Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Today is the first time that this Vote is being discussed in this House in its present expanded form. I suppose there is hardly any department which has been more intimately affected by changes made in recent years, and the problems that accompanied them, than this very department. As every hon. member knows, as a result of the recent rationalization of the Public Service, two extremely important new functions were added to the duties of this department, i.e. the administration of Coloured Affairs and the administration of Indian Affairs. Other changes which have taken place within the structure of this department during the past few years, and which were bound to create major problems with regard to the administration of this department, included the repeated changes that have taken place in the system of identity documents in terms of the population registration system administered by the department.

Major changes have also taken place with regard to the control of publications, a subject which will be discussed by another hon. member of this party at a later stage.

I am by no means suggesting that all these changes were not improvements. A good many improvements have in fact been made. However, I am convinced that the continual drastic amendment of systems, such as the population registration system, can sometimes place an impossible burden on the shoulders of the departmental staff. I think I can say that this has been the case on several occasions during the past few years, when changes have sometimes taken place merely because a particular head of the department was perhaps too ambitious. I think we all remember that a few years ago there was such a head of this department, a person who was very ambitious and who introduced all kinds of new systems which eventually brought us nothing but problems.

In my opinion, an imperfect system which is well implemented often produces better results than a perfect system which is poorly implemented; poorly implemented for various reasons, often because the extra work caused by the amended system is in itself causing problems. With regard to the present system of population registration, I only want to point out that the decentralization of this function, a process which is being introduced at the moment, so obviously makes sense that it simply has to bring about an improvement. So we are looking forward to the day when delays in the issuing of identity documents and similar documents will belong to the past. I would therefore express the hope that the hon. Minister who is now in control of this department will not make the same mistake that some of his predecessors made by becoming too ambitious about the system he has introduced and trying to make more of it than is practicable and administratively possible.

In this respect I am thinking specifically of the kind of plan which the hon. the Minister mentioned earlier, of incorporating a fingerprint system into the system of population registration and including it in the book of life. The idea seems to be that finger-prints will be reproduced in books of life and that, arising from this, a finger-print bank will also be built up at a central place. I want to say, with all due respect, that such a system will not only encounter great public resistance—as has already been the case, in fact—but will also become an administrative nightmare. I am convinced that if we were to add up all the properly qualified finger-print experts we have in South Africa at this stage, there would still not be enough people to administer such a system on a population-wide basis. Where the extra staff would come from to meet the needs of the department and the police, who would also make use of these experts, I do not know. Therefore I should like to sound a warning against this line of thought, and I also want to say that we should not repeat the mistake of becoming too ambitious with this system, so that it will not be necessary for us in two or three years’ time to change the system again and to switch over to a new one.

If the hon. the Minister bears that consideration in mind and if he is careful in the way he goes about these matters, I believe there is no reason why the activities of this department will not function very smoothly in the years to come.

†I now wish to deal with a matter that sometimes causes extreme unpleasantness in South Africa and sometimes casts a reflection on the operation of this department, very often unfairly. I say “very often unfairly” because very often it has literally nothing to do with the department itself but is something that is imposed upon the department by certain individuals in politics. The matter to which I am referring is the habit of the Government in South Africa to use the refusal of visas and the refusal or cancellation of passports as a political weapon to show their own disapproval of the political views, utterings or even connections of a particular individual or a group of people. It is indeed interesting to note that we have recently seen an example, and an example that was, particularly in South Africa, highlighted very effectively, of how this situation should be handled by an administration that believes in justice, fair play and the fact that a Government should retain its perspective in applying and formulating policies as far as the granting of visas and passports is concerned.

I am now referring to the decision of the New Zealand Government to allow the Springbok rugby team into their country to conduct their tour in spite of the fact that the Government itself felt that this tour should not have taken place. The New Zealand Prime Minister made it very clear—and hon. members should listen to this because there is a very good lesson for them involved in this—that he and his Government disapproved of the rugby tour for obvious political reasons, reasons pertaining to their own country and their own electorate, but that he and his Government felt that it would be an improper interference in the affairs of sportsmen and in the normal issuing of visas and passports to refuse the team entry to New Zealand and in that way to enforce their Government’s attitude and prejudice in this regard. If the New Zealand Government had wished to hide behind the possibility of violence and disruption in their own country, they could have refused entry to the Springboks. They could have done so very easily. It would have been a very easy matter indeed for them to have justified refusing visas to the Springbok rugby team. Instead of doing that, however, they made it very clear that they would draw a line between their own attitude to the tour and their duty to issue or refuse visas on the grounds of well-established principles. I should like to know whether there is any hon. member on the other side of the House who would not like the South African Government to do the same should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

Ask Dave Dalling.

Hon. members opposite should answer that question. The hon. the Minister of Police has had a lot to say about it. I should like to know whether he would not like his Government to act in the same way should South Africa ever find herself in a similar situation.

I am not going to fall for that one.

I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to answer the question. Judging by their record over the past few years there is no doubt whatsoever that the Government would have applied the big stick if they disapproved of a tour and were in a position similar to that of the New Zealand Government, where local opinion favoured a refusal. I have no doubt, Sir, that this Government would have ignored the normal criteria applicable to the issue of visas and that it would have taken a blatant political decision to refuse to grant or to grant. I have no doubt about that at all. [Interjections.] As far as passports are concerned, which is a similar matter, I feel even more strongly about the situation. I feel even more strongly about the fact that the Government should stick to well established principles when it decides to allow a citizen to have a passport or not. I feel that this should be the position in regard to passports even more so than in regard to visas. I say this because in this instance we have to deal not merely with the attitude of a government to a number of foreigners but in fact with a government’s duty towards its own citizens. After all, what is a passport? A passport is a letter of introduction issued by the State to its citizen for the purpose of facilitating the passage in foreign countries of that particular citizen. This is part of the duty that a government has to every one of its citizens. It is not a right that should be withdrawn unless a particular individual is suspected of a crime and it is feared that such individual may abscond and not subject himself to the due process of law. Obviously this Government—again judging by its record—does not recognize this right. It does not recognize the issue of a passport to its own citizens as a right. It uses the refusal or cancellation of passports as a spiteful measure to indicate its own displeasure of a particular individual or a particular group of people. [Interjections.]

I want now, Sir, to deal with one particular incident in this regard in order to ascertain the effect of this type of action on South Africa. During the recent election this Government withdrew the passport of a particular individual and that individual was Bishop Desmond Tutu. [Interjections.] It was very noticeable that the intention to withdraw this gentleman’s passport was announced by no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister himself. That announcement was very obviously a political ploy, a show of totally meaningless “kragdadigheid” to try to prove that the Government was strong and was in control of things. This matter was reported as follows in Die Burger of 22 April 1981—

He went on to say—

He stated further—

And then he repeated this pathetic little phrase—

[Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, to say the least, I find it pathetic that a government with the support and the representation that this Government has in this House should actually say in so many words that it does not have “slap knieë”. The reason that the Government needed to show strength—rather than to have strength, I suppose—so desperately was so obvious. It was because they had in fact become so weak in the knees. They had become weak in the knees in terms …

May I put a question, please?

No, Mr. Chairman. I am not prepared to answer the hon. member’s questions. They had become weak in the knees in regard to their promises of reform. This Government knows that it has created expectations and that it has created new hopes. Therefore, they try to court the reform-minded people in this country, they try to court the businessmen in this country and they try to court the English-speaking section of the community. They knew that they could not deliver the goods. They could not deliver the goods because they were looking over their right shoulders and they had to stage some show of strength in order to try to recover what they had lost in the process. They have to counter the inevitable impression that would be gained in the minds of the South African public that the Government has indeed become weak-kneed. What a crude way of doing it, however! What a crude way of reacting to a particular situation and of trying to restore one’s own image and the impression that the public have of one! The Government became frightened of a right-wing backlash and it had to prove itself. How better could the Government prove itself but to take action against a man who has no political rights in his own country?

Here we have a man who has no means and no way of coming back at the Government through the ballot box. This action was a pathetic one, and I say it again, on the part of the Government because it proved no strength on its part. What did it prove? It proved the desperate need on the Government’s part to appear to be strong. It is something terrible to say of a Government that enjoys the kind of support that the Government enjoys that it has such a fundamental lack of self-confidence that it has to resort to this kind of pathetic action in order to prove itself.

Furthermore, that action was the most blatant way of rubbing the nose of the Black man in South Africa in the mud. This action made it very clear to Blacks in South Africa that when the Government courts the verkramptes, the rights of Black people have no more meaning.

Are you playing to the gallery?

… however influential that particular victim in the Black community may be.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most important aspect in relation to our situation in South Africa, this was a hopelessly ineffective action. It was an action designed to court the verkramptes in an effort to re-establish the Government’s image, but it obviously did not work. I think the election results are probably conclusive proof of this statement. Indeed, it caused our country an enormous amount of damage, because if the Government tried to prevent Bishop Tutu telling people how he felt about investment in this country, how he felt about the political system in this country, the Government went about it in the worst possible way. What the Government in fact did was to give him extra credibility and extra publicity. If one has to consider the most counterproductive way of trying to prevent a South African citizen, whether he be Black or White, saying things in the outside world which we do not want him to say, one cannot think of a better way of having done so.

I therefore believe it was a short-sighted action, a ridiculous and spiteful action, and it has been seen as such in the outside world, and, what is more important, it has been seen as such in the Black community in this country. I dare say it has also been seen as such by quite a substantial section of the Whites. Even The Citizen which supports the Government 99,9% of the time said it was a pity. We know that there is not much love lost between The Citizen and Bishop Tutu, but even The Citizen said that it was a pity that the Government had to punish Bishop Tutu by taking administrative action against him.

Surely the Government must have the confidence to enter into debate with this man, to argue with him? Why, in heaven’s name, are they so scared of him that they have to resort to this kind of ridiculous and counter-productive action? I believe that this kind of action unfortunately does the department no good whatsoever. Once again I must say immediately that I sympathize with the department because this action did not emanate from the department itself. The department had to do the dirty work for a Prime Minister and a Government that needed to play politics in the time of the election, and had to do it in the most ham-handed and ridiculous way imaginable. I believe that this action has been counterproductive and useless. Furthermore, it has done great damage.

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to a few of the provisions in the Standing Orders. In the first place, Standing Order No. 104 expressly prohibits members from standing in any of the passages or gangways. In terms of Standing Order No. 105, members may not converse aloud in this House. In particular I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 120 which provides that—

As I interpret this Standing Order, an hon. member must first address the Chair and not stand and wait until the presiding officer calls upon him to speak.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the prohibition which provides that a member shall not read his speech, but may refresh his memory by referring to notes. I should appreciate it if hon. members bear these injunctions in mind at all times.

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to enter the debate at this stage, but I would be neglecting my duty if I did not react immediately to the statements made by the hon. member for Green Point and the comparison he drew between the Springboks who are playing for the honour of our country and people whose passports have been confiscated or who have been refused visas.

Disgraceful!

I wish to state at the outset that I accept full responsibility for the withdrawal or the refusal of passports. I accept full responsibility for refusing a person a visa to visit our country. In addition, I reject the accusation that my department and I do the dirty work for other people.

I am standing up to voice in the strongest possible terms my condemnation of the fact that the hon. member for Green Point saw fit to mention the Springboks, who are playing for South Africa in another country and in so doing are trying to promote the cause of their country, in the same breath as people who are undermining the interests of South Africa.

That was not his point. [Interjections.]

I strongly object to the fact that the action of Mr. Muldoon’s Government in allowing the Springboks into their country, is being linked to the treatment this Government metes out to people in league with the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] If I have ever had good reason to condemn behaviour as reprehensible in this House, then I have it today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must take cognizance of this, because he himself has adopted a standpoint opposing people abroad who bring pressure to bear on South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted a standpoint opposed to the conduct of the UN in answer to a question by the hon. the Prime Minister. He knows, and his followers ought to know, that there is little or no difference between the conduct of Bishop Tutu and that of the UN.

I am prepared to deal with the question of passports and visas in detail later on and all I wish to say now is that it will be to the eternal discredit of the hon. member for Green Point that in a petty political way he drew a comparison between a team representing this country under difficult conditions, with subversive bodies, people who advocate boycotts against South Africa and people who support violent methods of change in South Africa. If these changes were to be implemented they would do the country’s Blacks much more harm than the Whites. He says the withdrawal of the Bishop’s passport was a slap in the face of Black people. That hon. member has every right to criticize any standpoint or action of this Government, but to give a racist connotation to this sort of action in such a contemptible way is a crime against the country.

Mr. Chairman. I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said. I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister entered the debate at this stage to speak on behalf of the Government about the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point.

When the hon. member for Green Point rose to his feet, I thought I should convey a few words of congratulation to him later, since that was the first time that he, as main speaker for the Opposition, discussed this Vote. [Interjections.] However, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said, for as long as the hon. member for Green Point remains a member of this hon. House, not only will the things he said today be held against him, but they will persistently be associated with him. [Interjections.] I say this because what the hon. member did here today is one of the most reprehensible things we can do in South Africa today. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition listened very closely to what the hon. member for Green Point had to say. That hon. member succeeded the hon. member for Sandton, and hon. members will remember that when the Springbok team went overseas the hon. member for Sandton created the same sort of atmosphere. In the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of National Education we also pointed this out to the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. the Minister of National Education stated the standpoint of the Government very thoroughly and clearly and reprimanded the hon. member for Sandton in a friendly manner. However, it seems to me there are people in this country—including hon. members in this House—who conduct this kind of debate in this way, people without any real ability to think in a responsible way, who have no real ideals nor any real understanding of the problems of this country. This department is a very comprehensive department which really has to cope with the vast majority of the problems in our country, but that hon. member asked for 30 minutes to discuss this comprehensive Vote …

20 minutes.

Yes, the hon. member spoke for 21 minutes, but all he actually did was to speak about the visa of a single person. [Interjections.] If this is not an example of a man who on the one hand did not do his homework and on the other has no idea of what is happening in the Department of Internal Affairs then I don’t know what is. Apparently he is also a member who does not care whether this debate is conducted on a high level or not, and the sooner the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gets rid of this hon. member as the main speaker, the sooner we will have better debates in this House on this particular matter. [Interjections.]

Dismiss him.

The Department of Internal Affairs is a very comprehensive department. Under the old concept of “Interior” alone there are many things we can discuss, apart from other matters in connection with the Coloureds and the Indians, and for example the question of immigration. I expected the hon. member to give a broader review of this department’s activities today and to indicate briefly the points of criticism which they could argue with the NP. However this debate started off with a political complexion. This was caused not only by the fact that the hon. members of the Opposition differ in principle on their points of departure in respect of the approach to matters in South Africa, but also by the fact that they are prepared to take a single case with which to commence the discussion of the Vote. Why do they do this? They do this because the party itself is bankrupt, because the PFP knows that they have no alternative solution to the problems of South Africa, and in order to hide their bankruptcy, they must now raise this kind of issue. I wish to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I am personally very disappointed in what he did here today.

Now that is from one Van der Merwe to another Van der Merwe!

Yes. I do not know how the hon. member for Green Point will be able to look one of the Springbok front-row forwards, Flippie van der Merwe, in the face. I wish Flippie van der Merwe could get hold of that hon. member in the front row of a scrum. I think that is probably the only thing that would bring some of those hon. members to their senses. I am a pacifist. I do not like war or trouble, but one gets a funny feeling inside when an hon. member rises and says things like that. It was reprehensible behaviour. [Interjections.]

Order! I suggest that only one Van der Merwe should speak at a time!

