I move—

That this House, in terms of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1955, approves of—

1. (a) the Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Union of South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland signed at Salisbury on 16 May 1960; and
2. (b) notes which were exchanged between the Governments of the Union of South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 2 February 1961, in order to amend the Trade Agreement which was concluded between the two Governments on 16 May 1960.

copies of which were laid upon the Table on 27 March 1961.

As hon. members probably know, the Union-Federation agreement which came into operation on 1 July 1955 came in the place of a customs union agreement between the Union and Northern Rhodesia and the so-called interim customs union agreement between the Union and Southern Rhodesia. The latter agreement was called an interim customs union agreement because it envisaged the eventual realization of a full customs union agreement, and trade between the Union and the Rhodesias could therefore at that time be regarded as being free trade to an appreciable extent, with certain exceptions. However, the Rhodesians felt an increasing need to protect their own industries against competition from the Union. The result was that on the conclusion of the 1955 Union-Federation trade agreement a retrograde step was already taken in regard to free trade between these two territories. In spite of that, the Federal authorities immediately after the expiry of the five-year period which was the minimum period of operation of the 1955 agreement, terminated the agreement. They did so mainly in order to enable them to give their secondary industries still further protection against imports of Union manufactures. As the result of this factor it was difficult for us to conclude even a very limited agreement with the Federation, in spite of the fact that the Union actively attempted to retain as many as possible of the concessions granted in terms of the 1955 agreement. The choice with which the Union was faced during the negotiations was either to conclude a very limited agreement, or else to have no agreement at all with the Federation. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that it was more desirable to choose the first of these alternatives. Whereas in terms of the 1955 agreement the Union enjoyed Column D tariff treatment or sometimes even somewhat more favourable treatment in regard to most of its exports to the Federation, it now in terms of the new agreement receives Column C treatment on all exports to the Federation, except for exports mentioned in Annexure A and which consist mainly of agricultural products, the import of which are free of customs duties and require only an import permit. The customs duties in Column D of the Federation’s customs tariffs are those applicable to goods from the United Kingdom and from British non-self-governing territories, whilst the customs duties in Column C of the customs tariff of the Federation are those applicable to goods emanating from self-governing countries of the Commonwealth, with the exception of the United Kingdom. The result is that where we have now been shifted from Column D to Column C, a large proportion of the Union’s exports to the Federation will now be subject to the higher tariff. In terms of the 1955 agreement, the Federation enjoyed customs-free access to the Union on practically all manufactures it exported to the Union, except clothing and textiles which were subject to a certain textile formula. This textile formula provided for customs-free access on half of the applicable most favoured nation customs duties in the Union’s customs tariff. That was guaranteed to the Federation, according to the type of product. In 1958, 95 per cent of the Federation’s exports to the Union enjoyed customs-free access in terms of this formula. However, the concessions enjoyed by the Federation on the Union market were considerably decreased in terms of the 1960 agreement. The Federation now enjoys preferences which vary between 5 per cent and 25 per cent ad valorem on a limited list of manufactured goods, viz. those goods which are regarded as being sensitive for its export trade, including such items as radios, canvas shoes and recording machines. All the articles concerned are mentioned in Schedule B of Chapter 2 of the new trade agreement.

Then there is, secondly, also a textile formula in the new trade agreement, Schedule B of Chapter 1, but the list of products which receive preferences in the Union by virtue of it is much shorter than that in the old agreement. In Schedule B of Chapter 3 of the new agreement provision is also made for preferences on Rhodesian cigarettes exported to the Union. An important concession enjoyed by the Federation in terms of the old trade agreement was the customs-free access for a quota of a minimum of 2,000,000 lbs. of leaf tobacco per annum. This concession also appears in the new agreement, but with the difference that the 2,000,000 lbs. has now become a fixed amount and not a minimum amount. Of course, the Federation did its best to obtain a higher quota for its tobacco, but in view of the fact that in our own country we have to cope with a surplus of tobacco this was a concession which the Union was not able to grant. Just as in 1955, there is a Schedule A in the 1960 agreement, listing several products, mainly agricultural products, which can be freely imported from one country to the other merely on permit, and which are therefore customs-free. Certain products have, however, been added to this list, such as unprocessed timber to a maximum value of 7s. 6d. per cubic foot f.o.b. and f.o.r., oilseed and boxes and barrels made from a certain kind of timber.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we find it disappointing that further obstacles should be placed in the way of trade between the Union and the Federation. The Union would like to see closer trade relations between the two countries, but the Federal authorities are of opinion that the interests of their country will be better served by having more protection for their industries against exports from the Union. Unfortunately they are inclined to show more anxiety in this regard in connection with imports from the Union than in regard to imports from our most important competitor in the Federal market, viz. the United Kingdom. However, I still think that even with this more limited trade agreement between the Union and the Federation, the Federation offers a market for Union goods to which we will be able to export increasingly more goods.

In regard to the exchange of notes in February 1961, in connection with amending the agreement, I would like to explain that as the result of further consultations between the representatives of the two countries, and as the result of the fact that thereafter the Union changed over to the decimal system, the two Governments decided that the tariff concession on cigarettes coming from the Federation which in terms of Chapter 3 of the agreement was subject to a rebate of one-quarter in terms of the most favoured nation tariffs, should be changed to a definite preference, viz. 105 cents per 1,000 cigarettes. This exchange of notes led to a permanent amendment of the agreement and therefore it required parliamentary approval. I think I have now given a review of the most important provisions in the agreement, and I move.

I second.

