital tell us what his argument was.

I shall if you will sit down.

Does he suggest that there was a conspiracy between the hon. the Minister and the Board of Censors? What else has the hon. member done but lend publicity to this film? I went to see the film and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister. It is one of the best films that I have ever seen in my life. There we had Anita Ekberg, a lovely woman with a most ample bosom—larger, Mr. Chairman, than the mind of the hon. member for Turffontein; no, now I am insulting the poor woman. I say that her bosom was larger than his conceit, and now I may be flattering her! It is a shocking thing to suggest that favouritism was shown just because the film was imported by people whom those hon. members think may possibly be friends of the hon. the Minister. I challenge those two hon. members to stand up and tell us precisely what their accusation is against the hon. the Minister and what their accusation is against the Board of Censors.

It is very difficult to imagine, when you raise issues in this House which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) debates, that you are in the Houses of Parliament. You rather think that you are in somebody’s backyard to judge from the insulting and personal observations which that hon. member makes here. One shudders to think that some of his observations are recorded in Hansard and that posterity will view that as the standard of the debate in 1963.

If I remember correctly the hon. member was not even in the House when I spoke first on this matter. The point at issue when I raised the matter originally was the manner in which this film had been publicized. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has very graphically pointed some of these advertisements out. It is quite clear that this film has been publicized to create the impression that the film contains scenes which are of a sizzling, sensual, sexy nature. In other words the film has scenes which the public would not normally see. That was the issue which I raised across the floor of the House in the first instance with the hon. the Minister. That was why I asked the Minister the specific question on what grounds did the Censor Board ban the film. The Minister said that the Censor Board acted in terms of two provisions of the existing Censor Act, the first provision being Section 5 (2) (e) which refers to passionate love scenes and Section 9 (1) (c) which refers to the public interest and good morals. But there is a proviso to these provisions, Sir. The qualification is this—

When the Board banned this film there was no qualification attached to that banning because in the opinion of the board passionate love scenes were depicted in an offensive manner. The Minister then received an appeal from an appellant. The Minister had refused to give us the name of the appellant. He said that the appellant’s view was that the film was not offensive and could not offend public morals. The Minister said that was one of the reasons cited by the appellant why the film should be released. Then the Minister used another criteria, namely the report of the magistrate. He says they were at variance with one another. Why did the hon. the Minister not tell us what the Chief Magistrate for Cape Town had to say about this film and the scenes in it? The Censor Board does not consist of one or two men; it is a wide body of men. They act not on ministerial injunction but on an injunction given by this House. When we discussed the Publications Bill the other day there was no difference of opinion between this side and that side when it came to the question of the prepublication censorship of films. I ask the Minister to tell us who that appellant is whom he uses as evidence and will he also tell us what the opinion was of the magistrate. The fact cannot be escaped, Sir, that the company has exploited a certain atmosphere surrounding the film, an atmosphere which has been created by word and gesture of the Minister alone. I am prepared to admit that the Minister’s views in regard to sizzling, sexy sensuality may differ from those of the hon. member for Vereeniging or the hon. member for Hospital. It is quite clear that the Minister’s standards of sizzling, sexy sensuality are at complete variance with those of the Censor Board and possibly at variance with the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town. We do not know; we should like to know from the hon. the Minister. Another fact emerges namely that the Deputy Minister, after seeing the picture, still has doubts; he said he did not know whether those standards were acceptable to the public and that he consulted the Minister. So the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister had another look at the film. The Minister saw this sizzling, sexy film and said: “I accept those standards; I like it; I am enjoying what I am seeing.” In other words the criterion as to what was offensive in a passionate love scene varied between the Minister and the Censor Board. The Minister found the passionate love scenes in this film tame; they were not even rich! I can tell the Minister that those scenes have been found offensive by a large number of people. I have not seen it.

Are you going to see it?

I am not in the fortunate position of those gentlemen who arranged a Press conference for this picture and invited other dignitaries to come and have a preview. The hon. member for Vereeniging says he has seen it; he was probably one of those who were invited.

I do not sneak a seat; I pay for it myself.