Talking about Van der Merwe’s, allow me to come now to the Director-General of the Department of Internal Affairs, Mr. J. W. A. van der Merwe, and congratulate him on his appointment as member of the Commission for Administration. I have known the hon. gentleman for many years and although he was only in this particular department for a short time we already know that his appointment to the Commission for Administration will be a loss to the department and at the same time a gain for the Commission for Administration. I should like to wish him everything of the best.

This debate is also the first occasion on which we have the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister with us. We on our part are very proud of them and we know that under their guidance we shall get nothing but the best, even if we get nothing from the Opposition.

I do not wish to say anything further about the hon. member for Green Point, and I should now like to touch on a few matters which I consider to be important. In the first place I wish to talk about the population registration and then make a few observations on the registration of voters. One realizes that the Department of Internal Affairs works with people from the day they are born until they die, and not only with people from our country, but also with people from abroad. I have great appreciation for the department and its officials. This department also suffers from a shortage of manpower, yet they do the work in a very friendly way. I have been to the department often, and the ordinary officials, such as the receptionists, always treat one with great friendliness and respect without realizing who they are dealing with. With the problems which may arise with the population registration and the voters lists, I think it is essential, when these problems arise, particularly in respect of voters’ lists, to examine one’s own conscience. The department and the people who went out to do the work, are too readily criticized. Surely the responsibility lies with every one of us to ensure that our names appear on the voters’ list. This is something one must teach one’s children from an early age. When a child reaches a certain age, one must tell him what to do and how to do it, so that he will be able to do this for himself later on. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in my constituency I found that many of the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs and Information who were on overseas duty, were absent when the supplementary voters’ list was compiled. I think there is sometimes a bit of a short-circuit in the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Internal Affairs and I think we ought perhaps to bring this matter to the attention of the two departments concerned.

I also want to touch on a few matters in connection with immigration. The policy of the Government over the years has been to recruit people overseas or allow business undertakings to do so themselves when there is a shortage of workers in various spheres of our society. I think over the years South Africa has succeeded in recruiting a great many good people for South Africa.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity he is giving me to continue my speech.

When we look at the relevant figures, it is important to note that during the past few years more people have come to South Africa. We find it gratifying to see that there are people overseas who, in spite of remarks such as those made by the hon. member for Green Point, are still prepared to come to South Africa. There are often people who are perhaps sceptical and derogatory about first generation immigrants, especially those from the Mediterranean countries. I think there is evidence to prove that the people who came from Portugal and Greece, have really become part of the Southern African community and do very good work after one or two generations. We can with justification be proud of the descendants of people like Marco Polo and Bartholomew Diaz on the one hand, and the ancient philosophers on the other.

There is another aspect I wish to touch on in greater detail today and that involves publication control. I wish to say at the outset that it is no easy task for a Government to lay down ethical norms in legislation. In this regard one is dependent on the general public. As a result of the knowledge I have acquired from the reports of the Publications Control Board, I wish to say that these people are doing very good work for us. Today we must express our thanks to them. Something which causes me a great deal of concern is that over the past two or three decades a type of writer has emerged, particularly among the Afrikaans writers as well, who quite mercilessly attacks certain valued institutions and principles in our society. To me it is sometimes a matter of concern and disappointment that in the circumstances in which we live today there are writers and poets who seize upon the obscene, the disgusting and the despicable in an effort to make a name for themselves. I came across a passage of George Bernard Shaw. He is reported to have said the following to John Galsworthy, and in all modesty I should like to say the same to the writers and poets of South Africa—

If a writer of the calibre of George Bernard Shaw addressed this warning to people who moved in his circles, I think that the Guilds and other assemblages of our writers and poets would do well to consider this. I also found it interesting that a man who has written columns in our Afrikaans magazines for many years, Kas van den Berg, wrote the following in Die Transvaler of 17 August 1981 in the column “Klip in die bos”—

Although I have frequently differed with Kas van den Berg’s views I must agree with this. He went on to say—

I should very much like to associate myself with this by saying that in its struggle for survival a nation’s writers and poets are of great importance; and not only them but everyone who sets pen to paper. I therefore believe that not only has the time come for our writers and poets to expose and analyse in a critical way those things which they think are wrong in our society, or to reflect and transmit it to us in a poetic way, but I think the time has also come for our writers and poets to tell us in poetry and prose—in our entire literary output—of the beautiful things in our society, what is good, or the good things we are trying to achieve. I believe that a nation whose writers leave it in the lurch, or whose writers cease to describe the good and the beautiful of the past or the fine ideals of the future, is suffering a great loss. This also makes the burden of responsibility on the shoulders of its rulers much heavier and more difficult to bear. For this reason I believe that in our struggle for survival there is more than just a government or a political party which must play its part. The separate groups in our society also have an unmistakable task to carry out in this connection.

In conclusion I wish to point out that the Department of Internal Affairs, as regards this aspect, has done great and good work for us. I trust that the hon. the Minister and the Department will succeed in involving many more excellent young men and women in the activities of the department so that this very important work can be continued. I do not know to what extent this has already been done—the hon. the Minister can give me a reply in this connection—but I believe that we also need people in the department—perhaps more than the usual number—who can speak Portuguese and Greek and German and French well. It is important that we receive the strangers that are within our gates, the people who have not been here very long, kindly as possible and make things as pleasant as possible for them. Every one of us who has travelled overseas know how strange one can feel in a foreign country. The people who can make you feel welcome in a foreign country, who can make you really feel at home, are usually the officials. In the Department of Internal Affairs we have this opportunity. For this reason we in the Government must also make a contribution in order to make things as easy as possible for our officials there.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to commence by associating myself with the remarks made in respect of Mr. Van der Merwe and his appointment to his new post. We in Natal had the opportunity of gauging the value of Mr. Van der Merwe’s services, and I can only say that his new department’s gain is going to be this hon. Minister’s loss.

You should feel sorry for me.

I do indeed.

Another point I should wish to make clear is that we in the NRP do not subscribe to the principle that a passport is a privilege. We also are of the opinion that the passport of an individual is a right which should not be lightly withheld except in the case of criminal action or in the event of there being hostilities, when it would be, of course, in the interests of the safety of the State. We do not believe that, in the circumstances mentioned today, that was either a criminal activity or in the interests of the safety of the State. [Interjections.] I make it clear that we do not approve of the attitude of Bishop Tutu. But that was his affair, and we do not believe that it was right to withhold his passport. [Interjections.]

In the early part of August I put a question to the hon. the Minister asking him what the total number of adult Whites was who were permanently residing in South Africa and not registered as South African citizens. There was a supplementary question after the hon. the Minister had given his reply which the hon. the Minister could not answer because the department did not have the statistics. However, the answer to the main question was 259 200. When one considers the relatively small number of voters we have in this country then that is an extremely high figure. If one adds to that the approximately 50 000 people who have temporary work permits and another plus-minus 130 000 who have come into the country as immigrants over the last five years and who are not eligible to become South African citizens, one finds that one has a very large figure, something of the order of 400 000 people in the White community, who owe no allegiance or responsibility to South Africa. This we believe could well be a hazard at some stage to the State. As far as I am concerned this is a most unhealthy sort of situation, a situation where of one’s more sophisticated population something of the order of 20% are not South African citizens. This situation does not prevail anywhere else in the world as far as I know. Every country has a certain number of transients and a number of people living in the country, some of them permanently, but are not citizens, but nowhere have I come across such a large number of people who are not citizens. In America, for instance, people are anxious to become citizens once they are in the country. In the United Kingdom, too, they are anxious to become citizens. Why then is it that there are so many people in South Africa who have been here 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and who do not wish to become South African citizens? I think this is an appalling sort of situation, and one has to give consideration to and wonder why it is that they do not wish to become South African citizens. As I say, many people have come to this country, they find it attractive to be here, they have a good living here and many of them, if one were to ask them to leave, would be hurt and resentful. Again I ask: Why do they not want to become South African citizens? Is it because our immigration laws are too difficult for them to get through? I do not think so. I do not think that at all.

It cannot be that because they are here already.

That is right. Is it because the Government is happy to have these people here enjoying the benefits of their experience and not bothering whether they become citizens or not? Is it perhaps because the five-year period is so long that they just cannot be bothered at the end of it? Perhaps they feel that they have got on fine without becoming citizens for such a long time and that they do not want to be bothered any more. I cannot help but feel that action must be taken to reduce this number of non-citizens who are going around in this country.

This is particularly important in any country but in this country more so than in any other because here we have hundreds of thousands of South African citizens who do not enjoy the rights and privileges that many of these non-citizens enjoy. For example, these non-citizens can live in the choicest residential areas, these White immigrants who are not citizens. They can set up businesses in central business districts but many South African citizens cannot. There are little or no restrictions on them in respect of mobility throughout the country or the type of work they may do. They are unaffected by many of the separate development rules and regulations and, when the going gets too tough and things become really hard for them, there is nothing to stop them taking their foreign passports and getting to blazes out of the country. These are all points that I think one should bear in mind. These people have rights and privileges which in fact many of our own citizens do not have. Surely this must breed a certain bitterness and resentment on the part of many of our South African citizens who are subjected to restrictions to which these immigrants are not subjected. I would suggest once again that this must be one of the few countries in the world where noncitizens have greater rights and privileges in many ways than many of our own citizens.

For the good of all South Africans, Sir, it is accepted that we do need skilled immigrants and there may be instances in which it is not necessary or not desirable or not in the interests of the country to have these people as South African citizens. However, I submit that on such a large scale, this is dangerous. I believe that as far as we in South Africa are concerned, we have a very good country. I believe I am one of the very few people who can talk the way I do about immigrants being possibly the only post-war immigrant in this House today. I know, as an immigrant myself, that this country has everything to offer to the person who has everything to offer this country. [Interjections.] At the same time, however, there are far too many people in this country who should be citizens but who are not citizens simply because they wish to hang on to a little backstop in order to get out. We in South Africa have got to build up confidence in our country. As I said earlier, there is no other country of which I know where there is such a mass, such a colossal proliferation of people who owe no allegiance and no loyalty to this country. Any other country would be hopelessly embarrassed by this fact. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibilities of doing something in this regard. I know I shall make myself unpopular if I suggest that there should be something like a differential tax of some sort imposed upon those who enjoy the benefits of this country without citizenship and who do not wish to accept the responsibilities of such citizenship. However, I believe there are many things that can be done. The important thing to remember is that these non-citizens are enjoying privileges that many of our citizens are not enjoying. I do not think that is fair and I do not think that is in the interests of South Africa because ultimately it can cause us considerable trouble.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo dealt with the topic of immigrants who have not yet taken out South African citizenship. I agree with him that it is an unsatisfactory situation that such a high percentage of them do not take the trouble to apply for South African citizenship. I would say that the principle is that South African citizenship should not become an automatic issue. It should be applied for. Especially in the circumstances in which we live, people should not be forced to take out citizenship but it should be a privilege to apply for the citizenship of the country in which such people have elected to earn their living, where they have elected to five and where they have elected to enjoy many privileges which they possibly could not enjoy in the country from which they have come. Therefore it should be seen as a privilege to become a South African citizen. I would agree with him, however, that the percentage of non-citizens in South Africa is on the high side.

I should like to cross swords with him in so far as he tends to take issue on the question of the withholding of a passport to Bishop Tutu and where he virtually agrees with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Green Point. I sincerely believe that the PFP is adopting a most irresponsible attitude in their action in this House on such issues. In their actions they are becoming the ventriloquists for all those who wish to destabilize the situation in South Africa. They speak on behalf of those who do not wish South Africa well.

The hon. members should know that the Government has indicated over and over again that there is a basic well-being towards all the population groups in this country, and that the Government is prepared to do its best to accommodate all the population groups in so far as this can be done in a peaceful way to bring about order and development in the country, but for some reason spokesmen of the PFP have on numerous occasions, both inside and outside this House, acted in a most irresponsible way in giving support—not only tacid support, but also active support—to people who do not wish the country well. Therefore I can only say that this sort of action by the hon. member for Green Point as part of a campaign, is to be deprecated.

*I should like to express my appreciation to the senior officials of the department for the work they do to expedite the performance of the widely divergent tasks of the department. I have often had occasion to approach the department concerning some matter in which urgent decisions were required. I have always received the promptest reaction and replies from the department. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the extremely efficient conduct of the senior officials of the department. In a department which has to deal with millions of matters every year, it is understandable that there will be delays from time to time, especially with regard to the issuing of identity documents and so forth, where such enormous numbers are involved. However, when a matter is brought to their attention and they are informed that it is urgent, they always react very promptly and very efficiently as well. I should like to convey my appreciation for this to the officials.

Earlier this year it was announced that as from July next year, we are changing over from the voters’ rolls with the normal R.V. 1 registration to those based on the identity document. This means that the registration of voters which was done two years ago will have to be cancelled and that all registrations will have to be done on the basis of the identity document. I am one of the few people who already have the new identity document. Most still have the bigger document, which is not so easy to carry with one all the time as the new document. The change-over as from 1 July 1982 will mean that many people will still be registered on voters’ rolls in electoral districts where they are no longer resident. This is because of the fact that—unfortunately—a large percentage of the population in South Africa does not yet realize how important it is to notify the authorities at once of any change of address. It is a simple procedure, but a large section of the population fails to give attention to this matter. At the back of the identity document there is loose leaf on which the holder’s present address is recorded, and if anyone changes his address, he has only to fill in his new address on this leaf and send it directly to Private Bag X114, Pretoria. Within a few weeks, the particulars of the new address will be recorded, and this will then serve as the basis of the voters’ roll. However, if someone fails to do this, it will mean that he will again be registered at the previous address as from 1 July 1982, from which date the identity document will serve as the basis for registration, although he will no longer be living at that address.

One major advantage of the use of the identity document as a basis is the fact that it will most probably mean that a much larger percentage of voters will actually be registered, for in spite of all the comments that have been made about this, I believe that a fairly high percentage of voters did not appear on the voters’ roll at all at the time of the election in April this year. In my constituency, literally hundreds of people came to the polls whose names did not appear on the voters’ roll. With regard to postal and special votes, too, we made inquiries to the central register through the microfiche system, but we were unable to ascertain that the persons concerned were registered anywhere, although they had previously been registered in my constituency. With the identity document there will be a great improvement, for when someone produces his identity document, it will be possible to find out at once in what constituency he is registered. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in his congratulations to the department in respect of the good service which an MP receives when he approaches them about a problem.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister, who took the initiative in reacting at once to the extremely irresponsible conduct of the chief Opposition spokesman on this Vote. I believe that the hon. the Minister put the matter in perspective and I am very glad he did.

I should like to say a few words about passports. The Government has the discretion to issue or withhold passports. However, the bona fides of the Government should be accepted by every loyal South African citizen. We must accept that neither this Government nor any government of any Western country would refuse a person a passport purely for its own political gain. Why would any government do that? This brings me to my question in connection with Bishop Tutu. How could the Government derive any internal political advantage from its action regarding Bishop Tutu? No one has yet risen and said that the political advantage to the Government is this or that.

We have just said it is “this”.

That newcomer to Parliament should calm down. [Interjections.] No one has hitherto indicated how the Government could derive political advantage from this. Surely this holds no political advantage for the Government. However, the Government has a duty to protect the interests of the State, and I often ask myself whether the official Opposition knows what is happening internationally in the field of sanctions against South Africa.