The House is called upon to ratify what for various reasons is a very important agreement. There are a number of people on this side of the House who would have liked to discuss this question, but they are not here to-day. I must say that considering the importance of this treaty to the whole economy of the country, it is a sign of the general indifference in regard to the handling of the affairs of this country how this matter was handled. The treaty was concluded a year ago and was laid on the Table some weeks ago. This notice of Motion has been up and down the Order Paper and nobody knew when it would come on, and it is humanly impossible for every member to be here every day. I think it is a very poor exhibition on the part of the Government that proper notice has not been given to enable a full discussion of this matter to take place in the House. I was told that a Government newspaper recently remarked that if I were given a silver lining I could be relied upon to produce a black cloud to put over it. That may be so, but on this occasion the Minister has produced what I regard as a distinctly black cloud and has not even attempted to indicate that there was any silver lining to it at all.

This treaty has been signed, and has to be ratified by the Government, and we feel that it is our duty to repeat what we said before, our dissatisfaction with the way in which our relations with Rhodesia have been handled by this Government. It brings us to the position the Minister has outlined to-day, having to ratify a trades treaty which nobody likes. The Minister himself has made it quite clear that he is not satisfied with it. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that he was not satisfied with it. It is quite clear that the Rhodesian Federation itself has lost some valuable markets in the Union. In other words, from what I can see, nobody is satisfied with this arrangement, and not only does that indicate that it is probably not a very good arrangement, but what is more, it indicates that if nobody likes it, it is not likely to be permanent. We feel that this is simply the logical result of the lack of foresight and energy on the part of the Minister’s predecessor. I do not blame him for what has happened. I have no doubt that he did his best to come to a satisfactory arrangement, but right back in 1946 it was perfectly obvious what was going to happen, and that was why we worked so hard to bring about a customs union agreement. The arch culprit in this matter is the present Minister of External Affairs. He was the Minister of Economic Development in 1948. You will remember, Sir, that he actually changed the name of his Department to Economic Affairs. I take it as a hint of what we might expect under his administration, and he had that agreement to work under for five years. Everybody knew that hard work would be necessary to make it effective. There were interests on both sides which were bound to bring pressure to bear on their Government for protection, etc., and that is why the idea of a council was agreed to, to get both Governments to complete the agreement and to protect them from the pressure which was obviously going to be brought to bear on them by the respective commercial and industrial people. It was necessary, therefore, to appoint as Chairman a vigorous economist fired with the vision of economic union between the two countries in order to make it work. The last appointment this Government made as Chairman of that council was a Clerk of Parliament, for whom they wanted to find employment to make room for somebody else who was coming in, a most deplorable appointment, and typical of the lack of interest shown by the then Minister. For five years he did nothing to make the customs union agreement effective. After that we had the formation of the Federation. Immediately the Federation was announced we on this side asked the then hon. Minister what he was going to do about this customs union agreement which was only between us and Southern Rhodesia. We already had a customs union agreement with Northern Rhodesia. The hon. the Minister replied that there was nothing he could do about it and that he would have to wait until the Federation had decided on their economic policy, and then he would have discussions with them. Of course, that is exactly what happened. He did absolutely nothing to have early talks with the new Federal Government and to try to persuade them to fit into their economic policy the arrangements we had with Southern and Northern Rhodesia. The Minister sat here and did nothing about it. Of course the gross mishandling of our railway negotiations with Rhodesia is another story into which I will not go, but there is no doubt that the shocking way those negotiations were handled contributed very considerably to breaking down the community of economic interests which in our view is the only alternative to a growing tariff wall between the two countries, which is what we see happening now. It is perfectly true that our trade with Rhodesia increased last year to R105,000,000. That of course is well below the figure for 1957, when it was R116,000,000, but during 1957 and 1960 Rhodesian imports into the Union increased only by R2,000,000. That means that any Minister of Economic Affairs in the Union is very vulnerable when it comes to negotiating or bargaining with the Federation, because the balance of trade is so much in our favour. Admittedly the Minister had a weak hand to play in these negotiations, but we must remember that this weak hand was dealt to him by his own Government. It was not the Rhodesians who dealt him a weak hand. He was inheriting 13 years of indifference to this important question. We knew that pressure would come from the growing industrial development in Rhodesia. That was considered at the time of the customs union agreement and it was provided for, and we committed ourselves to do all we could to collaborate and assist in the sound economic and industrial development of Southern Rhodesia, and we offered to help finance it. That seemed to us to be a reasonable way out of building up a rationalized industrial population for the Federation and the Union together.