He enjoyed it; he probably found it tamer than he expected and he probably thought the public had been sold a pup. The interesting point in this discussion has come from the hon. member for Vereeniging. I mentioned no names here, Sir. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) mentioned no names. The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about a friend sitting on the Nationalist Party benches. Why did he not name him?

You have not got the guts to mention any names.

You see, Sir, that is the sort of thing you have to put up with in a discussion of this nature. We have not been given the facts; we have not been given the Minister’s views, we have not been given the opinion of the Censor Board nor the opinion of the Chief Magistrate and we have not been given the opinion of the appellant. He made the appeal to the Minister so his views must have been quite all right. Why cannot we have the benefit of the views of the hon. the Deputy Minister?

Don’t you realize that you are giving it much more publicity now?

Many people may now be in doubt whether they should take their daughters of 19 years of age to go to see this film because of the discussion in Parliament. There are still people who think it is a bad principle in South Africa to exploit sex for commercial gain the way it has been exploited in this film. There is no question about that, and that was why I raised this matter. No other film company in South Africa will exploit a film in the way this particular film has been exploited by the company concerned. [Interjections.]

I want to turn to one other matter, and that is the matter of South Africans who have in past years taken up residence in territories north of our border. I refer to South Africans in Northern Rhodesia, in Kenya and other places, South Africans who have not taken out citizenship papers in those territories or accepted British citizenship. We know what is happening in those areas and that there will probably be an inflow back to this country by those South Africans. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the attitude of his Department is towards these people. I was going to raise this matter in any event, but it so happens that there is a report in to-day’s newspaper about one particular South African who has returned to South Africa and the formality he was called upon to perform before the chief magistrate a couple of days ago in swearing allegiance to his country. He describes it as “the biggest lot of blarney I have ever come across”. This South African was called upon to swear allegiance to what he considered to be his country. He had not taken out citizenship papers in the territory in which he had resided. I know of other cases where there has been difficulty, people who, before the passing of the Act last year, had taken up residence in other territories, but who had not taken out citizenship papers, but who for the sake of convenience and because they were permitted to do so under British law, had taken out British passports for the purpose of travelling through the rest of Africa or overseas where there were no South African consulates to issue them with a South African passport. [Time limit.]

It is a pity that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) always adopts a Hyde Park style here when discussing any matter. He always adopts a soap-box attitude in discussing Railway matters or in discussing a film of this nature. All the insinuations that have been made here have really been distasteful. The hon. member is very concerned about “the manner in which the film has been publicized”. I think that the hon. member who made a very thorough study of the Publications Act and the old Entertainment Censorship Act with a view to the debate which took place here a short time ago, ought to know that the State has no control over the newspaper advertisements of films. We have control over the placards that are put up and the trailers that are shown, but not over the newspaper advertisements. We have just as little control over those newspaper advertisements as we have had this evening over the manner in which the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) had given publicity to this film. As little as we can control this publicity, just as little can we control the newspaper advertisements in terms of this legislation.

Hon. members asked whether there have been films that have been rejected by the Board of Censors and later approved by the Minister. It will interest the Committee to know that we have had films of this nature. One of these was entitled “Too Young to Love That film was an African Consolidated Theatres film. It was rejected by the Board of Censors and later released on appeal to the Minister. I do not know whether one should say that favouritism was shown to African Consolidated Theatres and also that they received an unnecessary amount of publicity. Those hon. members were probably not in this House at the time to give them that publicity. Then there was another film entitled “Elmar Gantry”, which ridiculed the revivalist movement. This film was also issued by African Consolidated Theatres. It was rejected by the Board of Censors and released on appeal to the Minister. There was the film dealing with the life of Bubbles Schroeder, which was rejected and later passed on appeal to the Minister. Then there was also a film about the Boer War. Even that film was rejected and afterwards released on appeal. Must one say now that favouritism was shown in all these cases, and that the various distributors received preferential treatment in this way? I may just mention that between 2,500 and 2,700 films are viewed annually by the Board of Censors. Of these about 22 are rejected, some of which succeed on appeal, as I have indicated.