Much better than you.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member who interjects so loudly to the number of publications by the UN which I have with me here. One of them is entitled “International Conference on Sanctions Against South Africa—Paris, 20-27 May 1981”. There is another one entitled “Report Submitted by the Organization of African Unity”. In it they ask for sanctions. There is also a report entitled “South Africa’s Oil Supply: Its importance, how it is obtained and how the existing embargo could be made more effective”. Then there is a report on “The Role of Foreign Banks in South Africa—Economic Support for Apartheid”, in which it is shown that the international banks are in fact responsible for upholding apartheid and that they must all be encouraged to boycott South Africa. There is another report entitled “Nuclear South Africa”. Then there is one about “Developments in South Africa since the uprising of 1976”. This is a stack of reports that were made available in Paris at the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa. So there is a movement at the international level to have sanctions imposed against South Africa. At the latest UN report recently, matters went so far that only America saved us from real sanctions. I now want to ask that side of the House a question about a matter of principle: Should the Government resist sanctions? Can that hon. member tell me whether this Government should resist compulsory sanctions against South Africa, with all the means available to it? I put the question to the hon. member for Green Point who was so talkative a short while ago.

Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the hon. member’s question?

I am asking the hon. member a question across the floor of this House. It is an accepted method of debating to ask a question across the floor of the House, so I ask him to have the courage of his convictions to say “yes” or “no”. Should the Government resist sanctions? [Interjections.] Should the Government resist a world movement which is aimed at having sanctions imposed against South Africa? I want to know whether the hon. member’s reply to this is “yes” or “no”.

Get on with your speech.

For the record, I just want to say that that hon. member is sitting there grinning. I challenge him to tell me across the floor of this House whether the Government should resist the imposition of sanctions on a world-wide basis. [Interjections.] The hon. members opposite will not give us a reply. [Interjections.] However, the reply which this side of the House wants to give the Government is “yes”. In the interests of us all, White people, Coloured people, Black people and Asians, whose future must be worked out in this country and who have no other place to live but here, we say that the Government should resist sanctions. We challenge the PFP to support us in encouraging the Government to resist sanctions. [Interjections.] Now Bishop Tutu proceeds to associate himself with this world action—for that is what it is—to have sanctions imposed against South Africa. Through his words and actions, Bishop Tutu himself forms part of a campaign to have sanctions imposed against South Africa. I challenge hon. members on that side of the House to deny this. I ask the hon. member for Green Point: Does he agree with that? We must consider the interests of South Africa. In this debate today we must judge the actions of the hon. the Minister in terms of what is in the best interests of the Republic of South Africa and all its people. I want to challenge the hon. member for Green Point to criticize the hon. the Minister on the basis of what is in the interests of South Africa. While he was making his speech, he did not talk about the interests of South Africa. He did not say that the interests of South Africa would be prejudiced by the actions of the Government. The hon. member cannot argue like that.

Go and read my Hansard again.

In my opinion, the hon. member for Umbilo adopted a childish attitude. He said: “The NRP does not agree with the withdrawal of Desmond Tutu’s passport, for if he advocates sanctions, that is his own affair.” What an absolutely futile argument that is. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the NRP: Does he agree that when Desmond Tutu advocates sanctions against South Africa abroad, that is his own affair?

Is it a criminal offence?

I did not hear the speech, but I do not agree that any South African should advocate sanctions.

It is not Desmond Tutu’s own private affair. It prejudices the interests of South Africa when a South African goes overseas and asks for sanctions against South Africa. Therefore I want to compliment the leader of the NRP for the stand he is taking in this regard.

*I want to conclude by saying that in a matter such as this one, it is the interests of South Africa that are at stake. We want to tell the hon. the Minister and the Government that we have considered the matter and we have seen what happened in this House. I think that those of us whose interests really be in South Africa believe that the Government has acted in the best interests of South Africa. Therefore the Government will never be rejected by the voters of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the speech by the hon. member for Green Point and the almost hysterical speeches by hon. members on the opposite side were predictable. They deliberately avoided the principle involved. In an emotional and exaggerated manner they deliberately tried to drag in the forwards in the Springbok team and other aspects of the tour which have nothing to do with the principle of the matter. The hon. member for Pretoria Central got very hot under the collar about the Government’s resistance to sanctions. We are, of course, opposed to sanctions, but what Desmond Tutu’s passport had to do with that and with the principle that was mentioned, the hon. member did not discuss. I was also surprised at the appeal by the hon. member for Rissik to the writers of South Africa to concentrate on the nice and acceptable aspects of our society rather than on the other aspects. I am sure that every writer of stature, whether English, Afrikaans, White or Black, will reject that kind of appeal with contempt, because it comes from a person who is living in a dream world and who is afraid to face the facts of our society.

†It is on aspects of the Publications Act of 1974 that I briefly wish to make a few points. Ironically enough, the Publications Act in fact deals with the prohibition of publications. It prevents the publication of material. In the annual report of the department for 1980 we can see that not since 1978, which was probably one of the worst years for censorship, have South Africans been prevented from possessing or distributing such a large number of items and objects: 2 177 publications or objects such as records were submitted to the committees and the board during that year. The majority of those items were not pornographic material, as one would normally think. In fact, only 11,6% of those items submitted had a bearing on pornography. Nor were the majority of items submitted books which might have literary value. One thinks of Magersfontein, O Magersfontein!. A lot of us are under the impression that those books are the main aspects dealt with by the various committees. Only a small percentage, however, fell into that category. By far the majority of the items submitted were items with political connotations. In fact, 53% of all items submitted were items with a political connotation, or, as it is described in the report, “publications possibly prejudicial to the safety of the State and/or of a communistic nature”. The number of items submitted in this category is increasing. We have now re ached the stage where three per day are being submitted to the various committees for consideration and approximately two per day are being prevented from being distributed or are being banned. This indicates the trend of increasing concentration by the various organs created by that Act on political matters. In 1975 only 25% of all publications submitted had a political connotation whereas in 1980, five years later, it was 53,5%.

What does this mean? What are the implications of this disturbing trend? They are that the Publications Act is being used more and more as a mechanism to keep South Africans in a political straightjacket, to prevent them from knowing what the rest of the community, and mainly the Black community, is thinking about South Africa’s future. It prevents us from being informed. It prevents us from getting to know other currents of political thought and literary thought in the country.

Political thought?

What it does is to create a false sense of security as far as the Whites are concerned. We do not have to look far to find a precedent. In Rhodesia this is exactly what happened. The Whites were hoodwinked by a Press censorship system to such an extent that they were shocked as much as we were when the election results came out in April last year.

That is right.

A false sense of security is being created.

The NP did not govern Rhodesia.

What can we learn from that example? On the front page of today’s Burger reference is made to utterances by Mr. Rowan Cronje, a person who experienced the war in Rhodesia and who has experience of the system of censorship which was applied in that country. What does he say about the effect of such a system? In those utterances of his he tried to advise South Africans on how to work out our problems.

Are you suggesting that Press censorship in this country is too strict? [Interjections.]

I am talking about publications.

But you are referring to the Press now.

I am referring to a report in Die Burger of today. I quote—

The report continues—

The very thing caused by the present legislation is a lack of full information. We are unable to conduct a meaningful debate on the political problems of this country. That is what it amounts to.

†How are we Whites going to establish what the real problems are as far as Black workers are concerned when we ban all publications which are being brought out—or the majority of them anyway—by trade unions? How are we to establish what the aspirations of urban Blacks are if we ban the majority of their publications? How are we to establish what their views are of the Government’s policy of stripping them of South African citizenship? We wait for dramatic eruptions, tragic eruptions, such as the riots in Soweto, strikes, school boycotts, etc., before we try to analyze the situation. Only then do we appoint commissions of inquiry and find in retrospect—when those commissions bring out their reports—that there were real problems which we never knew existed. The Publications Act is the mechanism which is being used to achieve that result. For as long as the increasing trend to ban publications with political contents continues the danger will continue. It will even become progressively more dangerous, and as a result of that the political debate which we are trying to conduct in this House will become progressively less effective.

We are here living in a dream world without having all the facts and we cannot solve the problems unless we know what other sections of the population believe. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I should like to tell the hon. new member for Durban Central that we are not conducting school debates in this House. [Interjections.] We are involved here in conducting a discussion on matters that are of the utmost importance to the security and welfare of South Africa and all its people. Therefore, when the hon. member for Durban Central begins by saying that the official Opposition is, of course, opposed to sanctions, but that Bishop Tutu’s passport is an entirely different matter, the question arises in which fool’s paradise that hon. member is living. Does the hon. member not realize that the question of Bishop Tutu’s passport is closely bound up with the question of propagating sanctions against South Africa?

What did you achieve by withdrawing his passport?

That is so typical of hon. members of the official Opposition. They are opposed to everything, but nevertheless nothing must be done to combat those things to which they say they are opposed. [Interjections.] At all times one should simply let things take their course, and then simply say in a sanctimonious way that one is opposed to them. This, according to them, will allay all evil. No, a responsible Government cannot go about things in this way.

Then the hon. member for Durban Central goes on to argue in the same vein when he says that of course his party is opposed to pornography and subversion, but that there should not be publication control in order to combat subversion and pornography. This is an entirely different matter, he says. Apparently this is a completely different principle. I want to say once again that one cannot dare convince oneself that, in the situation in which South Africa finds itself at present, one can resist the onslaughts that are being launched at this country and its people in all spheres, merely by maintaining sanctimoniously here that one is opposed to those things, and dare not believe that these things will disappear of their own accord. Surely one should take definite steps to combat the threats that one identifies.

What definite steps did you take with Bishop Tutu?

However, I want to deal with another matter. This side of the House has already said repeatedly that as far as a future constitutional dispensation for the country is concerned, the recommendations of the President’s Council must be waited for. These will then be judged according to their merits and action will be taken accordingly. That is why it is the standpoint of this side of the House that it is not appropriate for us to anticipate the recommendations of the President’s Council in this regard. However, there is an element of the standpoint that the official Opposition is adopting in this regard that I feel I should point out on this occasion and must put it into perspective. It is the argument that we are continually hearing from the official Opposition that the Coloureds and the Asians must approve of any constitutional dispensation for the future. I want to state here very clearly once again what I have already said on more than one occasion outside, viz. that the greatest degree of agreement with regard to a future constitutional dispensation is extremely desirable and that any future constitutional dispensation in this country will succeed only to the extent in which the Coloureds and Asians accept it and co-operate positively in it. Therefore, I state categorically that it is essential for everything to be done to obtain the acceptance and the positive co-operation of Coloureds and Indians in any new dispensation.

If we refer in this regard to the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution in this regard, which is also endorsed, inter alia, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we find there that the commission is of the opinion—

After all, it is not stated, expressly or by implication, that the approval of the Coloureds or the Asians must first be obtained for a future constitutional dispensation.

Therefore, the Opposition is adopting an entirely faulty premise. Their premise is that the Whites in this country have no future, except as a favour granted by the non-Whites, and this is a premise that I reject with my entire being.

They are “hensoppers”.

The Whites have a right to their own future in this country.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member permitted to refer to other hon. members as “hensoppers”?

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

If we were to accept that the Coloureds and the Asians first had to grant their approval before we could bring about a future constitutional dispensation in this country, then we would be giving these population groups a veto right With regard to the political development in South Africa. If we take note of the constitutional development over the past years, we can clearly see the danger signals of such an action. For instance, there was the occasion when Coloured leaders were enthusiastic about the constitutional proposals made by this Government and within 24 hours after that they had rejected them. Dare one now place the constitutional, the political stability of this country on such dangerous, shaky foundations? Surely one cannot dare subject the political stability of South Africa to the prejudices of some elements in those population groups. After all, one cannot satisfy the radicals. To bind oneself in anticipation to a standpoint to the effect that the approval of these people must first be obtained before a future constitutional dispensation can be launched in South Africa, is surely to cause that proposed dispensation to fail in anticipation.

I repeat: This standpoint of the official Opposition is simply yet another manifestation of their entire attitude with regard to the position of the Whites in this country, viz. that they are dependent on the favour of the non-Whites for their continued existence in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. R. Kempen, Deputy Director-General of the Department, is to retire shortly, and we as a group wish to thank him very much for the excellent work he did in this department. We wish him everything of the best.

Today I wish to level the accusation at the official Opposition that the reactionary politics they are practising are paralysing them. This is the reason for the negative tone we are getting in this debate. The official Opposition is not making any constructive contribution to the most important question of the day, namely constitutional reform. What contributions have they made thus far in this connection? I now wish to prophesy that this debate will come to an end without their making a contribution. The official Opposition has become bogged down in the concept of a national convention, a concept which has now become a millstone around their necks and a bone of contention in their ranks. Sir, I want to tell you that the Mandelas are already haunting them. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to lead his team away from negative boycott actions and destructive protest politics and to help the Government in its reform action. I want to tell the hon. Leader: Shake off the Suzmans and the Boraines hanging like albatrosses around your neck and help the NP. [Interjections.]

I now want to be more positive. The rate at which the Government is moving towards the implementation of its policy has speeded up significantly in recent times. The Government is on a dynamic path towards a new political dispensation in this country. We are now very close to the historic point when the new political dispensation must break through into practical politics. I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister, because as the Minister concerned with constitutional matters he has helped create the right climate in the country—the climate needed for essential constitutional reform. The hon. the Minister is pointing the way fearlessly, knowing full well that there will be criticism from left and right. And there is criticism. The hon. the Minister’s speeches on constitutional change are penetrating and far-reaching but also provide firm guidance. This is the spirit we need at this stage, if we in this country are not to remain trapped in a cul-de-sac.

The Opposition’s false cry that the Nationalist is a hidebound conservative and an unapproachable verkrampte who cannot and will not change, is still going to stick in their throats. This is one of the silliest and most malicious stories ever spread in this country.

The facts of the matter are that the NP is the architect of all meaningful change and renewal to have taken place in this country. It will also cut the constitutional knot for South Africa. However, actions taken by the NP in the constitutional field will be deliberate and cautious. The NP can adjust and change when it is convinced that it must do so and that it is in the interests of South Africa and all its people to do so. The NP proved this to us when it gave us a Republic in South Africa in the midst of the most violent opposition.

When considering a dispensation we in this country come up against many dangerous ideas. I want to say a few words about this. To the left are forces which not only consider the Whites to be dispensable but also begrudge him an existence in South Africa. People of colour are then also led to believe that the Whites are only here temporarily, that they can eventually be ousted when people of colour take over.

It is surely not necessary for me to say how dangerous these ideas are and how fatal they can be for South Africa. Of course, what seriously bothers us is that some hon. members of the official Opposition also entertain these dangerous ideas I have just referred to.

The Coloureds and the Blacks in South Africa will have to make a choice, and they will have to decide that the Whites are indispensable for our mutual civilization, and not because they are White, but because their guidance is indispensable for as far into the future as one can see. If they fight against and denigrate White guidance in this country at any cost, indescribable misery will descend on the people of this country. I think it is necessary and important that we say this.

It is a truth that cannot be ignored. If this is not taken into account in a new constitutional dispensation we shall be making a mistake. On the other hand we have the right wing, with the aspirations of short-sighted people concerning eternal White domination and permanent subservience of everyone to the Whites. They see what has been done for others to realize their rightful aspirations, as a threat. To those people I say that their disagreeable, selfish attitude contains the fuse which will explode good relations and peaceful co-existence in this country.