Now we have this agreement. This agreement is revisable every 12 months. It contains the usual trade treaty provisions for dumping duties and special duties on Government-subsidized production. It has a long list of suspended duties, some which have already been put into force. There is the fact that we have been moved, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, from Column D to Column C, which is the rate given to self-governing countries in the Commonwealth. We do not know whether that will continue or not. The hon. the Minister may or may not be in a position to tell us that, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, they are prepared to keep us on that list, but I do not think that is a satisfactory answer. I should be very much surprised if the other countries which are enjoying that preference, that preferential rate of duty, and which compete with us in the Rhodesian market for a number of things, do not complain before very long that we had no right to be left on that list. What basis is this for building up an export trade? The Minister is very anxious to see our export trade built up. The Federation is by far the biggest export market we have, and what basis is this for building up an export trade? Who is going to put money into a business on any scale for developing trade with the Federation when that trade may be strangled at any moment by the imposition of suspended duties or by demands from the Federation for an amendment of the tariff? It is hopeless to expect a substantial gesture to be made with the idea of serving the Federal market under the present condition. During the last two months we have seen the Rhodesian Government imposing a heavy duty on tyres. I think it is 30 per cent. We sell over R3,000,000 worth of tyres to the Federation a year. Now it is subject to this duty, and one very well-known firm, which is established in the Union on a big scale, is going to the Federation and has asked for this protection to protect it from outside competition; and one imagines—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that within the next year or two this R3,000,000 of trade with Rhodesia is likely to suffer very severely. We saw in the paper the only the other day that a well-known paint factory here is opening up in Rhodesia. We do nearly R1,000,000 worth of trade a year in paint with the Federation. Presumably that will be substantially cut. Up to a point I can see that that must happen, but when, of course, you are considering these things the political aspect creeps in. Firms like this have established themselves in the Union on a substantial scale and invested millions of pounds with the object not only of serving the Union but to supply the Continent of Africa. It is becoming more obvious every day that the rest of Africa will not buy and does not want manufactures from the Union. Therefore, not only are our factories moving north and the Union going to lose the business which is now being done from here by these undertakings, but we will lose the business they will do in the African market, and one of the reasons why they are going up there is that they think from up there they will be able to serve the whole of the African market, which they cannot do at present. So, looking ahead—and, of course, this is just what this Government has never done as far as economic affairs are concerned—it seems to me this is a very disquieting picture indeed. The Minister and the Government, of course, have no time to look ahead at present. They are desperately trying to hold the position as it stands to-day. Although they do not call it import control, they have already introduced drastic measures of import control over the last few months to cut down imports. Quite apart from motor-cars, it is estimated to have cut down imports by R124,000,000, they are discussing the adoption of measures at the moment to control currency and we can expect within a very short time stern measures to control the movement of currency.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a lot of latitude, but he must come back to the Bill now.

I thank you for allowing me latitude, but I believe that this is a matter of national importance. Tied up with the whole question of the way in which this treaty has been handled and the position in which the Union finds itself, this has left us no option but to accept this treaty. I cannot see any prospect of our being able to improve this treaty in time to come. On the contrary, I believe that year by year we shall see tariff walls gradually growing up between the Federation and ourselves, and we are not taking a broad view of what the future of South Africa ought to be. We have no option but to ratify this agreement, but I want to place it on record that we regard it simply as another monument to the incompetence over 13 years of the Government in handling our financial affairs.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) intimated that they welcomed the fact that this agreement is being ratified, but they had many doubts and, inter alia, he said that this Government continually lacks foresight. But when one looks at the hon. member for Constantia it is clear that he not only lacks foresight but that he completely lacks the ability to see what happened in perspective, and he completely ingnores the facts of the relationship between the Federation and South Africa. Last year, when the Prime Minister announced to this House that this agreement would be terminated, he granted an interview to the Press and the report said: “He blamed the termination on the incompetence and lack of foresight on the part of the Nationalist Government.” I really thought that, seeing he now has the opportunity to do so, he would try to adduce facts to prove what this incompetence was, but all the hon. member for Constantia could say was that it was not so much the present Minister who had made mistakes, but his predecessor, Mr. Louw, when he held that portfolio, and that when the 1955 agreement was entered into mistakes were made.

Ever since 1948.

In 1948 the intention was that this preliminary agreement of 1949 should lead to a customs union. That was the ideal, and steps were taken in that direction, and it is still the standpoint of this Government that there should be the closest co-operation in regard to trade between the two countries. But when I say that the hon. member for Constantia completely ignores the fact, I also want to say that in 1954 the position was quite different from what it was in 1948.

Hear, hear!

I hope the hon. member will continue to say “Hear, hear!” In 1948 an agreement was entered into between Southern Rhodesia and the Union. In 1954 there was no longer such a state. Then there was the Federation, which included Nyasaland. We, therefore, could not continue on the old basis because a new state had been established. But, apart from that, the fact is that the Union Government paid the Southern Rhodesian Government an amount of approximately £2,000,000 per annum. When the Federation was established, the customs revenue went to the new state, to the Federation, and no longer to the Southern Rhodesian Government. It, therefore, could not remain in existence and had to be replaced by something new. But, apart from that, when the Federation was established they set themselves the object of expanding in the industrial sphere. The Kariba scheme was already being built. In the same way that the Union concentrated on industrial expansion, that new state also tried to expand industrially in order to provide employment for its growing population. It felt that it had to concentrate on industrial expansion because the whole of the economy of the Federation was based on two items only, viz. copper and tobacco, and therefore it wanted something else to expand its economy, to spread its risk and to make itself strong. Therefore, there was no alternative. The hon. member said a moment ago that they asked the Minister of Economic Affairs in this House: “What are you going to do? Make sure that you negotiate timeously before this agreement lapses.” But already, in 1954, Mr. McIntyre, the Minister of Finance, announced in the Federal Parliament—

They therefore did not want to continue with it, and he also mentioned the reason for it. I quote from Hansard of 1955—

Inter alia, he said that there was objection to it because it was contrary to the spirit of the G.A.T.T. Agreement. But here we have the reason. However much we would have liked to continue with it, here we have the reason as given by the Minister of Finance in the Federation as to why they did not want to continue with it. However much the then Minister of Economic Affairs wanted to extend it and continue with it, he had no option. Mr. Speaker, when one enters into an agreement, both parties have to be ad idem. Here we had one party which no longer wanted to continue with it and which wanted something else in order to strengthen its own position, and we simply had to make the best of it. Therefore, to say that there was neglect on the part of the Government is to ignore the two facts. That is why I say that the hon. member for Constantia is not even able correctly to evaluate the facts of the past when launching this attack against the ratification of this treaty.