The irony of the situation is that I am now asked how I go about this question of censorship. Why then is there a right of appeal to the Minister, a task which, in this case, was assigned to me, if one cannot apply one’s own conception of what is offensive and morally harmful? Otherwise it is a dead letter; otherwise it is precisely what hon. members said will happen under the Publications and Entertainment Act—It will have no meaning. The hon. member for Turffontein keeps asking what the Board of Censors had to say and what the Chief Magistrate had to say. I have the reports here, but I can tell him that it is not my intention to give him full details in this regard, just as little as it is my intention to quote the recommendations and submissions of the Departmental Secretary to us in regard to this matter. That is not the way in which the State is administered. In the report of the Board of Censors they said that they rejected the film. They also rejected the film on the grounds of Section 5 (2) (j), which refers to passionate love scenes. I have already expressed my opinion in this regard.

The Chief Magistrate who viewed this film had the following to say, amongst other things, in regard to the Anita Ekberg part of the film—

He differs from the Board of Censors—

The hon. member must now classify himself! He has this to say in regard to another part of the film—

He then deals with the other scenes in which he differs from the Board of Censors. It is very clear to me, from page 5 of his report, that he differs from the Board of Censors. He also differed from the appellants, and that was why it was my task, in terms of the law, to view that film, so that I could form my own opinion. The question is now: what is the norm? While the Publications and Entertainment Bill was being discussed, it was stated over and over again that the norm in connection with books would be fixed in a very short period by court decisions from Komatipoort to Simonstown. Those court decisions would go on appeal and eventually one would have a uniform idea of the general opinion held. That then would be the norm. In this respect I, myself, was guided in my opinion of this film by what can be regarded as being “objectionably presented” and what can be regarded as being “morally objectionable”. That is why I also want to dissociate myself from the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who said that my decision was tantamount to a motion of no-confidence in the Board of Censors. That is a nonsensical statement. Must every decision of the Appeal Court in setting aside a judgment of the Supreme Court or an inferior court be interpreted as a motion of no-confidence either in the Supreme Court or in an inferior court? That is a stupid conclusion to arrive at. If one were to be bound by the fear of an accusation of this kind, then this right of appeal would become a completely dead letter.

The film entitled “The Men From Brazil” has been referred to here. I have no knowledge of that film, but the procedure is clearly provided for in the Act. If the distributors of “The Men From Brazil” think that the film ought to be shown, they are at liberty to appeal. The procedure that was followed in the case of “Boccaccio 70” can also be followed in this case. That is the normal procedure that has to be followed.

I want to say this: I will continue to differ from the Board of Censors as long as I hold this position, if I feel that their interpretation does not agree with mine. But I will not allow myself to be intimidated, as these two hon. members have been trying to do this evening.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) as a Hyde Park orator. I wonder what comment he has to make about the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). If he knows London at all, does the hon. member not remind him of Billingsgate, for example? The hon. member virtually lost his voice, in his anger; he virtually foamed at the mouth; he tried to put words into the mouths of members on this side, who had said nothing about the points which he raised. He pointed angrily to somebody on this side and said “Are you referring to somebody on this side?” Nobody on this side has referred to anybody in this Committee. What makes that hon. member so angry, Sir? I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister, or for that matter the hon. the Minister himself, will tell us what has caused this terriffic outburst about a matter which we are trying to discuss in the public interest, and not to pry into anybody’s affairs. We leave that to the hon. member for Vereeniging, who seems to be very well informed. Any information he lacks, I can give him. The point I wanted to make is this: We have a situation in which a very conservative Afrikaans language newspaper gives a film front-page treatment.

So what!

Nothing at all—until I tell you “what”! One of the statements made here is very significant, because the critic of the Burger raises a serious doubt as to whether any cuts were made to the film at all. This is the concluding sentence in his review—

The way this matter has been dealt with, firstly by the Board of Censors, secondly by the Deputy Minister, thirdly by the Deputy Minister and the Minister, and even more significantly by the hon. member for Vereeniging, suggests even more strongly that a very unusual procedure has been followed in regard to this film. The hon. gentleman says “So what” when I ask whether this film has been cut. [Interjections]. I do not think we should indulge in this sort of discussion, Sir. It is bad enough to read in an advertisement, which is designed to induce people to pay two and a half times the normal top price of admission for a film, about things such as “enough sin and cynicism” without having sin and cynicism in this House.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this question: He said that the Censor Board viewed 2,700 films per year. I cannot understand where the hon. the Deputy Minister gets that information. I am completely puzzled, because if you take it that there are 250 working days in the year, it means in effect that during every day of the year the Censor Board views 11 films. Is that possible?