The level-headed Whites in this country also have aspirations, and I want to indicate what the minimum aspirations are which those Whites expect the Government to comply with. In the first place, the Whites want to protect, preserve and build up the Christian Western civilization in the economic and social fields. In the second place, the Whites want to remain able to maintain and improve their value and standard of living. In the political field, the Whites desire, in the first place that South Africa continue as a sovereign independent State. In the second place they seek the assurance that after the process of political development they will still retain self-determination and a say over their own world and future. These are not unreasonable demands, because self-determination is the key to international harmony, and it will also remain the key to peaceful co-existence in multi-national South Africa. In 1919 at Versailles, self-determination was put forward by president Woodrow Wilson of the USA as the basis for a new order in the world. Self-determination and a say over one’s affairs can also be the basis for a new order in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond to some remarks made a little earlier by the hon. member for Klip River. He explained to this House how very easy it was, by using the identity document, to record one’s change of address and ensure, in terms of the new regulations that will be coming—I believe in the middle of next year—that one is on the voters’ roll. He maintained that it was a simple operation, a simple process. The words he used were “’n eenvoudige proses”. However, what he did not describe to this House was how a member of the public can get an identity document. That is the most involved process I think we have ever had in this country’s history, and it is that that I want to talk about, particularly with the advent of the utilization of the identity document as a means of compiling the voters’ roll.

I would like to entitle this exercise “the débâcle of the document”, because I believe that the situation around the identity documentation in this country can be described as nothing short of utter chaos. Since those heady and halcyon days of Dr. Connie Mulder, we have had many changes. In those days this department was known as the Department of Information and of the Interior. In 1978 it became the Department of the Interior, of Public Works and of Immigration. There was at the same time a change of Minister and a Deputy Minister was appointed. In 1979 we saw a change in the name to the Department of the Interior and of Immigration, dropping Public Works and another Deputy Minister was appointed, but the Minister remained, namely the hon. Minister Schlebusch. Half-time—change sides!—in 1979 we had the situation where the name was changed to the Department of Justice and the Interior. Mr. Schlebusch was retained as Minister and Mr. Kotzé as Deputy Minister of the Interior carried on with his duties. This situation went on until 1980, and during that year we had a complete change, and we now have an allembracing Department of Internal Affairs with the hon. Minister J. C. Heunis and his Deputy Minister P. J. Badenhorst.

Are you for or against me?

With all these changes I am not surprised that this population register is in utter shambles. The hon. the Minister wants to know whether I am for him or against him. Well, I think he now has the message. I cannot understand the failure of successive Ministers in coming to grips with the on-going chaotic situation, because it still exists at the moment. The idea of a population register is a sound one and, if efficiently operated, can be of tremendous benefit to all. We have no objection to carrying an identity document. As a matter of fact, the thought of carrying one has with the passage of time become more acceptable to the community. At first there was, of course, resistance to it. Having said that, however, surely we can agree that everybody should be in possession of an identity document and that there should be no exception whatsoever. I also think that we can agree—I hope the hon. the Minister will also agree—that there should be no further excuses for failure to issue such documents timeously. Certainly we are not prepared to accept any excuses, and neither do I believe that any South Africans outside this House are prepared to accept any excuses either.

The hon. the Minister sitting opposite and his predecessors have had more than enough time to put their house in order. The previous hon. member for Durban Central, who sat in this House for years, raised this issue year after year, but obviously without being able to get through to the hon. Ministers concerned the urgency of the situation.

But you might succeed where he did not.

I hope so. I am sad to have to tell this hon. Minister that this whole affair has become a standing joke. I have heard it said that the safest way to lose anything is to send it in with an application for an identity document. It is equally sad to have to say that the average citizen is beginning to lose interest in the whole idea. The hon. the Minister must accept what I am saying. The man in the street is losing interest in the whole idea. For evidence of that one only had to stand at the polls during the recent election and listen to what people had to say about identity documents. There were sarcastic comments the likes of which I have never heard before. Those people were disenchanted, to say the least. Each one of us has files in this connection. Perhaps I should just quote the sort of thing that makes people a little annoyed, to say the least. I have here a letter that was addressed on 10 May 1978, asking for an identity document. The person concerned does not have an identity document yet. On 23 February 1981 his wife wrote for a copy of her birth certificate because the original birth certificate had been sent in when they jointly applied for identity documents in 1978. In desperation the person concerned wrote to my hon. Leader and said—

The second letter was written in 1978—

It required a letter from the hon. the Leader of this party on 22 May to get any response at all. On 26 June—imagine, 26 June!—a letter arrived stating—

A further paragraph states—

Finally there is the following—

It takes from 23 February to 26 June to get a copy of a birth certificate. What sort of efficiency is that? Those stories are, of course legion. I have another one here which involves a couple who want to get onto the voters’ roll. The hon. member for Klip River has just been telling us that everyone has an identity document but should not forget to notify the authorities about their change of address.

98% have identity documents.

Here is a poor individual, however, who is trying to get onto the voters’ roll. He is already in possession of a certificate saying he is a South African citizen, but he cannot get himself on to the voters’ roll. It seems utterly impossible for him simply to get himself onto the voters’ roll. He has, in fact, been battling for months to do so. To go through all this correspondence is impossible, but this is the sort of thing one comes up against.

You have mentioned two, but just think of me. I have millions.

The hon. the Minister has millions? Well, then it is about time that the hon. the Minister did something about his department.

You heard what I said.

What did you say?

If you have difficulty in dealing with two applications, you can imagine how difficult it is for me to deal with 5 million applications for identity documents.

Well, then I submit it is time that the hon. the Minister did something about the efficiency of his department. Legislation was put through the House years ago providing for identity documents; yet the population cannot get identity documents. They have been told that they must have them, otherwise they will not have the vote, and now the hon. the Minister blithely comes along and says: “Next time around all you have to do is to produce your identity document. You are automatically on the voters’ roll, but please give notice of any change of address.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga raised the problems of one of his voters. The hon. member should come to my office later on and I shall tell him about the problem one of my voters had in connection with a birth certificate, a problem that I raised two weeks ago. That certificate was delivered to me yesterday. Therefore, it is no use trying to steal a march on us here. The hon. member and his leader should rather give us an explanation of that pamphlet on their policy that they published so blatantly in the Transvaal. They must give us an explanation of it; then we shall speak to them further.

As a fairly new member of the Government and as a fairly new member of the NP, it is a great privilege and experience for me to be able to participate in the constructive, positive attempts by the Government to combat the constitutional problems of the country. If we look back over the history of the country, we simply have to single out one example of an attempt that was made to reconcile the people of South Africa. It took people like Botha, Smuts and Hertzog years to attempt to bring about a reconciliation between the White political groups in South Africa and between the English and Afrikaans-speaking people. It was only when we became a Republic that real unity was achieved between the English and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. If one takes into account that it took so many years to solve this problem with regard to the White communities in South Africa, I feel one should congratulate the Government on the great success that they are in the process of achieving. However, this is how we have come to know South Africa and its people throughout history. I am convinced that we shall ultimately triumph on the road ahead. The immediate problem facing us—and this is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister—is to settle the second phase of reconciliation in South Africa, viz. to bring about a fair, just constitutional dispensation in the country with regard to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians.

Today, I want to mention three points of departure to which one must give attention when one studies this problem. Other than in the case of the Black nations in South Africa, there is no historical basis for separate geographic and political development with regard to these other two communities in South Africa. However, there is a need to give attention to the political aspirations of these communities in parallel development and in close contact with the Whites. In this process there must also be clear recognition, and no neglect of the right to self-determination of the White community in South Africa. Thus the premise, in the third place, that the division of power between these three communities should be the principle of separate political power bases.

These three premises also serve as the basis of the NP’s proposals to the President’s Council in the form of its draft legislation. Now, unfortunately, one hears a discordant from the Opposition. One can scarcely imagine that the official Opposition is not participating in this fine constitutional development that is taking place around them. Although there is consensus in South African politics that the Westminister form of government which White politics has been implementing in South Africa, no longer complies with the demands of our time, it is nevertheless still the standpoint of that side of the House that they do not want to participate in this process and this is whilst there is a sincere, honest search on the part of the Government to find a solution in this regard.

We on this side of the House admit that there was a vacuum in the politics of South Africa with regard to the political rights of the Coloured and Indian communities. That vacuum arose for two reasons. In the first place there was the unwillingness on the part of the Coloureds in particular and to a certain extent also on the part of the Indians, not to make proper use of the political instruments that were created for them. In the second place, there are hon. members who, like the hon. member for Green Point, are involved in destructive work in South Africa, with regard to the attempts by the Government to create a framework for a political say and political articulation. Some White politicians are blatantly guilty of helping to prevent these initiatives working in South Africa.

The Government disposed of the Coloured Persons Representative Council because the Coloureds did not want it, and now the Government is once again, in goodwill and sincerity, creating a political dispensation for these people. Now one can ask whether there is anyone in the House who can say that the Government, in particular the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, are not sincere in their search for a solution in this regard. However, the PFP is not participating in this. On the contrary, they are still involved in sowing suspicion. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here.

Just put them back on the roll. It is that simple.

On 1 July this year, a report appeared in Die Burger regarding the speech that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition delivered to the Association of Management Committees in Bellville. I quote from the report—

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean by this?

Exactly what he says.

Does he mean that the Government is trying to get the Coloureds and the Indians on its side so that we can all “gang up” on the Blacks in the country? This is the type of suspicion that hon. members of the Opposition are sowing.

Let us look at their standpoint. They say we must achieve constitutional solutions for South Africa by means of a national convention. What does a national convention mean?

It is a political …

It means that this Parliament and any instrument thereof is not in a position to submit constitutional proposals. This is the first thing that a national convention tells us.

What is the President’s Council then?

In the second place what a national convention means to us is that South Africa has to forfeit its sovereignty so that everyone who has an interest in this problem can discuss it together, as the hon. member for Green Point wants. Bishop Tutu will be the first man on the list who will have to come and discuss it. In the third place, a national convention contributes towards our placing the problems of this country on the international platform for a solution. The other day, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here that we should look at the successes that were achieved by the National Convention of 1908 and 1909. However, surely this is not a comparable situation. Prior to 1910 there was no sovereign body in South Africa. The Botha’s the Smuts’ and the Hertzogs negotiated with the British Government on the subject of self-determination for South Africa.

It was even a British Act.

Well, it was a British Act indeed. The negotiators were separate units. There were the two British colonies and the two vanquished Boer Republics, that were under British authority too, that tried to reach an agreement. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very keen to talk about a national convention and says: “Just look how successful such a convention was in 1909”.

However, let us look at another example of the application of the principle of a national convention. We simply have to cast our glance beyond our northern border, to Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. There national convention ended up in Lancaster House, and what happened to Britain’s promises to Rhodesia? What happened to the promises about the protection of minorities? What happened to the promises about a Bill of Rights and all sorts of other clichès which they tried to include in their constitution? Look at what Zimbabwe looks like today. How long is that White minority community going to continue to enjoy representation in the Parliament of that country? How long is Nkomo, as the leader of a minority group in Zimbabwe, still going to have a say in the Government of that country?

These are facts that we must look at when people are so quick to talk about a national convention, and so easily reject the Government’s standpoints with regard to its attempts to find a solution for the problems of this country. After all, hon. members of the Opposition know that the PFP cannot fulfil the objectives by means of the ballot box. Now they come up with this—I want to say sly idea, of trying to convince South Africa, by means of a national convention, to accept the chaos to which their policy will inevitably lead.

Since this is their standpoint, I just want to put a question to them. Why do they begrudge South Africa the right to solve its own problems within the country in an orderly, responsible fashion? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is both a privilege and a drawback for me to have to speak after such a well-spoken gentleman as the hon. member for Turffontein. I do not want to cross swords with him. In fact, later on I want to associate myself with some of the things that he said.

Before I come to that, I do not want to pass up the opportunity of raising the issue of passports. Hon. members of the Opposition are complaining that they do not receive any answers with regard to the principles of the matter. The principle behind it is as clear as daylight. I am amazed that they cannot see that principle themselves.

According to them, the issue of a passport should be a right, and not a privilege. According to the Government, they say, it appears to be a privilege, and not a right. However, be this as it may, because even should it be a right, one should nevertheless bear in mind that there are circumstances in which a specific person can also forfeit all the rights that he may possibly have. I feel that this was true in this case. If one takes note of the calling for sanctions against South Africa, one must also look at the circumstances in which this is being done, and what the motives are. Those who are calling for sanctions against South Africa, are doing so for one reason only. This is to bring about a revolution in South Africa. Indeed, circumstances are such that if we should experience a large-scale economic disaster today, which can in fact be brought about by sanctions, the chances are very good that we would experience large scale domestic unrest. Those who are calling for sanctions, are aware of this. They do not want to institute sanctions merely to exert pressure on South Africa. They want to institute sanctions in order to bring about a revolution.

Then, under those circumstances and against that background, if someone should call for sanctions against South Africa, he would in fact be calling for revolution. It has been said that only if someone has committed a criminal act, or if the security of the State is at stake, can the person concerned be denied the right to a passport. My argument is that this is in fact the case. The security of the State is in fact being placed in the balance here. If, under such circumstances, the State were not to use the means at its disposal, it would be a highly irresponsible deed. Perhaps the hon. the Minister should not take the attack that was made on him regarding the withdrawal of the passport, too seriously, because the official Opposition’s spokesman on this matter spoke for 21 minutes and the only complaint of any substance that he could raise regarding the hon. the Minister and his department, was this one single act, and this was after he had referred to the actions of the department over a full year. I think the hon. the Minister can actually take this as a compliment.

I now want to come back to the constitutional sphere because we are living in an era in which many constitutional matters are being discussed and speculated upon. In this regard I actually want to raise one point only. This is all that I have time for, and it is that when we discuss these matters, we should look carefully at the concepts that we are using. What is happening now, is that some person or other grasps hold of a concept and gives it a certain connotation, without having thought about it carefully. In this way that connotation, which is unacceptable, is now put into circulation. What happens then, is that we dismiss that entire concept, and then we have a typical case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I want to give one example in order to illustrate where the problem arises. For instance, in The Star of 4 September we had a description of the chairman of the new students’ council of the University of the Witwatersrand and there the following is said, inter alia—

That is to say, that this man’s concept of democracy is ordinary majority rule. I am not the one who is saying this; this is the interpretation which that newspaper reporter gave to it.

He is one of those Young Turks.

Quite by chance, this is also the interpretation of many foreign liberalists and of many of the hon. members of the official Opposition, viz. that democracy is ordinary majority rule. In the Westminster system, under specific conditions, majority rule may also be democracy. But in the case of Africa, where ethnicity plays a tremendous, insurmountable role, majority rule can never be democracy. Usually it amounts to the largest group obtaining power, so that it becomes a dictatorship of the largest group over all the other groups and often a dictatorship by the leader of that group. Therefore, democracy does not mean “one man, one vote” majority rule. If this is what democracy should mean, I should not like to see democracy in South Africa. It is very clear here that we are dealing with a sound concept, viz. democracy, which is being interpreted by one group in a certain way which is not acceptable to all of us, which in fact denies the true essence of the concept and we are not going to depart from the concept of democracy simply because it is being used in such an incorrect way. In this way there are many other concepts that have the potential of being good instruments in our analytical framework and which are being misabused in the same way. I should like to talk about one of them today, and this is the concept of power-sharing. In South Africa power-sharing has been given the connotation of everyone having an equal share in power in one undivided political system, which brings us once again to majority rule. Then one has as much of a share in the power as an accused would have if one gave him a vote on a biased jury. Then they tell him: “But you had a share in the decision. You must not complain if you are hanged now.” It is more or less the same thing that is happening there. One can also view it in the way that this power-sharing does in fact amount to saying to someone: I have had this article for long enough. You take it now and do with it what you wish. Just please make sure that you do not hurt me with it. This is the way in which this concept of power-sharing has become known in South Africa. In actual fact, if people share something, it means that they have a joint say over it; that they decide jointly on how that article should be dealt with; and that the one does not injure the other one by the use thereof. This is the basic meaning of power-sharing. As I say, in a case like Britain, powersharing in the form of a one man one vote system may succeed where there are built-in guarantees in the sense that the community is homogeneous and the parties alternate with one another. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of speakers on that side of the House trying to suggest that if one is opposed to sanctions one must be in favour of withdrawing the passport of Bishop Desmond Tutu. This is a breathtaking leap of logic on the part of the Government! Not one of them has explained to this House how one can fight sanctions by taking away the passport of Bishop Desmond Tutu. Not one hon. member on that side of the House has explained this to us. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon. members opposite that by taking away the passport of Desmond Tutu they are giving the other side ammunition to use against them. [Interjections.] Of course we are opposed to sanctions, Mr. Chairman, but we do not believe that the way to fight sanctions is to take away the passports of priests.