The hon. member says further than when entering into the new agreement we did not take the best advantage of the situation. Sir, in 1956 when the previous agreement had to be ratified, the hon. member made the same accusations; then he also said that trade was deteriorating and that our position had become weaker. That is correct, and nobody can deny it, but we made the best of the situation. He then predicted that our trade would decrease, and here are the facts: In 1954 we exported to the Federation goods to the value of £54,000,000, equal to 34.7 per cent of the total imports of the Federation. In 1961 it was £51,600,000, or 34.4 per cent. In spite of this change which set in, we find right throughout that the South African exporters retained their share in the Federal market. I think there was a small decrease in our imports from the Federation, and right throughout this period—not only now but since 1948—when voices began to be raised in the Federation to terminate this agreement, this large unfavourable trade balance between the Federation and South Africa was continually emphasized. They wanted us to import more from them. To some extent that was used as propaganda by those who wanted more protection for themselves or for imports from Britain. But this difference was continually pointed out; our standpoint is not so much that we should balance our trade with any particular country, but that our general pattern of trade should be balanced. The pressure to terminate this agreement within the Federation itself strongly increased before the middle of last year. That pressure came from the Chambers of Industries, but that same pressure on the Federal Government also came from the Chambers of Commerce, and that is also a reason why this agreement has been terminated, not because we wanted to terminate it, but in spite of the fact that we wanted to retain it as it was. I want to refer the hon. member for Constantia to a statement made by Sir Roy Welensky in the Federal Parliament last year according to Hansard, Vol. XV. On that occasion he said—

They are doing so in their own interests, and not because there were bad negotiations or bad relations between the Governments, nor because of the wrong handling, as the hon. member put it, or railway problems. No, “it was in our own interests”, as Sir Roy put it. He said further—

If the hon. member for Constantia wants to criticize this new agreement, he must take into consideration the fact that it was terminated by them, and that they did so because it was in their own interest not to continue with it. It is correct that all circles in the Federation are not satisfied with it; it is true that higher customs duties are now being levied on imports from the Union. The same customs duties were not applied to imports from Britain, and it may be argued that for many a Federal industrialist there is no greater incentive to start industries there, but that is surely not a matter which can be decided by this agreement entered into with South Africa; it is something which had to be left to them in their negotiations with Britain. But even the Chamber of Commerce expressed dissatisfaction in this regard. Let me quote what Mr. Owen said in the Federation—

Even the exporters in the Federation who export to the Union are dissatisfied. Their exports to the Union have been affected. Therefore Mr. Owen had to try to calm them by saying that it was in their long-term interest that this should continue. But also in South Africa, particularly from the Chamber of Commerce, there was strenuous objection to it. They would have liked to have had a more advantageous agreement; we would also have liked that, but even the Chamber of Industries, which is perhaps more seriously affected by these increased tariffs than the Chamber of Commerce, said at their congress in Port Elizabeth, through Mr. Rulofs, their Chairman, that industrialists in South Africa are actually satisfied with the new trade agreement with the Federation. He said that under the circumstances we had fared well in our negotiations. I read further—

It is clear that these were difficult negotiations. The negotiations were carried on for six months, and they were continued in order to get the best possible terms for South Africa in the circumstances. It is therefore no wonder that although this agreement is already in operation we notice that our exports to the Federation have not decreased up to this stage; it is still approximately R2,000,000 a week. We therefore have to be realistic when we talk about our relations with the Federation. Just like South Africa, the Federation also wants to build up its industries. Our pattern of trade is the same. The industries established here resemble those in the Federation and therefore there has to be some measure of adaptation. I believe that we have the will and the ability to make that adaptation. The trade agreement with the Federation covers trade which is vitally important to South Africa, and therefore this Government desires to have the best possible relations with the Federation in the commercial sphere. But I also believe that just as our trade with Britain changed during the course of the years to fit in with our industrialized state, in the same way our pattern of trade with the Federation will also have to be changed and modified in future according to circumstances, but it will always have to be borne in mind both by us and by the Federation that we have an example of economic cooperation in Europe. That can always be our ideal. But we must be practical. In regard to this agreement, we were as practical as possible, and under the circumstances we could not conclude a better agreement with the Federation than this one, despite what the hon. member for Constantia has said.

The last thing one would wish to do at this moment is to make the position of the Minister of Economic Affairs more difficult by simply offering criticism of a destructive kind. He carries a very big burden on his shoulders in the circumstances, not merely with regard to trade with Rhodesia and the Continent of Africa, but with regard to the whole trade future of our country, and I can offer him sympathy in the burden he carries without recriminating as to the reason why he should have to carry that great burden.