The whole board does not sit; they sit in session.

That may be so. I have some information about the film industry, perhaps more information than the Deputy Minister. The entire output of the film industry of the United States plus the films distributed by American companies in the United States amounted to 193 in 1961. In 1962, which is the last complete year, the total was 216. And not all these American films, whether they are produced or released there, come anywhere near South Africa. Less than half are offered. So how this wonderful Censor Board can view 2,700 films a year is something which the Deputy Minister can perhaps explain to the film industry. This may be due to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has been charged with the duty of supervising the activities of the Censor Board, has still to find out a great deal about its activities, and about the nature of its duties. I say this—with some deference—after he told us that they viewed 2,700 films a year.

I want to refer, at this stage, to other opinions about this particular film. For example, I find this in the Cape Times—

Thinking back to some of the films that have been banned outright or cut to an absurdity by our censors, it is nothing short of amazing that this one has been allowed almost in its entirety. It was in fact banned by the Board, but in what is believed to be an unprecedented action their decision was overruled by the Minister of the Interior.

The impression has been created throughout, rightly or wrongly, that in normal circumstances this film would not have been shown in South Africa but because of the intervention of the hon. the Minister it is being shown. What is more, it is being shown not at the ordinary prices of admission, as in the case of those other banned films that were mentioned by the hon. the Minister, such as “Too Young to Love”. The top price for that film, I think, was 36c. I can prove that if necessary.

What year?

Why do you ask me, since you know all about it? You should ask the Deputy Minister. You cannot even spell “Boccaccio”, and that is what I am talking about. Here is another opinion, in the Sunday Times—

The film that beat the ban is here at last, Boccaccio 70, described as three stories of the sexes. When it was shown before the Board of Censors it was banned outright. The censors denounced it as offensive to decency because of its passionate love scenes and loose morals.

The Board of Censors may have been right at that. The whole question which the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister avoid is whether, in fact, this film should or should not have been in the first instance banned, or released. That is the question, because had a decision been taken which could stand up to the appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister himself, we would not have had this discussion to-night. Here is another extract—

There you have another rather odd feature, Sir. The hon. Minister, who is also Minister of Education, Arts and Science, should bear in mind, firstly, that as a result of circumstances the admission prices being charged are out of all proportion, compared to any film of any sort, including world famous features and “epics” which cost a lot more to produce than this film. [Time limit.]

I do not want to discuss this film except to say that the fuss made by these hon. members springs from just one fact. It is not an African Mirror film or a Sabotage in South Africa film or a Gorshel film; it is a film which is shown by people with economic interests different to theirs. Otherwise nothing would have been heard about it here. This is typical of the lack of patriotism on the part of that party which we have learnt to expect from them. [Interjections.] If it was an Icanda film they would not have made such a fuss, because that hon. member is on the board of directors of Icanda.

I rise to ask the hon. the Minister what control is going to be applied under the new arrangement in connection with people travelling between the Protectorates and the Republic and their passports. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a particular problem. Numbers of farmers on the Swaziland border in the Piet Retief area, in the Pongola area and in the Golel area, farm on both sides of the border. They are engaged in cotton farming and sugar farming and they even have sawmills there. These farmers sometimes take their labourers from one side of the border to the other. It happens that in the course of one day the labourers working on the Transvaal side are taken over to the Swaziland side. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the necessary arrangements can be made in regard to migratory labour used by a farmer farming on both sides of the border. This matter falls under the Minister of the Interior. I do not know whether it will be delegated to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Time alone will tell. If the necessary arrangements are not made to enable this system of farming to continue harmoniously as in the past, the farming operations in this area will be greatly disrupted. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to render the necessary assistance in this connection.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.