I also want to reply to the hon. member for Turffontein who wanted to know why we were not represented on the President’s Council. The hon. member has been living completely in a vacuum. He knows why we are not represented on the council. We are not represented on that council because the Government is not negotiating with the real leaders. They are negotiating with their nominees whom they choose to speak to. [Interjections.] Furthermore, they are not talking to all the people of South Africa. The Blacks have not been included. We have to have the real leaders of all the people of South Africa around a table before we can start talking usefully. [Interjections.] What the Government is doing in the meantime is that they are wasting the time of South Africa when they should be talking to the real leaders. [Interjections.] When that hon. member attacks us …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time but I want to deal with the hon. member for Klip River. The hon. member for Klip River wishes to ask me a question but I wish to put this question to him. This is what the hon. member for Klip River had to say in this House on the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill—

The hon. member for Klip River says that we can only start making progress when we deal with the real leaders, as with the Coloured community. Yet the hon. member for Turffontein gets up in this House this afternoon and says that they were not prepared to deal with the leaders of the Coloured community as shown by the CRC because they were unwilling.

But they do not want to serve on the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

While the Government is moving in the direction of establishing a representative council for the Indians, it does not matter even if they are radical, according to the hon. member for Klip River, the other half of the same party says that they are not prepared to deal with the real leaders of the Coloured community. That Government must sort itself out. It is like an ox-wagon stuck in the mud—half of them are pulling forwards and half of them are pulling backwards. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the constitutional question by focussing on one aspect of the Government’s policy and that is the management committee system, formerly called the Coloured Management Committee system which offers a rudimentary form of consultative representation to the so-called Coloured people. This is supposed to foreshadow fully-fledged municipalities for these people. I say that this is a complete failure. We should not mince our words about it; this failure is a reality and it must be dealt with. In my opinion the system has failed for five clear reasons.

Firstly it is totally stigmatized by the policy of apartheid. It is based on apartheid and therefore it is fatally stigmatized. For that reason alone it will never get off the ground. Secondly it has failed to deliver the legitimate aspirations of the Coloured people. It has not given them a sense of involvement in local government. It has failed to deliver services in the areas in which they live. Thirdly it is opposed by the leaders of the Coloured community on grounds of principle and on practical grounds. Fourthly it offers no short-term possibility of finding even a theoretical fulfilment in full-fledged Coloured municipalities because of a totally inadequate funding base and a lack of trained personnel. The only Coloured municipality in South Africa is Pacaltsdorp near George and that is the proof of what I am saying. They are not viable because they do not have the funding base and they do not have the personnel. They say so themselves.

What do you know about that? I shall challenge you on that point.

I am not prepared to debate with the hon. member for Mossel Bay because he will not be able to answer the challenges which I have for him.

The ratable valuation of the Cape divisional council shows that the White group areas have a ratable valuation of R3 575 million while the ratable valuation of the Coloured group areas is only R326 million. In other words, the Coloured group areas form less than 10% of the valuation of the White group areas. In the White group areas there are nine municipalities and we have heard time and time again how those nine municipalities are struggling financially. At the same time, as far as the Coloured section is concerned, a spokesman of the Government—he is now the Cape member of the Executive Committee in charge of local authorities—has said that he wants to see six Coloured municipalities in the Cape divisional council area where the valuation is less than 10% of that of the White areas. Therefore we say that one is not going to be able to create viable municipalities in the Coloured group areas.

The fifth reason is that even if one could find one or two, even if one could find a dozen areas which could support a Coloured municipality as such, the system offers no solution for the thousands upon thousands of Coloured people who live in the thinly populated rural areas. It is a complete dream to suggest that those areas could ever have a separate municipality. What is the Government going to do with those Coloured people who live in areas where they can never, even in terms of Nationalist ideology, justify a separate municipality?

But you do not want them to live in Constantia.

We are quite happy to have them live in Constantia like anybody else in the normal way, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister will do his homework, he will find it out.

But your party is on record as stating that they should not live in Constantia.

That is absolute nonsense. I say in this House that we are quite happy to have them live in Constantia in the normal way like anybody else.

What is the normal way? [Interjections.]

Order!

We despise the Group Areas Act. If I had the power I would take the Group Areas Act and tear it up with my bare hands.

What is the normal way and why did you object to them living there?

I should like to get back to the management committee system. The Coloured community themselves have shown that they despise this system and we can produce long lists of quotes from the moderates in the Coloured community who reject the system. The question is what do the radicals say about the system. The majority of the Coloured community have shown their complete contempt for the system.

The time has come for the Government to accept that the management committees have failed utterly to serve the people they are meant to serve. No municipality can become viable unless it is supported by the community and is desired by the community. If the community resists the very creation of a municipality, it will never be successfully established, far less so if the rates revenue which could give it hope for financial survival does not exist. Clearly, trying to pursue this policy is like trying to fly a lead balloon. The time has come to accept what we on this side of the House have always advocated, and that is simply that one must accept that representation is the democratic right of everyone who pays taxes. The Coloured community should be treated in the same way as everybody else is treated. They share our language, our culture, our cities and towns. Their labour, skills and paypackets have helped to build our municipalities, and therefore they should as their birth-right immediately be given their just representation on existing municipalities, on the same basis as all other ratepayers are given representation on their local municipalities. This is the only way in which to really enlist the co-operation of this community in the local government process. We do not need President’s Councils or all the paraphernalia that the Government has tried to establish to enlist the co-operation of this community. The Coloureds utterly refuse to accept second-class status in the land of their birth, and I do not blame them because I too would not accept it. [Interjections.] A durable system of government without the co-operation of all the people is not possible. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia addressed us in his usual lofty way. However, I want to deal this afternoon with some of the guarantors of freedom in South Africa, and specifically with the S.A. Press Council, with particular reference to a dispute that arose recently between The Cape Times and the Federal Council of the NP. In this instance the S.A. Press Council ruled that they could not adjudicate in the matter.

Hon. members will remember that prior to the election, the NP placed an advertisement in The Cape Times, and it is common cause that that advertisement, prior to the newspaper in which it was placed appearing on the streets, was in fact shown to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the hon. member for Pinelands and others, without the consent or the knowledge of the NP and myself in particular as I was acting for the party. Furthermore, the newspaper invited comment from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in an attempt to negate the effect of the advertisement which appeared that day. When we objected to this unethical behaviour, the deputy editor pointed out that we had a remedy in that we could take the matter to the Press Council. On 28 April I prepared a statement on the whole matter and released it to Sapa and The Cape Times. In his reply to this statement on 30 April the editor, Mr. Heard, claimed that his behaviour in showing our advertisement prior to its publication and without our knowledge to the PFP, “accords with the long-held traditions of fairness at The Cape Times and with the spirit of the Press Code of conduct". He said further that “he would welcome the matter being placed before the Press Council”. Well, we did exactly that. We followed the invitation of both the deputy editor and the editor, with which they persisted, and we took the matter to the Press Council.

To our amazement, a few days before the Press Council was to sit, we found that The Cape Times had done a volte face and was withdrawing its consent for the matter to be heard by the Press Council on the grounds that the Press Council did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Mr. Galgut, on page 8 of the S.A. Press Council’s opinion of 27 August said—

… has now changed its attitude and intimated that it no longer wishes the Council to adjudicate in the matter, and does not consent thereto. In these circumstances there is no consent before us, and the fact that the respondent had chosen also to answer the complaint and not to take the jurisdiction point at the outset, does not constitute an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the Council.

In my view that is absolutely morally indefensible. They showed our advertisement to our direct competitor, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, at a time when we were engaged in a general election. On the 30th The Cape Times went further, these high priests to whom the hon. member for Durban Central also referred this afternoon, and said in defence of their actions—However, in view of the seriousness of some of the statements which obviously required contemporaneous response, I deem it only fair …

And how many times have we heard that from that side of the House this afternoon?—

When Opposition advertisements appeared which were factually incorrect and unfounded, were we of the NP asked for contemporaneous response?

Like the one about the maize price.

Yes, there was the one about the maize price. [Interjections.] Where was the fair play? Where was the justice? [Interjections.] Were we asked for contemporaneous response? [Interjections.] No, we were not. [Interjections.]

Order!

I regard the matter in a serious light, because in frustrating the ability of the Press Council to hear this matter, by withdrawing consent for the matter to be heard, they have demonstrated the ineffectuality of this instrument which is the only instrument that the public has with which to protect itself from the Press. I believe in the freedom of the Press. [Interjections.] There is not only freedom of the Press, however, but there is also the right to be free of the Press. By its own decision the Press Council, encouraged by The Cape Times, has shown itself to be an ineffectual body, and the public’s confidence in the Press Council has accordingly been shaken.

I trust the NPU will take the whole matter up. There are many other principles that have arisen, but which time will not permit me to deal with. Mr. Galgut does, in fact, point out that it is his hope that the matter will receive the necessary attention. He says—

One hopes that in terms of the constitution of the Press Council the NPU will do just that. I hope that the executive of the NPU will make a statement to allay public fears quite soon. The Cape Times said that the matter could be taken to the Press Council, that it had behaved with all the fairness in the world and that there had been fair play and that that would be a demonstration of justice. If The Cape Times was so convinced of its innocence, however, why did it not willingly submit to adjudication? By funking the issue as it did, The Cape Times did several things, but there was one thing which, to my mind, was unforgivable. The Cape Times placed a blot on the name of the senior political correspondent who reports on the affairs of this House, a man of standing whom I hold in high esteem. By funking the issue, the editor leaves a permanent blot on that young man’s record, and I think that is absolutely indefensible. By funking the issue, a blot was also left on the record of the advertising manager, because every advertiser will now be wondering whether or not his advertisement is going to be shown to his competitors. There have, let me point out, recently been cases reported in the Press—time will not permit me to deal with them at any length—of industrial espionage involving various companies. There is consequently a question I should like to put to the House: Where is the right of reply now? We heard all the high priests talking this afternoon about ethnics and saying how unethical we are and how justice is to be found on that side of the House, but where is the justice? Where is the right to be heard? Where is the public’s right to know? [Interjections.] They have obstructed the truth. [Interjections.] They have obstructed the functioning of their own instrument. [Interjections.] My question to the hon. the Minister is: Where do we go from here?

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

No, Mr. Chairman. I repeat: Where do we go from here? I ask this question because, in my view, the public has a right to know, if I may use a well-worn phrase from The Cape Times. Mr. Galgut’s statement that they consented to having the matter heard, but then withdrew their consent, is of some importance. I think the whole manner in which the Press Council itself behaved, however, is a matter for concern. Mr. Galgut conceded that the principle involved was very important, so important, in fact, that he invited four assessors to weigh up the matter with him. He appointed two gentlemen to represent Press interests and two to represent the public interest. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if there is one problem afflicting every hon. member of the Opposition, it is a lack of insight into and understanding of the background knowledge of South Africa and the problems peculiar to it. No-one illustrated this more effectively this afternoon than did the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member was opposed to those whom he called “non-citizens”, and even went so far as to say that there ought to be “action against non-citizens to reduce their numbers”. The hon. member created the impression that many people in this country are here merely to make money and to live off the fat of the land, but when the first shot is fired, they flee out of the back door to some other country. When the hon. member for Umbilo says: “I want to reduce their numbers”, surely this can only mean that he wants to deport them. After all, it can mean nothing else.

The reason I raise this matter is that it is generally known that the biggests culprits in this respect are the members of the Portuguese community. There are approximately 40 000 Portuguese in my constituency. I have many friends among them; not all 40 000, but most of them. Most people have a certain image of the Portuguese community, which the hon. member for Umbilo probably shares, viz. the image of a greengrocer who speaks a foreign language, adheres to a foreign culture, has different customs and is simply a vague entity that in actual fact has nothing to do with South Africa.

What are the real facts? I want to bring the hon. member for Umbilo somewhat closer to the truth. In fact it is estimated that only approximately 9% of the Portuguese community are South African citizens. Before hon. members want to deport the other 91%, I want to sketch a few of their good points. In the first place, there are between 600 000 and 700 000 Portuguese in South Africa. This means that one out of every six or seven Whites in this country is a Portuguese.

As far as the economy is concerned, only 16% of them are in any way involved in the vegetable trade, and one finds the others in commerce and industry and over the whole wide spectrum of the South African economy. I know various Portuguese millionaires who are proud of being South Africans, although they are not citizens. Those people travel throughout the world and do not allow an opportunity to pass to defend South Africa.

In the South African Defence Force we have the best evidence of patriotism and of love for South Africa among our immigrants. These people are involved in the S.A. Defence Force, and during our recent visit to the operational area we were privileged to find Portuguese members of the Defence Force in the various bases. If one pays a visit to the monument outside Pretoria where the names of those who made the highest sacrifice for South Africa are recorded, one finds there names like Sousa, Freitas, and many other Portuguese names.

Furthermore the Portuguese community in South Africa also has a direct influence on international politics. Because almost 10% of Portugal’s population is living in South Africa, they exercise a real influence on Portugal. I want to furnish this House with an example of how substantial this influence is. There has just been a raid into Angola, and I want to quote what appeared in the Portuguese newspaper O Seculo Johannesburg of 31 August 1981—

This is a section of the Portuguese governing party which is in South Africa as well—

This is the President of Portugal—

The telegram sent to the President of Portugal by the Portuguese in South Africa, reads as follows—

They also sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr. Pinto Balsemao, which reads as follows—

I reject any effort to taking steps against immigrants, whether against the Portuguese specifically or immigrants in general, merely because they do not want to become South African citizens. I am taking a stand against the hon. member for Umbilo who requested that “their numbers must be reduced”.

I want to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister’s department for the patience they display towards immigrants, for the understanding they display and for their willingness to render additional assistance. I can only say that I am very much involved in the affairs of the immigrants, and the Portuguese community in particular, and that I co-operate very closely with the department. We have found that with the many thousands of applications dealt with, there are two persons in the department in particular, Mr. Johan Pretorius and Mr. Otto Hönicke—you will pardon me, Sir, for mentioning their names here—who have rendered so much assistance that I want to single them out here. Mr. Johan Pretorius has been involved in this ever since refugees started coming to South Africa from Angola and Mocambique. I want to thank them for what they have done for the Portuguese community.