With regard to this agreement I would like to mention the things in respect of which I am in agreement with the Minister, to start with. He said that it was better to have a limited agreement than to have no agreement at all and I think everyone in this House will agree with that. It is much better that we should have a written understanding with our neighbours to the north than that things should be left to incalculable fluctuations. Secondly he implied that it was a sad thing that the trade barrier between us and the Federation was increasing. I think it is a disappointment to everybody, but when we speak of disappointments, we must assess what we mean—whether we mean a disappointment to the country as a whole in the actual facts of the case, or a disappointment to individual vested interests on the facts of the case, or disappointment on the whole with the way in which the negotiations were handled. Now, with regard to what the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said, I agree that in the past one could be disappointed by the fact that the South African Government perhaps did not attach the importance to the trade relations with our neighbours to the north that they obviously should have attached. But I do not want to go into that back history. Obviously a political situation also influences an economic situation, and the difference in politics between the two countries did not contribute in the period since 1948 to a better understanding in the economic field. But that is now water under the bridge. The dream of a customs union was perhaps always a very long-period dream in that for a customs union, which is a very powerful thing, to operate, the two countries must have very close political and social affiliations as well as economic affiliations. But the dream of a free trade area which went at the same time was, to me, at any rate, a disappointment. One hoped that a balance might have been preserved were we to work along those lines. The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has indicated that the creation of the Federation itself was an obstacle to the fulfilment of that particular dream, and up to a point we must all agree. At the centre of the creation of the Federation was the great economic blueprint which was to make a viable and an interdependent relationship between the three territories that composed it, and we hope that that economic dream may continue to be viable although it is clear to us that the Federation is not going to be the Federation that its original propounders dreamed of. There are going to be big constitutional changes up there and whether they will affect the whole economic field remains to be seen. But I want to say that so far as I am concerned, I want to see a strong economic country to the north of us, because if we are to trade there, the stronger they are the better for us. You cannot do big trade with an impoverished country, and to that extent even if the development of Rhodesia and ourselves on the lines that we are now proceeding—the lines outlined by the hon. member for Bellville—indicate greater friction at the economic edges, it is better that Rhodesia should be developing, even to some extent in competition with us, than that they should be retrogressing up there, because her fate economically and ours hang together to a great extent. In 1958 South Africa’s total trade with the Continent of Africa, out of a total export of about £389,000,000 was £71,000,000 for the Continent of Africa or about 18 per cent; of that £51,000,000 or about 14 per cent went to Rhodesia. The Minister will correct me if these figures are out but broadly I think they are of that order. As the hon. member for Constantia has pointed out, the Rhodesias were out and away our best market on the Continent of Africa. With the circumstances that have developed since then on the Continent of Africa—and it would take a very bold man who would venture to predict the form of the economic units that will eventually be formed on the Continent of Africa—but with the developments that we do know of, the Rhodesian market is assuming a greater importance than it had before, for the reason mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, that so far as the balance of that 18 per cent is concerned, it is likely that we may get greater obstacles rather than less so far as the rest of the Continent of Africa is concerned. I do not want to go too deeply into that, but it is obvious that quite apart from the element of hostility that shows itself towards South Africa, the competition of big powers for trade in those other areas is going to increase. That is what hon. members on that side of the House call the new Imperialism so far as the emergent states of Africa are concerned. Therefore it becomes doubly important that we should maintain the best possible trade relations we can with the Federation and that we should give our very best, consistent with our own interests, to strengthen the economic position of the Federation. That as I see it, is taking a broad vision of the situation, not merely looking at the vested interests in this country and the vested interests in that country but rather the two of us seeing that as neighbours it is in the interests of each one of us that the other should be as wealthy as possible, if you are looking at it just in the economic field; there are other ways in which you can look at it, but to-day we are talking economically. I am sure that the Minister and his officers, so far as the existing situation is concerned—I am leaving aside the past and what led to this situation—did the best to arrive at the best possible agreement. I would also say this: If it were necessary to make certain concessions—and certain concessions were made on such things as textiles, knitwear and tobacco and so on—to achieve the maintenance of our exports to Rhodesia, at least in the Column C position, then I would say it is better that those concessions were made than that no agreement was arrived at at all. I think what we and the Rhodesias have to try to do is to look first of all at the major interests of the two territories as a whole and to try to see in which field, although we may be competing in certain of them, the one territory enjoys a productive advantage and, if possible, to make the concession to that country in that particular field rather than to bargain each item by item as if they were equally important, where the clashes of vested interests, acting through the Government representatives, may reach a partially satisfactory basis in respect of that commodity but overlooks the national interest as a whole as against vested interests. It is very difficult because the pressure of vested interests in these matters is very great, and ultimately you may have to call for adjustment from one sector of our own economy in order to benefit that other portion of your trade which will enjoy the best relative advantage. In other words, this is as near as we can go at the present stage to what would have taken place under a free trade system where the play of economic forces would have determined the location of industries and their strength over the whole combined area of the Rhodesias and South Africa. I think there the words used by the Prime Minister when he made his statement should perhaps be quoted. I think he was disappointed as a result of the agreement, but he said this—

What I was trying to imply is expressed there in general terms, that we may have to call upon certain sections of our economy that trade with Rhodesia to put up with certain obstacles in the interests of the other exports on which we still have a great advantage—for example at the present time metalwork and machinery and so forth, which is the biggest single item of our trade with Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker, as I said my approach to this matter is not the approach that views the situation of our competitive interests like two dogs fighting for a bone. I think it is true to say that behind this trade relationship our friendship with Rhodesia is still good. It is simply a matter of meeting round the table under pressure to make the best bargaining arrangements possible, but behind that I believe there is still close friendship between the two countries, and I think therefore there is scope for the type of analysis behind the scenes of which I am speaking, in order to try to see not what is in the best interests of the particular vested interests in the Federation or here, but what is in the best interests of the nation, perhaps calling for a small sacrifice from this or that vested interest. There is another aspect of this with which we have to concern ourselves, and that is that South Africa, apart from being the leading industrial country on the Continent of Africa, was also the only country that could approach the question of a capital surplus, of investing in other countries, and a great deal of the Union’s money has gone into Rhodesia. Whether that process can go on in the circumstances in which we find ourselves where capital shortage is a problem, the Minister of Economic Affairs can answer better than I can. But we must remember that even in certain of the industries that are competing with us, South African capital is to some extent involved. In fact, I saw a case quoted in, I think, the Financial Mail, of a South African industry, with the support of the I.D.C. that was operating in Rhodesia and calling for an increased textile preference in Rhodesia against South African imports, and not merely a private enterprise company but a company with affiliations with the I.D.C. I mention this point because this is not quite as simple a situation as is sometimes supposed and to emphasize the great interlocking of the economic interests of the two countries; that it is impossible for one in the long run to gain a real advantage over the other without doing the two a disservice, and in actual fact the development of both will redound to the advantage of the other—I won’t say “partner” —friend, even though in one particular sphere it may lead to hardship. It is from that angle that we should look at this problem. With regard to the Minister’s remark and the remarks passed by the hon. member for Bellville that the Rhodesians seem to find English imports more welcome than South African imports or rather that they prefer to put up barriers against South Africa rather than against our competitors in the United Kingdom, I think it is simply a matter of the volume of trade that is conducted and Rhodesia is bound to be influenced by the total volume of trade, as we would be influenced, because after all, our trade with Rhodesia is a small thing compared with our trade with Europe, although it is a very significant thing in our African trade, so that is simply a matter again of self-interest; but I believe that behind the pure bargaining that goes into this matter, behind the narrow self-interest, there is a recognition in our two countries of a common interest that goes beyond these things, a realization that we are both of Africa …