Finally, I just want to say what I believe our attitude towards our immigrants ought to be. I appeal for understanding of the fact that it is a drastic step in anyone’s life to go and settle in a new country. We South Africans can do a great deal more to make our immigrants feel at home in South Africa and to assimilate them into our community life. We must join forces with our immigrants to build one united White nation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe has of course completely misconstrued what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. There was no suggestion of insulting or wanting to deport people, but the fact remains that there are in South Africa half a million or more permanent residents who are not South African citizens.

He wants to reduce their numbers.

Yes, by persuading them and encouraging them to take out South African citizenship.

No.

Surely, if a person is a permanent resident of South Africa, enjoying the benefits of living in this country, he should become a South African citizen when he has been here long enough. Why should people come and live here for the whole of their lives, enjoying all the fruits of South Africa, without accepting the responsibilities of citizenship? What my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, meant was that we should persuade and encourage these people to become South Africans so that, with the privilege of living here, they will also accept the responsibilities of citizenship. That is the view of this party and it will continue to be it. I want to ask the hon. member whether he disagrees with that view.

I agree with it.

Does he disagree with persuading these people …

He agrees.

I thank him. It was for this reason …

Vause, I think you will agree that a differential tax is not a very easy method of persuasion.

There are also other ways. This was the party which pressed for permanent residents to be obliged to do their military service in this country provided they had been here for the required period after the passing of the legislation which was ultimately introduced. It is now the law that those who entered South Africa after the passing of that legislation are now required to do military duty, because otherwise they could merely sign a form indicating that they were not planning to become citizens, with the result that they could not be called upon to perform military duty.

What I actually wanted to talk about this afternoon was a little event that took place a couple of months ago, an event called an election. [Interjections.]

Rather tell us about the affair with your candidate Anderson.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Turffontein can only get some of his obsessions out of his so-called brain I will be prepared to talk with him. [Interjections.]

What brain?

I should like to place on record the appreciation of all of us to the electoral officials—and I believe I speak on behalf of all parties in this House—for their co-operation, their helpfulness and all their efforts to assist wherever it was possible in order to solve all the problems which arose. There were many problems and many of them were often due to bad registration and incomplete voters’ rolls. Nonetheless, those officials did their duty. I should also like to thank the officials who acted as returning officers in constituencies. Most of them were in the employ of the Department of Justice. In most cases they too were extremely helpful. After a general election, I believe, it is only right that we in Parliament should express our appreciation to those officials.

Another very useful thing we had at our disposal was the microfiche, which was a really outstanding innovation which, I believe, was to the benefit of all parties involved in the election.

That is the one side of the picture. The other side of the picture was the shocking state of the general registration of voters. No matter what anybody says, nobody can deny the fact that it was a shocking general registration. I do not blame it entirely on the Government or on this particular department. They relied on enumerators a large percentage of whom did not do their jobs properly. They would stick a notice under a door and forget about it. What all the reasons were I do not have time to debate here. There were many reasons. The fact is, however, that that general registration was a disaster. It did not give us what it was intended to give us, namely a clean voters’ roll. Tens of thousands of people—it could even have been more—were left off the roll and many people were taken off the roll who should not have been taken off the roll. This meant that the voters’ rolls were in a shocking state in most constituencies, particularly in urban constituencies and in flatland constituencies where there had been a substantial movement of voters. In such constituencies the voters’ rolls were in such a shocking state that it was impossible to trace all the voters.

Now, from next year, the voters’ roll will be compiled from the book of life. If some of the examples quoted by my hon. colleague are an indication, and other examples of which I know, plus people who have not given notice of their change of address, are an indication, we are going to have an even worse situation, because once it is compiled from the book of life one is not even going to get the contribution from the various political parties in the registration of voters. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a clear indication of the extent to which all relevant official sources, such as municipal electricity accounts, water deposit accounts and information from all other available sources, will be used in order to effect automatic adjustments to the voters’ roll. Unless that is done we are never going to have clean voters’ rolls.

One other thing of importance resulted from the last general election. I think that at long last I am going to get the Government to agree with us. For years and years this party has pleaded for the abolition of the postal vote in favour of the special vote. The Government always turns it down because they were the masters of the use of the postal vote. [Interjections.]

So that was the reason.

That was why the Government turned it down. They knew all the tricks of the trade. But this time the PFP is the party that learned all the backdoor tricks of the trade. Ask the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. He will tell you something about postal votes. Now that the tables have been turned we are the neutral party that was not involved and we shall sit back and watch the victims of the abuse of the postal vote on both sides of the House. I want to say that the time has come now to do away with the postal vote system and to concentrate on special votes so that people can vote in secret. I say this particularly on behalf of the old people, the senior citizens of South Africa who were shamefully exploited by the PFP and the NP in the casting of their votes. [Interjections.] I believe that we must protect the older people against being exploited for their votes. It happened in my constituency as well. I received votes from the old-age homes, but I got in first. [Interjections.] But having signed the applications, those people were pestered and bullied to change their vote. That is where the trouble begins, where one gets the tug-of-war for the votes. It is not simply a question of getting a straight application signed. It is when that system is abused that it becomes an evil that we must eradicate. If one goes to interview these people and declares oneself and tells them whom one represents, that is fair enough. However, when individuals go into old-age homes and other institutions and tell the people there that they are officials coming to collect postal votes for those people and that they do not have to vote at the polling booth any more, when they identify themselves as electoral officials and do not say that they are party officials, then I believe that the whole system has reached a stage where something has got to be done about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point is a dab hand at politics. This was clearly evident here this afternoon again when he objected to the postal vote system because his party no longer has the necessary organization to deal with it. In addition the hon. member for Durban Point objected strenuously to the ostensible state of the voters’ roll at present. It is true that there were certain deficiencies in the voters’ roll, but I do think that the following information ought to change the opinion of the hon. member for Durban Point as well: Out of a total of 2 118 797 voters only 6 421 who had been living at the same address over the years did not appear on the voters’ roll. This is a mere 0,3% of the total. If one takes this into account, then many of the objections of the hon. member for Durban Point fall away.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Jeppe and I want to express a few ideas on immigration. Since the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape there has always been a constant flow of immigrants to South Africa. It is true that these immigrants were not always received with open arms. It is a well-known fact that problems in connection with immigrants played a meaningful part in the outbreak of the Second Anglo-Boer War. It is also true that from time to time certain people owing to political, cultural or even religious considerations, have been very reluctant to accept any form of immigration as such. When it was announced by the Government last year that the immigration door was going to be opened a little further in order to cope with the dire shortage of skilled workers, a chorus of protest was immediately heard.

It was alleged that there were racist motives behind that announcement by the Government. The Government was ostensibly out to deprive Coloured and Black people of employment opportunities and to offer them to White foreigners on a platter. Despite this protest I want to request this afternoon that this immigration door should, if possible, be opened a little further, and that this should be done for the following reasons: Boycotts and sanctions are not empty threats to which no one need pay any heed. They are a reality which one has to take into account in South Africa, particularly when they are even being fanned internally by so-called responsible persons. The only effective counter-measure is to seek self-sufficiency on as many levels as possible. To be able to achieve this, skilled workers are an immediate necessity, and I want to emphasize the word “immediate”. A shortage of skilled workers cannot be supplemented by training alone. Training is a process which takes years, but I do not think that South Africa can postpone its self-sufficiency programme a day longer. Quite apart from this it also deserves to be mentioned that labour as such has become prohibitively expensive as a result of this shortage of skilled workers to which I have referred. If this situation were to continue unchanged, wages would continue to rise with all the inflationary consequences that would have. On the other hand it is also a fact that although South Africa is experiencing a shortage of skilled workers, the unemployment figure among unskilled or semiskilled workers is disturbingly high; but an increase in skilled workers ought to cause the economy to grow to such an extent that it would increasingly be possible to create new employment opportunities in this way with the good effect of causing this unemployment problem to subside. After all, it is a fact that every skilled worker creates numerous employment opportunities for unskilled workers. Consequently it is not quite true that work is being given to White foreigners whereas Black and Coloured people who do not have the necessary training are being left without work. With a high growth rate and the accompanying creation of employment opportunities as a goal, I do not think that South Africa can afford what happened in 1978 with regard to immigration and emigration. In that year South Africa lost 814 economically active people. The number of economically active immigrants who entered this country was 11 126, whereas the economically active emigrants numbered 11 940. We dare not allow the number of economically active people who leave this country to exceed the number who enter it.

I want to point out another reason why I am asking for the immigration door to be opened a little further. I do not think that economic considerations alone ought to apply in the determination of an immigration policy; thorough regard should also be had to other factors. I want to point out one such factor which, with a view to the South African set-up, I think ought to play an important part in determining the rate at which immigration should take place.

The factor to which I want to refer is the structure of the population. It is a fact that immigration has always played a significant part in gains or growth of the White population group, at times to a lesser and at times to a greater extent. Between the years 1925 and 1939 immigration was responsible for 9% of the White growth rate, but as recently as 1975 immigration was responsible for 46% of the White growth rate.

Now, it is unfortunately a fact that the growth of the White population group has reached a disturbing low-water mark. The birthrate of Whites has declined by 17% over the past six years. With a growth rate of 2,06% the White growth rate has virtually reached the zero mark. At the moment Whites comprise 16% of the population and the Black population group 71%, but it is estimated that by the end of this century the White population group will comprise a mere 11% of the population as opposed to the 77% of the Black population groups.

This country simply cannot afford a considerable drop in the White growth rate. In an article in Rapport of 17 February 1980, Prof. Sadie pointed out that it was unfortunately true that economic initiative and enterprise which created employment opportunities originated solely from the Whites whose numbers were increasing the least, whereas the Black population which made the smallest contribution to growth-initiating efforts was increasing three times as rapidly.

I think that every population group has a right to preserve itself as long as this does not happen at the expense of other population groups. I think the premise ought to be: Live and let live. However, a long-term increase in immigration seems to me to be a prerequisite for merely being able to keep alive as far as the Whites are concerned.

Furthermore the reduction in the White growth rate holds serious implications for education. If the present decline in the number of school entrants continues, it is estimated that in 1983—in only two years’ time—2 000 fewer teachers will be needed. In the Transvaal, however, the phenomenon is that the grand total of children is showing an increase in comparison to the number of school entrants and Prof. Jooste attributes this directly to immigration. Consequently an increase in immigration can also play a significant part in respect of the problems in education.

When I request that more immigrants should be allowed, I am not advocating the lowering of the standards for entry. I think the cardinal premise should continue to be whether the prospective immigrant will become a good citizen of South Africa; and if this is the case, I do not think that anything ought to prevent him from doing so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Randfontein had to say about the immigrants. As far as the number of Portuguese who are at present illegally in South Africa are concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not give serious attention to initiating methods and efforts which would lead to a greater measure of legalization of their residence here.

Let me go on to refer briefly to the question of decentralization. On the recommendation of a committee, the department proceeded to decentralize its activities. This was done on the basis of recommendations contained in the report for the 1980 report year. Apart from the existing seven regional offices, a further eight were established at Beaufort West, George, Pretoria, Pietersburg, Roodepoort on the West Rand—I thank the hon. the Minister for that—Germiston on the East Rand, Kroonstad and Pietermaritzburg, where local authorities are also being used to a greater extent in order to perform certain decentralized functions.

I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister and his department consider utilizing municipalities and possibly post offices as well to a greater extent. For instance, in the case of a person who moves into an area and has to open his water and electricity accounts, specific obligations could be imposed on him to notify the department of his change of address. Since the identity document is going to be linked to the register for voters as from next year, it may facilitate matters if post offices and municipalities could be used in this respect, for after all, a person must go to a post office to arrange his telephone services, and it may be possible for the necessary information in connection with address changes for the registration of voters to be furnished there.

I want to refer briefly to the question of identification and identity documents. Identification is defined as “the inquiry into a person’s identity, or in other words, into the question whether a particular person is indeed the person he is believed to be”.

As far as the function of identity documents is concerned, it is intersting that the document was introduced during 1950 when the Government envisaged the introduction of a system of population registration, and at that stage the Population Registration Act was placed on the Statute Book. In order to give final effect to the effective system of population registration, the Population Registration Amendment Act was adopted in 1970 to amend the principal Act of 1950. The chief objective of this amending Act was to provide for the recompilation, expansion and maintenance of an automated population register and the issue of new identity documents. This system was put into operation in February 1972 and since that date, identity documents or books of life have been issued to Whites, Coloureds and Asians. The question is: What did they replace? In the first place, the identity document, or subsequently the identity card, became valid, and the most recent edition is, of course, the identity document or book which is a more comprehensive document and contains far more information.

The uniqueness of the identity number is interesting too. The identity number allocated to every holder of an identity document serves to identify a person as an individual out of a population of millions. It is unique because those facts which identify every individual are reflected in numerical codes, viz. his birth date and sex, population group classification and whether or not he is a South African citizen. These details are indicated by 12 numerical codes, and a thirteenth digit is added to a person’s identity number as a control digit. This control digit serves as a security measure to prevent a mistake being made in the presentation of an identity number by, for example, omitting a figure and/or not indicating the figures in the correct sequence.

To prevent the allocation of the same identity number to persons who are South African citizens born on the same day and classified in the same population group, a series number is automatically allocated to each individual in rising sequence, which, inter alia, reflects his sex, So, for example, the serial numbers of 1 000 individual female persons will extend from 0001 to 1 000, whereas the serial numbers of 1 000 male persons will extend from 5 001 to 6 000.

Steps have also been taken to safeguard identity documents, in respect of the most recent issues in particular. All printing work therein is done by a computer by means of a punching printing method which makes the effacement or amendment of the printing work by other methods clearly obvious. Secondly, special paper with a special background pattern is used, and this contributes towards making any effort at alteration or effacement obvious. In addition, the principle applies that no handwritten or typed details on the essential facts of life contained in the identity document may be pasted into it on loose documents. When an essential fact relating to any person changes, for example his marital status, a driver’s licence issued to him, etc., the existing identity document is exchanged for a new document in which the details have been altered.

Pass books which are issued to Blacks are made available on essentially the same basis as identity documents and also contain, inter alia, full names and the same details as in any book of life. However, at this stage the Government is envisaging steps to introduce uniform identity documents for all population groups. With a view to eliminating unnecessary discrimination the Government has decided that a uniform identity document is to be introduced for all population groups, including Blacks. Quite apart from the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of uniformity, such a system will also contribute towards keeping undesirable elements out of this country. Furthermore there is the question of the recognition by the independent Black States of South African identity documents issued as travel documents by the Department of Internal Affairs. The identity documents of independent Black States are also accepted by our Government in this respect.

There was quite a stir in the newspapers recently on the question of the possible inclusion of fingerprints in identity documents in future. I think this is a very sound principle. It is a unique method of ensuring that the person is in fact the person he professes to be. From that point of view it has my full support. I ask the Government to consider expediting that step.

The question of influx control is also very closely linked to the issuing of identity documents. In general this is being experienced as a real problem throughout the world, viz. that people stream into a specific country or region and that it is impossible to exercise adequate control over them.

In an article by Dr. P. Smit which appeared in the Tydskrif vir Gemeenskapswetenskappe in June 1970, he refers to this real problem and says that it is second only to that of a nuclear war or famine. There are disturbing facts in this regard. It is expected that between 1980 and the year 2000 the urban population in the Third World will quadruple. In addition, mention is made of the “shantytown population” of the Third World which is increasing at a rate of 20% per annum. If the process of urbanization is examined in South Africa, it is also interesting to note that in 1904 there were 233 White towns with a Black population of approximately 353 000 people. In 1970 that Black population had increased to 4 475 356. In 1980 the figure was 6 037 865. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodepoort must forgive me if I do not follow up on what he said in his speech. He discussed matters relating to identity documents, but I should like to raise, with the hon. the Minister, a completely different topic involving Coloured affairs.