“Africa for the Africans.”

That is a perfectly good doctrine. I support “Africa for the Africans” if you do not say that all Africans are black. We have that common interest, and that common interest can develop from small beginnings although we are a jump ahead of the Rhodesias, and I think in the future this may bind us closer than a tariff wall may separate us, although I would urge, with the hon. member for Constantia, and all those who advocate a similar concept, that the lower we can keep that tariff wall and the more flexible we can keep our arrangements with the Rhodesias the better. But I also agree that it is a two-sided bargain, and if the Government might be criticized for not attaching the importance to that connection that it deserves, that in the past they did not handle it well, I am confident that now that the Government is aware of the importance of this connection—and the very fact that both speakers from that side have tried to lay the onus on Rhodesia rather than on ourselves proves that they do attach this importance to it …

Would you like to move a vote of confidence in the Government?

No, I would not do that, but I am trying to look at this thing, apart from the steps in the past, that have led us to the impasse in which we find ourselves. I am trying to see how we can best do it in the existing circumstances, and I think that simply to say that this was wrong in 1948—and I am ready to concede that that was wrong in 1948—is not going to help us at this present juncture, nor do I think with regard to the remarks from that side, that simply to criticize Rhodesia would help. What we have to do is to get down to the points where a common interest exists and to try to get away from a narrow bargaining that rests on pressure of vested interests and rather give our Ministers and our officers a mandate to act in the best interests of our country as a whole economically, even though it may call for sacrifices from individual vested interests from time to time—what has been called adaptation on that side of the House.

I do not think it is necessarily true, as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) appears to assume, that closer economic union presupposes closer political union. That is not the experience in Europe to-day.

How was the German Empire founded?

The experience in Europe today is something quite in the opposite direction. There the tendency is to break down economic barriers and, therefore, they have established the European economic union, the Inner Six, and the other association of seven countries. Some cynic has remarked that they are all at sixes and sevens, but it is not quite as bad as that. They are anxious there to break down these economic barriers. I think we might have done something to break down economic barriers with the Federation if we had been more enthusiastic about the Beit Bridge-Fort Nicholson scheme. That was discussed in Rhodesia; that was a scheme they would have liked to have had. I do not know whether it was impossible in the end. I think if there is a Minister in this Cabinet who would be likely to assist it would be the Minister of Transport whom we have to-day. There must have been difficulties that were insuperable, but it was very desirable that that should have been a gesture to Rhodesia.

I should like to develop another point that the hon. member for Musgrave has made, and my reason for intervening in the debate is to put this point to the House. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs controls the Industrial Development Corporation. The hon. member for Musgrave has pointed out that it has been stated that the Industrial Development Corporation is interested in giving financial support to companies which may now become our competitors in the Federation. We cannot say. For many years we have said to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs: Give us an opportunity to investigate how the Industrial Development Corporation invests the funds of the taxpayer. The corporation is financed by the taxpayer; the South African taxpayer pays for the investments. But the Industrial Development Corporation has consistently refused to say where the money is invested. I admit they give vague indications: So much on the Witwatersrand, so much in the Cape; so much for one company and so much for another, but I think the taxpayer in South Africa has the right to ask …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

It is important to the point I wish to make now, Sir.

The hon. member must seek another opportunity to discuss the Industrial Development Corporation.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to deal with this point: Will he give us the assurance that the Industrial Development Corporation will not be financially interested in any company in Rhodesia that will be acting in competition with South African interests? I think that is fair; it is a question arising out of this agreement. We have to consider very seriously whether South African capital, subscribed by our taxpayers, will be used in Rhodesia to compete with South African industries. That might happen. It has been stated that that is the case, and until we have the information we ask for, we cannot give judgment.

I do not think one can blame the Federation for the attitude they have taken up. It is the attitude the Union of South Africa has taken up. And if the Federation says, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, that they prefer closer bonds with the United Kingdom than with us, that is a matter for the Federation. They are quite capable of looking after their own affairs. I do not think there will be any difficulty politically on account of this. Political difficulties, of course, often follow economic differences, but I don’t think there will be any. I agree with the hon. member for Constantia when he says that much of this could have been avoided if we had cultivated closer association with the Federation. But we have not done that, and it is no good now crying over spilt milk. This Government has spilt a lot of milk in the course of the last 13 years.

I have not the slightest intention of sharing the pessimism of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be extremely difficult to equal his pessimism. The hon. member made vague accusations here without substantiating them and without making a single concrete suggestion as to what he would do if he were in the same position to-day. He made no suggestions as to what he would have done, or as to what any Government of which he was a Minister would have done, in the light of the wishes and the arguments of the Federal Government. The hon. member for Constantia said that nobody was satisfied with this agreement. You will remember, Sir, that he said the same thing in regard to the 1955 agreement, and if I had the time I would have been able to make many quotations to show how in 1956 the Government was attacked in this House and outside in regard to the 1955 agreement, as if that would put a stop to all our relations with the Federation. But, in spite of all the allegations made at the time, our trade with the Federation increased steadily. In spite of those allegations, our trade with the Federation is slightly bigger to-day than it was in 1955 and the Federation’s trade with us decreased. Whereas in 1955 10.1 per cent of the exports of the Federation went to the Union, that has now decreased to 6.5 per cent. It is those things which were realized by the people in the Federation, that our trade with them was increasing (under the old agreement), but that their exports to South Africa were decreasing, and that the gap was becoming increasingly wider. The hon. member says that nobody is satisfied, and he painted all kinds of dark pictures of the future, but, in spite of that, our exports to the Federation increased this year, and they are bigger than they were last year under the old agreement. That proves to me that this new agreement is not as disadvantageous as the hon. member contended. I am convinced that this is the best agreement we could arrive at in the circumstances. Personally. I am dissatisfied because we could not succeed in arriving at a free trade agreement or a customs union. I have already intimated in previous debates that it was my wish to work in the direction of a customs union or a free trade agreement. But hon. members should remember that an agreement is entered into by two parties, and our wishes are not always the same as those of the other party. The Federal authorities—and it is understandable that they did so—pointed to the big adverse balance of trade, the growing gap between the exports to us and our exports to them. They said: We also want to build up our industries and protect them; we want to preserve the small local market existing in the Federation for our industries for the benefit of our own industrialists. How would the hon. member for Constantia, or any other hon. member opposite, have reacted to those arguments? They are precisely the same arguments we use in this country every day, that we want to build up our industries by means of protection, and that we want to preserve the small local market for our own industrialists. The Federal authorities told us: “You built up your industries in South Africa by means of protection; have we in the Federation not the right to build up our industries through protection?” Those are the arguments advanced by them, and what could the hon. member for Constantia say to that? The people in the Federation told us: “The ideal of having a customs agreement in future is a nice one, but before we can do so there must be a greater measure of equality between the Union and the Federation in the economic sphere. If we should have a customs agreement between the two countries now whilst the Federation is still weaker than the Union, it will be to the detriment of the Federation, and we are not yet in a position to compete with the Union.” Some of them in fact envisaged the prospect of such a customs union which might come about one day when the Federation had also built up its industries, so that it would be more or less on an equal footing with the Union. Then we shall again be able to discuss the matter.

But hon. members should remember, and in this regard I agree with the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams), that the economic development of the Federation, its industrial development, is not necessarily harmful to the Union; perhaps it is to our benefit, and it is certainly to our benefit that the Federation should become economically strong, for many reasons, but particularly for economic reasons. As the Federation becomes economically and industrially strong, it will constitute a better market for our products, for consumer goods, because it has a bigger purchasing power, and perhaps it will also create a better market for the capital products we can manufacture. Any agreement which helps the Federation to become economically strong is not necessarily harmful to South Africa in the long run, but may in time be to our benefit.

The hon. member for Constantia would have liked to see a greater expansion in one or other respect in this agreement. But I want to mention a factor here which has not been mentioned yet, and which that hon. member and others have not yet considered, viz. that we are all members of G.A.T.T. and, in terms of G.A.T.T., it is not so easy to extend or to increase existing preferences, and if we were to have extended this agreement over and above what it was in 1955 (to 1960), we would definitely have been faced with insurmountable difficulties by G.A.T.T. I may mention that even this limited agreement to which hon. members object was approved of by G.A.T.T. only with the greatest difficulty. Negotiations lasting for weeks and months took place in order to have even this limited agreement approved of by G.A.T.T. It is easy to come here and to say that we should have obtained and given greater concessions, and that we should have extended our mutual preferences, but then we would have come up squarely against G.A.T.T., and we would not have been able to do so.

I have already replied to what was said by the hon. member for Musgrave, that we should assist in building up the Federation for various reasons. I do not agree with him where he insinuated that we had been neglecting the Federation in recent years. Certainly not. Our Government did more work in the Federation to extend our trade than it did proportionately in any other country. We have a fairly strong trade representation in the Federation. We built a beautiful pavilion at Bulawayo and at Salisbury, and we always had a big exhibition in Ndola. We do more to advertise and propagate our trade in the Federation than we do in any other country of the world, relatively speaking. I definitely deny that we neglected the Federation.

The hon. member for Kensington asked a question about the Industrial Development Corporation. I do not intend replying to that question. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with this matter at the moment. If the hon. member wants to raise this question when my Vote is debated next week, I will reply to him.

I wish to conclude by saying that I believe that, in terms of the present agreement, we still have great scope for expanding our trade, and the Government will do everything possible not only to expand the trade between the two countries, but to strengthen the bonds of good neighbourliness and good relations and the friendship between the two countries. I hope we will be assisted in that by hon. members opposite, and that we will also receive the assistance both of commerce and industry in the Federation and in South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

That this House, in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1955, approves of the notes exchanged between the Governments of the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom on—

1. (a) 9 April and 13 May 1960 in confirmation of the Union Government’s agreement to an amendment of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20 August 1932 between the two Governments, in order to enable the Government of the United Kingdom to meet its obligations in terms of the Convention for the establishment of the European Free Trade Association; and
2. (b) 31 October 1960 in confirmation of the Union Government’s agreement to the elimination of the tariff preference which is enjoyed by the Union in the United Kingdom on citrus fruit and citrus fruit peels, preserved in brine, in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20 August 1932 between the two Governments,

copies of which were laid upon the Table on 27 March 1961.