I should like to raise an issue which caused those of us living on the East Rand a good deal of soul-searching and concern. I am referring to the disturbances in the Coloured township Reiger Park on 8 and 9 May of this year.

Let me say at the outset that I do not believe that Reiger Park was an incident in South African history. I think it is a symptom of a very deep-lying problem that we face. To understand this problem, it is necessary to go into the background of the problem and to look at the developments that gave rise to it. Reiger Park was established in 1964 as a result of the amalgamation of two areas, viz. Stirtonville, which was essentially a Black area and Zindabad, where there was an Asiatic bazaar and where the population was predominantly Asian. In terms of the Group Areas Act, this area was declared a Coloured area. The Black population was moved to Vosloorus and the Indian population to Actonville, near Benoni. Although it was meant to be a predominantly Coloured area, Asian traders were allowed to continue trading in that area until an Asiatic bazaar had been built between Boksburg and Benoni. Today we are still awaiting the creation of that bazaar. Reiger Park, as we know it today, extended over an area of approximately 181,7 ha. I am told that at the time it was created, there were roughly 1 693 families living there. This represented a population of approximately 10 000 individuals. As a result of the natural population growth and the influx of people to the area, there has been a tremendous demand for housing in that particular area. It is estimated that at present there are between 23 000 and 25 000 inhabitants in Reiger Park. As a result of this population growth there has naturally been a demand for additional housing. Yet I am told by members of the Coloured community living there that between 1964 and 1981 only 400 additional houses were built in Reiger Park. In 1971, for example, there were 1 120 families on the waiting list. Today there are 2 250 people on the waiting list.

Families.

I beg your pardon, 2 250 families, not persons. Therefore we are most probably talking of approximately 10 000 people looking for accommodation. This situation was brought before the authorities by Coloured community leaders. As far back as in 1970 Mr. J. A. Rabie, Reiger Park’s representative on the Coloured Representative Council, pleaded for the need to extend the boundaries of Reiger Park. As I have already pointed out, when he came there, there were 1 120 families awaiting accommodation. Moreover, apart from creating housing units for the new families, there were approximately 400 dwelling units which were considered as unsuitable for human habitation which had to be replaced. Mr. Rabie continued with his pleas despite the replies received from the authorities, refusing to acknowledge the need to extend the boundaries of Reiger Park. Even a reply from the Secretary for Planning to the Administration for Coloured Affairs, did not deter him. This reply was to the effect that, following a Press release on 11 December 1969 issued by the Minister of Planning, it was decided that the group area for Coloureds at Boksburg, known as Reiger Park, would not be extended, and that it must be accepted that the area would be frozen in extent to its presently proclaimed borders. In other words, despite a rapidly increasing population, no effort was made to extend the boundaries of that area. This is why I say that Reiger Park was not an incident but a symptom of the problem facing South Africa, namely how will we provide land for housing for the rapidly growing non-White urban population in South Africa unless we extend the borders of the areas where they are living? If we refuse to do this, all we can anticipate, is an ever-increasing incidence of acts of violence such as those that occurred at Reiger Park. The results of the shortage of accommodation and the shortage of land can be debilitating for any society. I should like to raise just one particular aspect with the hon. the Minister. Consider for example the position of the Malays who live in Reiger Park. In terms of the Population Registration Act of 1950, the Malays have been classified as members of the Coloured group. When they moved to Reiger Park, having a religion, customs and traditions different to those of the Christians, a good deal of their lifestyle was disrupted. The East Rand Malay Koor was completely disrupted and eventually disbanded. This arose because their leaders had to give up their big houses in which they used to live on the East Rand and move into smaller houses at Reiger Park. Consequently rehearsal activities came to an abrupt end.

Also as a result of the housing shortage, the leaders were unable to rehearse and train the younger generation in ratieb, which is the khalifa dance. When they were resettled from Benoni, Germiston, Heidelberg and some from Edenvale, they had to leave some of their mosques behind. In terms of their religion they are required to pray five times per day. Consequently they had no alternative but to make do with the wood- and-iron mosque they found in Reiger Park. The result is that the traditions which survived even the slave days were destroyed on the East Rand by the resettlement of these people in an area which provided them with inadequate and congested housing.

There are other consequences of the congestion and lack of housing, for example, unhealthy living conditions, slums, the breakdown of law and order, alcoholism and drug-taking, illegitimacy, a population explosion and extreme frustration leading to violence. It is therefore not surprising that in Reiger Park there were large-scale social, economic and political problems which eventually gave rise to racial polarization and friction. The incidents that sparked the violence at Reiger Park were renovations, allegedly condoned by Whites via the Department of Community Development, to a shop operated by an Indian in a Coloured township. The inhabitants of Reiger Park, were correctly or incorrectly, under the impression that the three shops on which they saw renovations being done were to have been replaced by 52 houses. The renovations to the shops were the straw that broke the camel’s back. After 17 years of waiting, the inhabitants of Reiger Park saw land which they thought was meant for housing being used for other purposes. Imagine the impact of this on people sheltering in makeshift shacks—many of the people there do live in makeshift shacks, often paying what they consider to be exhorbitant rents to the owners. Imagine the impact when one has 2 250 families waiting for accommodation in an area that is already over-congested.

I believe that the lessons of Reiger Park should be faced squarely and honestly. It is no good trying to explain away the problem by blaming it on racial friction. This was not the cause of the outbreak of violence at Reiger Park. The Coloured leaders at Reiger Park have stated quite categorically that there were no racial overtones. The hon. the Minister smiles, but this was accepted by the chairman of the Transvaal committee of the S.A. Indian Council, Mr. E. E. Abramjee, who, after he visited Reiger Park, said to Die Burger, as reported in Die Burger of 12 May 1981—

For example, Dr. Ebrahim, whose surgery was burnt down, was a few years ago threatened with eviction by the Department of Community Development. Yet it was the very residents of Reiger Park who petitioned for him to continue to stay in practice.

Order! I regret the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip opposite for giving me the opportunity to complete my speech.

The problems in Reiger Park stem from the years of group area removals on the East Rand without adequate housing having been provided for the people who were removed. That is the real reason. It is also not unique to Reiger Park.

*In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters relating to the Coloured Population Group one reads in paragraph 9.1 on page 207—

†The commission went on to point out that the question of housing was actually one of the major problems facing the Coloured community. That is the first lesson to be learnt from what happened in Reiger Park. The second lesson to be learnt from the incidents in Reiger Park is a very simple one, namely that if we create leadership structures in the non-White communities, we must also be prepared to negotiate with those leadership structures in a meaningful way. For years the elected community leaders of Reiger Park attempted to acquire extra housing for the increasing population. This was done by all legal means. When they were continually unsuccessful in these attempts the people whom they were meant to represent grew tired of their inability to deliver the goods, and regrettably the Coloured Management Committee in Reiger Park was placed in a situation in which for many years it could not deliver the goods.

When it could not meet the aspirations of its followers it began to lose the ability to control those followers, and in this situation just one tiny incident can spark a riot. This is what happened in Reiger Park, when moderate men of goodwill, men of patience, found themselves unable to stem the tide.

There is a third lesson which can be learnt from what happened in Reiger Park, namely that if we want to bring about peaceful change in South Africa we must negotiate to bring about change before violence occurs. Genuinely, when I look at what is happening in South Africa I find it frightening for the simple reason that things are done after violence has occurred. The hon. member for Durban North, who is an industrial psychologist …

No advertising please. [Interjections.]

… will be able to tell us that there is a tendency for results to reinforce particular actions. If people get satisfaction to their demands after violence has occurred we are in fact going to encourage further violence, because we reinforce this behaviours by rewarding it. This is what happened in Soweto. In Soweto, for a long time, the Black leaders pointed out what their problems were, but nothing was done until we had riots. This is wrong. When their patience was exhausted they resorted to violence, and suddenly there was action.

In Reiger Park responsible Coloured leaders petitioned for years for improvements in the housing situation. It is only now, after the riots, that the Coloured community may be given additional land. Let me say that I am delighted to know that they may be going to get additional land. Will it not have been wiser, however, to have sought a solution to this problem before the violence occurred? It can only be hoped that the events that took place in Reiger Park, in May of this year, will be a lesson to us, for as the philosopher-historian Santanyana pointed out—

Mr. Chairman, in the discussion of a Vote covering a field as wide as this one, it is only logical that a wide variety of subjects will also be raised. For this reason the hon. member for Edenvale will excuse me if I do not react immediately to his speech, but leave it to the hon. the Minister.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to talk about the question of the control of publications. But before I come to that, I should like to address a personal word of thanks to our Director-General, Mr. Van der Merwe, who is going to the Commission for Administration, and to the Deputy Director General, Mr. Kempen, who will be retiring in the near future. To these two gentlemen I should like to say thank you very much for the great task they performed in this department. It was a pleasure for me to know them, not only as very industrious senior officials, but also as real human beings. It was truly a great pleasure to know them. I wish them every success in future.

Two hon. members discussed the question of the control of publications. The hon. member for Durban Central was miles wide of the mark. He alleged that the Publications Control Act was concerned only with a prohibition. But surely that is not true. The Publications Control Act is there to declare what is undesirable for the community to be undesirable. The hon. member made another allegation as well. He said that as a result of this Act, political information was being withheld from South Africans.

Utter rubbish.

I think that is quite absurd. I think there are few people in the world who are as well-informed as the average South African. A South African who reads the daily newspapers regularly will be informed about the standpoints of both sides. However, I shall not pursue this matter any further.

I now wish to react to what the hon. member for Rissik said. He mentioned the excellent work being done by the Publications Control Board. On this occasion I also wish to thank the three existing statutory bodies, namely the committees, the directorate and the appeal board. They are doing great work and they are doing it thoroughly and in the interests of the South African community.

Then the hon. member for Rissik expressed his concern, which I share with him, by saying that certain writers, and particularly our Afrikaans writers, have developed the habit of attacking what is of value to us. An interdepartmental committee was appointed by the Department of National Education for the very purpose of looking after the interests of the writer. I do not wish to offend our writers unnecessarily. We have good writers, people for whom one can have great respect. However, I believe the South African writer could produce more that is of value and meaning to society. It is a fact that absolute drivel, if I may use that word, is frequently published. If one reads some of the things declared to be undesirable, one cannot believe that well-educated people, in many cases people with an M.A. degree in literature, can descend to such a level. The language they use is not the language used by hon. members of this House or their circle of friends. I therefore do not know who they are writing such works for. Hon. members will agree with me that publication control is never, under any circumstances, an easy task, and people who think it is are making a big mistake. Situations very seldom present themselves in sharply defined areas of black and white. One must therefore have a standard and such a standard is the taste of the average South African. The charge that is being levelled at us today, especially when one reads a Sunday newspaper like the Sunday Times, is that we have suddenly become verlig.

The “Sunday Crime”.

They make out that we have now lost all control. However, this is not true. What we have achieved, and I wish to emphasize this this afternoon, is that we have achieved greater and clearer consistency. By means of the changes in the Act a year or two ago, by means of the thorough study undertaken at the time by the commission and also by means of the adjustments which were made, we now have a greater consistency. However, we shall always have three approaches to publications control. In the first place we shall have the approach of exaggerated conservation, which wants anything and everything declared undesirable. We shall always have those people who want a woman who appears in a bathing costume declared undesirable. This is exaggerated conservatism. On the other hand we have exaggerated liberalism, which wants us to allow everything, which wants no control whatsoever and wants newspapers and magazines to be able to publish anything. What struck me last year, when the Springbok team was visiting South America, was what I read in one of the newspapers, viz. that one of the Springboks, Errol Tobias, is reported to have said he now understands why we have publication control in South Africa, after having paged through some of the magazines there. He then expressed his gratitude and appreciation that he was privileged to live in a country like South Africa where there was still control over these things. These are the two standpoints, namely the exaggerated conservatism and the exaggerated liberalism. The third criterion is moderation.

The progressive.

Progressive? No, that is the wrong track. We must ascertain what the standpoint of the average South African is, and I think we have succeeded in doing so. The task of any judicial body, and therefore of the Board of Appeal for Publications as well, is to help ensure in a peaceful way that we have a well-ordered society. It’s purpose is not to cause chaos, it’s purpose is not to cause tension but to ensure in a peaceful way that we have a well-ordered society. We know the courts do this by means of a reasonable delimitation of interests, and this is also the solution which is at present being applied by the Publications Appeal Board. This moderate approach is based on general principles of law and decisions of the provincial courts and of the appeal court. From these decisions it was deduced that an absolute assertion of morals or religious interests for example just does not at this level ensure in a peaceful way that we have a well-ordered society. The standard used, as set out in section 47(2)(a) which deals with morals, is that of the reasonable, well-balanced member of South African society; a person who is not over-sensitive and who is also not hypercritical but who realizes that in considering all the interests a decision can be taken as to whether a publication or a film or a part thereof is undesirable. This approach implies that political interests, religious convictions or feelings, morals and race relations on the one hand must be weighed up against the interests of, for example, literature, art, drama, free speech, the probable readers and even religious freedom. None of these interests I have just mentioned are decisive. What is however decisive, is the wording of section 47(2). These words have also been interpreted by the courts and this interpretation points to a moderate approach. If one studies the various court decisions then it becomes very clear that even an immoral subject can be dealt with in a book and that “objectionable” does not simply mean that which is offensive but in fact that which is disgusting. I want to repeat this: “Objectionable” does not simply mean that which is offensive but also that which is disgusting. We will find that the Transvaal Supreme Court also attaches a specific interpretation to the expression “religious convictions or feelings”. However, I wish to emphasize that there is a built-in of precedents which have been conveyed to the committees and that is what is adhered to; in other words, we do not deal with matters in a vacuum; we adhere to a clear consistent course as far as the control of publications is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the theme I actually wish to deal with, I want to dwell for a moment on the question of the withdrawn passport which has given rise to so much debate this afternoon. I want to exchange a few ideas around a principle of this matter and I think that this is actually the main principle.

The right of a State with its multiplicity of individuals seems to me to be a greater right than the right of an individual in such a State. The interests of an individual in such a State are subservient to the interests of the State with its multiplicity of individuals. For that reason the behaviour of an individual prejudicing, threatening or harming the State with its multiplicity of individuals is such that it can be restricted or limited. I think this is the main principle which applies in this case. I also believe that if the Opposition keeps this principle in mind they will probably see this matter in its true perspective, unless they want to use it for political gain. The actual subject I wish to discuss briefly this afternoon in the time at my disposal is the following: Last year the hon. member for Klip River advocated on the occasion of the discussion of this Vote—see Hansard, 1980, col. 7654—that the identity document—

In his reply to the debate the hon. the Deputy Minister supported this idea by saying that it ought to be applied more generally in practice.

Today a great deal of criticism was levelled at the identity document. Some of the criticism was particularly negative. As regards the identity document, I want to try to make a more positive contribution this afternoon by putting forward a few suggestions, but perhaps time will only allow me to make one suggestion. Although I think it is a positive and important suggestion, it may also be that the hon. the Minister and the department may think that it is probably not even worthwhile trying. Nevertheless I shall leave this idea with them. Perhaps it could also be said that this has already been considered in the past but did not work; there are any number of objections one can raise in this regard.

To my mind the issue here this afternoon is the usefulness and the uses of the identity document in our everyday life. In what ways can one really use this document to best advantage? What I am about to suggest must be seen against the background of the time which is spent, the costs which are incurred, the manpower involved and so on, which I think play an important part in this entire matter.

The identify document already serves as a birth certificate, as proof of identity to gain access to places where right of entry is reserved or barred, as proof of identity at elections, as proof of marital status and it contains the motor vehicle driver’s licence as well as the fire-arm licence. In the future it will probably be used more and more positively as regards the population register, the registration of voters and the voters’ roll.

If one looks at the annual report for 1980, one observes that 177 369 births were registered, there were 3 770 late registrations and 2 961 re-registrations, a number of amendments were made to birth entries and 168 434 birth certificates were issued. Unfortunately I could not ascertain the number of re-issues or duplicate issues in the short time at my disposal but according to my source of information these also total several thousands, because schools, churches and everyone else all want to see a person’s birth certificate. Occasionally the certificate that ha been issued since 1 June last year as a separate document is lost. Frequently the document is put somewhere for safekeeping and when one actually needs it one cannot find it.

Although everyone wants a birth certificate, people do not always bear in mind the time, the cost and the manpower involved for the parents and the State always to be able to produce and supply such a document. Now my question is: With our manpower shortage and for the best utilization of our time, money and manpower can we afford the luxury of everyone demanding a birth certificate, and then filing it and forgetting about it? At a later date the parent must request another duplicate for the next person requiring it, and it is then also filed and forgotten. Now I want to ask whether we cannot use the identity document of the father or mother in this connection. I realize that objections will immediately be raised, especially where there are divorces and one parent gains custody of the children. Or they may ask whether the present size of the document will not have to be increased. I wish to suggest that at the birth of a child two abridged birth certificates be issued on the same type of paper; paper which will not mark easily when handled. One of these can be pasted in the identity document of the mother and the other in the document of the father. These can then serve as the birth certificate of the child and can be shown by the parents to the school, the church or wherever necessary. The advantage of this is that the identity document will not be lost or mislaid so easily. And if it should be lost the particular person must in any case apply for a new document.

Against the background of saving time and costs and manpower we must begin to teach our people that we cannot afford the luxury of filing documents and forgetting about them. We can for example, through the education departments, tell schools that it is sufficient if parents show them their identity documents in which the names, date of birth and other particulars of a child appear. At the same time through the media, the radio, the Press and television we can train employers and others to realize that for the sake of saving costs, time and manpower, they must make use of this identity document and that it is not necessary to keep that information in connection with employers on their files. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort also raised the question of the identity document this afternoon, but since the hon. member for Umhlanga has already put this party’s viewpoint in that respect, he will forgive me for not reacting directly to what he said.

Did he speak on behalf of the party?

The hon. member for Umhlanga always speaks on behalf of the party.

However, I just want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, viz. that the right of the State comes before that of the individual. Obviously that is such a wide subject that one cannot deal with it in a short speech, and therefore I shall leave it at that. It will be interesting, however, to know what the hon. member for Koedoespoort thinks of the statement that the State should always be the servant and not the master of the people. I believe we could hold a useful debate on the matter on some other occasion. [Interjections.]

In the short time at my disposal, I should like to react to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said today. He made a very interesting statement.

He always makes interesting statements.

Yes, he always makes interesting statements, but not always wise ones. The statement which the hon. member for Mossel Bay made, was that the approval of all the peoples in South Africa for new constitutional development plans for South Africa was not always necessary or preferable.

No, I never said that.

That, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, results in a veto by the minority groups in South Africa.

If you make it a prerequisite.

Yes, but my question to the hon. member for Mossel Bay is how one can approach the matter in such a way. Suppose, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay would suggest, the Coloureds and the Indians rejected the proposal accepted by the White community or at least by the Government. If they should reject it, one surely would not have found a solution to the problem.

But surely you also reject certain things, but you still co-operate.

The hon. the Minister has now dragged something very big here, and perhaps we could discuss it a little later. If I had more time now, I would react to what the hon. the Minister said.

†What if the Coloureds and the Indians reject the constitutional proposals? That is what the hon. member for Mossel Bay is scared of, because he sees that as a veto. I should like to re-emphasize, for the benefit of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, that one cannot find a solution to the problem unless it is acceptable to all population groups. I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay must, however, also differentiate between the so-called leaders of a group and the body corporate, the voters. I do not think the hon. member would disagree with me if I said that it would be necessary to consult the body corporate, the voters of the group, and not necessarily only their leaders. That is, of course, where the NP runs into trouble, because it wants to reach agreement through consultation and not by the inclusion of the body corporate, the voters, in a referendum. Let me ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay whether that is right. Would he agree that the veto factor could become relevant only if one wanted to reach a settlement by negotiation with the leaders of the group? The leaders may disagree with one, but if one goes to the body corporate in a referendum, one could get their support, and the hon. member for Mossel Bay said he would support consulting the body corporate and not necessarily only the leaders. The point I should like to make to the hon. member is that one must have agreement involving all the contracting parties to a new dispensation in South Africa, because unless one can get that, one has no new dispensation. One would then only be perpetuating the status quo, though perhaps in a different form.

I should now like to turn to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say here today, because I was amazed to hear it. He advocated that we should drop all forms of publication censorship, if I understood him correctly. The hon. member does not respond to that, so I presume that is what he said. He indicated that at the moment 53% of items banned were, in fact, political. If, however, one sets standards of morality and decency in a political structure that is consistent with one’s value system, obviously by implication one has to set the limits of the standards one is laying down and which one believes should be acceptable to the total population.

Yes, you have to apply it.

The hon. the Minister is agreeing with me so fervently that he is running ahead of my argument.

He is just about making your speech for you.

I think the hon. member will agree with me that one has to set parameters of decency, morality and political structure, as well as parameters indicating what kind of value system one supports. One cannot support all value systems. That is an impossibility.

But you must know about what you are fighting against.

Quite right, one must know what one is fighting against, and if one knows what one is fighting against, one has set a standard. The hon. member for Durban Central is suggesting, by his argument, that we should do away with censorship and should allow psychological warfare and anti-South African propaganda to reach the mass market in South Africa. That is what he is suggesting.

That is a wonderful deduction.

That is what he is suggesting.

He never said so at all.

It seems the hon. member for Hillbrow is suggesting that the hon. member for Durban Central was not saying that. In other words, the hon. member for Durban Central must then have been saying that there are certain things that should not get through to the general population of South Africa.

You seem to be enjoying your own deductions.

If one agrees that there are certain items of propaganda which should not be made generally available, one must prevent that information from reaching the population.

He was not talking about propaganda. He was talking about censorship.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says he was only talking about censorship, but in principle censorship is to ensure that a section of the population or the whole population is not exposed to certain statements, material, or whatever. However, the end result is exactly the same. The hon. member for Durban Central proposed the concept that the South African population is being prevented from finding out the real truth within South Africa. I think that is really what he wanted to say.

That is true.

If the hon. member made an analysis of the banned political publications and analysed the origins of those publications very carefully, he will see that they do not come from within South Africa, but from without.

Like A Dry White Season?

Those publications are mostly of communist origin.

Like Nadine Gordimer’s work?

I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban Central to quote, in terms of strictly political propaganda, which publications have been banned in South Africa that have nothing to do with communism or the propogation thereof.

Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

No, political publications.

Black Beauty.

The argument applies equally well to immorality. If one sets standards, one must prevent those people who issue publications outside the standards one sets for oneself. Then one may not allow free access to the market. It is as simple as that.

Who makes the decisions?

The general population makes the decisions …

You do not give them the chance to do so.

… as expressed through their leaders in society. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: Does she believe in the free and unfettered propagation of hard-core pornography in South Africa?

No, of course not.

Of course the hon. member does not agree. But how would she prevent the distribution of pornography in South Africa?

But many countries have those standards, for instance America and Britain.

Quite, we agree.

But none of those countries have the censorship that we have in South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton has agreed that one cannot allow hard-core pornography to be distributed in South Africa. She agrees with that. But who would be the instrument to ensure that it does not reach the population? Can the hon. member make a proposal? One must have a body whose function it is to administer the standards. [Interjections.] If one has such a body, it must be representative of the society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since constitutional development has been falling under the Department of Internal Affairs and has expanded the functions of the department, there is a variety of other matters that can be discussed under this Vote. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a report that appeared last night in The Star under the heading “Homelands: A legal mockery”. The article refers to a verdict by judge Theron in a recent treason trial when a certain Tsotsobe was found guilty of treason and sentenced. The judge decided that Tsotsobe was no longer a citizen of the Transkei. It was a point of difference. Furthermore, he decided that even though Tsotsobe was a citizen of the Transkei, he nevertheless would have owed allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. Since the judge gave that decision, the criticism is that if this man owed allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, how can we say that the independence of the Transkei is legal and that he is a citizen of the Transkei? Then the opinion of two so-called “lawyers” is quoted, viz. Prof. Johan van der Vyver and John Dugard, who say that since the judge decided that this man owed allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, it means that “the homelands are a mockery”.

This immediately raises the question: When does a person owe allegiance to a country and is it correct to say, as these gentlemen are doing, that it is only a citizen of a country who owes allegiance to that country? If we look at the definition concerned—and this goes very far back—we see that even in Roman Dutch law it was a prerequisite with regard to committing the crime that it should be committed “by a person owing allegiance to the State”. The question is answered as follows in Roman Dutch law—

Therefore, if someone lives in a country, he owes allegiance to that country. For the record, I want to say that I am quoting from South African Criminal Law and Procedure, Volume 2, by Hunt.

To take this point further, let us look at what the situation is in terms of British law. In terms of British law, the position has been the following since 1351 and one finds this on page 9—

Therefore a person owes allegiance to a country even though he may not be a citizen of that country. By the way, this is a very big reason for the Progs to show that they owe allegiance to South Africa.

That is a disgraceful remark.

If we look at the position in South Africa, we see that the definition of “high treason”, which appears on page 13, reads as follows—

In South Africa law the word “allegiance” is defined as follows—

Does that apply to a temporary resident as well as a permanent resident?

Therefore, any person who is resident in South Africa, owes allegiance to South Africa because he enjoys the protection of the South African law, and consequently by definition can be guilty of the crime of high treason.

Now Mr. Dugard comes along and says—

This is an entirely illogical argument. A person who commits a crime can be deported, if he is here illegally. He is not condemned to death. However, it is quite a different matter when a person commits the crime of high treason. Then Dugard goes on to say—

He says the judge decided that a person who is a Xhosa, does not lose his South African citizenship.

I want to state categorically that the hon. professor is telling a lie. This is not what the judge decided; on the contrary, he said that he was not in a position to decide whether the accused was a citizen of the Transkei or not.

Therefore, what this professor is broadcasting to the world by way of propaganda, is a total, absolute falsehood. Then this professor, Johan van der Vyver, this clever, publicity-seeking chatterer, goes on with his argument, and I quote—

What absolute rubbish is this? There is no basis for him to say anything of the kind. The allegiance that is at stake here, has nothing to do with the independence of the Transkei. However, I quote further—

In terms of the Status Act and in terms of the agreement which the Government of South Africa has with the Government of the Transkei, a citizen of the Transkei maintains certain rights in South Africa. This is in fact correct. He also enjoys the protection of the laws in South Africa. That too is correct. Therefore, as in the case of a citizen of England, Germany, Holland, or whatever country, who comes to live in this country on the basis of a residence permit issued by the South African Government—on that same basis and on no other basis—he too owes allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. Just as a citizen of England or Germany or any other country, when he comes to live here in South Africa, can commit treason, just so can a citizen of an independent national State also commit treason here.

I want to express my absolute contempt of this completely false propaganda by two professors which is being broadcast to the world in The Star. It is because the Government is faced with this type of false propaganda which is continually being broadcast to the world, that this country sometimes experiences problems in having its message conveyed and in being given a fair hearing in the outside world.

I just want to give the two gentlemen concerned the following message—

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank hon. members who have participated in the debate up to now for their contributions. The way the department has now been restructured, it is quite clear that it influences virtually every activity in the lives of the population groups for which it is responsible—literally from the cradle to the grave. This being so, hon. members will understand that this particular department should show some sensitivity with regard to the people it deals with, and that this is of vital importance if the department is to perform its functions effectively. I should like to come back to this later.

However, I first wish to address myself to the first hon. speaker on the Opposition side. That was the hon. member for Green Point. I reacted earlier in the debate to one specific remark made by the hon. member. He made a remark to the effect that in withdrawing or issuing passports, the Government was influenced by the question of whether the people involved supported or rejected the standpoints of the Government. Naturally, however, this is not true. If it had been true, the hon. member for Green Point would not have been able to travel abroad. In fact, I am not aware of any standpoint expressed by him in this connection, in this House or elsewhere, which I like.

However, I censured him for having tried, with regard to the Government’s standpoint on the issuing or the withdrawal or refusal of passports—and especially with regard to the man he used as an example—to draw a comparison between the actions of the South African Government and those of the Prime Minister of New Zealand towards the Springbok team. I am quite prepared to discuss the merit of our conduct in connection with passports with the hon. member. However, I should like to emphasize that—apart from the humiliating comparison which the hon. member drew—this remark was made with regard to people and groups representing all political standpoints in our country. After all, there are Coloured people in the Springbok team as well. The hon. member made that remark with regard to people who are representing their fatherland under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. To compare them with people who advocate boycotts against a country, with people who undermine their fatherland in such a cowardly way …

You are distorting my words, and you know that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. the Minister is distorting his words?

The hon. member did not say that the hon. the Minister had done so deliberately.

The thinking of the hon. member for Green Point is distorted, and that is not deliberate. The fact is that he is displaying an absolutely callous attitude towards the circumstances of these young men. However, I also wish to join issue with him about the principle involved in passports. The hon. member will concede that the rights and privileges of citizens differ from one country to another.

Alas, they do. We find ourselves somewhere between New Zealand and the Iron Curtain.

I am not referring now to our country only. However, if the hon. member wishes, I can take the country which is often used by hon. members opposite as an example for measuring South Africa against, if it suits them, and when it does not suit them, they measure it against some other country. The rights and privileges of the citizens of the various countries of the world vary from one country to another, and not only between the various countries of the world. Even in the same country, there are differences between the rights and privileges of citizens of that particular country. The trouble with the hon. member and his party is that when we talk about differences, they always give it a colour or racist connotation. In our country, constitutionally speaking, it is the prerogative of the Government to issue or refuse a passport. The right or privilege of a citizen of a State to obtain a passport or a visa is not an absolute right. He is limited by the rights of others and especially by the interests of the State which has to accord him this particular right or privilege.

That is the subjective view of the interested party. That is where the problem lies.

If the hon. member would stop rumbling on the other side, I shall reply to him. There is nothing strange about our saying that this is the prerogative of the Government. The American court has ruled that the President, through his Secretary of State, has the right to withhold or withdraw the passport of an American citizen if the use of the passport could be prejudicial to the security of the State. What is more, he can do so not only when it could affect the security of the State, but also when it could be prejudicial to the foreign policy of America, even if it would not affect the security of the State. But, Sir, what is good for America is only sometimes good for South Africa. There can be no doubt about the fact that the onslaught on South Africa, even though it is not taken seriously in certain circles in this House, is a total onslaught, and it is being conducted in the most sensitive sphere, i.e. the economic sphere, knowing that, as the hon. member said, if one could destroy the economic power base of this country, one would also be destroying stability and order. This would be the inevitable result, and I cannot imagine a better breeding-ground for revolution than the destruction of stability and order.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 21.—“Industries, Commerce and Tourism”, had agreed to the Vote.