I shall deal first with the position in connection with portion (a) of my motion dealing with the request made to the Union Government by the United Kingdom because of the fact that the United Kingdom has become a member of the European Free Trade Association.

Hon. members probably know that the Convention for the Establishment of the European Free Trade Association, which is generally called EFTA, came into operation on 3 May 1960. The member states are the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal which are also known as the Seven.

There are various aspects of the Convention in which the Union is interested, but the motion under discussion relates only to the amendment of the Union’s contractual preferences on certain products in the United Kingdom, as a result of the gradual abolition of import tariffs on trade between the Seven. I specifically say “contractual preferences” to indicate preferences which are guaranteed to the Union in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20 August 1932 entered into between the Governments of the two countries.

On 1 July 1960 the Seven, in terms of the provisions of the Convention, reduced their import tariffs on the industrial products of member states by 20 per cent. A further reduction of 10 per cent will take place thereafter every 12 or 18 months, and it is hoped that on 1 January 1970 the duties between the seven states will have been wiped out completely. The only exception is Portugal, which received a special concession to abolish its tariffs against the goods of the other member countries over a longer period. The Council of EFTA may decide, however, that the abolition of import tariffs should be accelerated; in other words, they may reach the stage even before 1970 when custom tariffs between the seven countries will have been abolished entirely in the industrial sphere.

Since the United Kingdom is now gradually abolishing her tariffs on imports from other EFTA countries, it will mean, of course, that the Union’s tariff preferences in the United Kingdom on the products concerned will be wiped out to the same extent.

Bearing in mind the fact that the abolition of tariffs only applies to industrial products, there are only 12 products or groups of products in respect of which the Union’s contractual tariff preferences in the British market will be affected, namely the following:

1. (1) A special type of cheese which is made in Denmark and which is called “blue-veined” cheese;
2. (2) canned lobster;
3. (3) quick frozen fillets of hake;
4. (4) maize products, except those included in Annexure II of the Rome Treaty (and which are therefore regarded as agricultural produce);
5. (5) sausage skins;
6. (6) asbestos;
7. (7) ostrich feathers;
8. (8) whale oil and whale products;
9. (9) boxwood;
10. (10) goat skins;
11. (11) oyster grit;
12. (12) wattle bark and wattle extract.

Towards the end of 1939 the British Government requested the Union Government to consent to the abolition of its import duties on these products when they are imported from other EFTA countries and accordingly to amend the Union’s contractual tariff preferences on these products. The British Government was informed that the Union Government would be prepared to give the desired exemption and to let the question of compensation stand over for future tariff negotiations between the two countries. Notes have been exchanged between the two governments to confirm the Union’s acquiescence, and this House is now being asked to approve of this exchange of notes.

At this stage I should like to emphasize that the United Kingdom’s customs tariffs on imports of the relevant products from countries outside EFTA remain in operation, and to that extent the Union’s tariff preferences are not affected. It is only when the United Kingdom imports the relevant products from EFTA countries that the Union’s preferences are affected.

I want to make a few comments now on the products in question and explain how the Union’s trade will be affected by the abolition of these preferences:

1. (1) Blue-veined cheese: The Union has no direct interest in this product and will not be detrimentally affected by the loss of this preference.
2. (2) Canned lobster: The Union’s export to the United Kingdom in 1957 amounted to £151,683 or 22 per cent of our total exports; in 1959, however, the corresponding figures were only £2,925 and 1.5 per cent. The Union is practically the only supplier of this product to the United Kingdom. But in the meantime an important competitive product in the shape of canned crab has appeared on the market. One of the member countries of EFTA, namely Norway, supplied 5.7 per cent of the British imports of canned crab in 1958. I think the abolition of the preference on canned lobster will not materially weaken the competitive position of this product on the British market.
3. (3) Quick-frozen fillets of hake: The British authorities expressed the opinion that the Union’s preference on fresh hake did not cover quick-frozen fillets of hake. The Union, however, did not accept this view. As far as can be ascertained the Union’s exports of fresh and frozen fish to the United Kingdom (which amounted to £82,400 in 1959) consist mainly of frozen fillets of hake. The abolition of this preference in favour of the other six member countries will affect the Union’s competitive position detrimentally, and the Union expects to receive compensation from the United Kingdom for this in due course.
4. (4) Maize products, except those included in Annexure II of the Rome Treaty (and which must therefore be regarded as agricultural produce): The Union’s main exports of maize products to the United Kingdom (mealie meal, mealie rice and hominy chop) were included in Annexure II of the Rome Treaty. As far as can be ascertained the Union’s exports of maize products will not be affected, except perhaps to a minor extent.
5. (5) Sausage skins: The abolition of this preference will not detrimentally affect the Union’s trade interests to any important degree, in view of the fact that her exports of sausage skins are relatively insignificant.
6. (6) Asbestos: The Union’s exports of this product to the United Kingdom amounted to £2.1 million in 1959. The other six-member countries of EFTA are not asbestos-producing countries, however. I do not believe therefore that the Union’s trade interests will be detrimentally affected by the abolition of this preference.
7. (7) Ostrich feathers: The Union’s exports of this product to the United Kingdom amounted to £35,000 in 1959. As far as is known, the other six members of EFTA are not producers of ostrich feathers, although they do export other ornamental feathers which compete to some extent with the Union product. It is felt, however, that the abolition of this preference will not seriously prejudice the Union’s sales in the United Kingdom.
8. (8) Whale oil and whale products: The Union lost her preference on whale oil and hydrogenated whale oil (but not on sperm oil) as far back as 1933. In view of the fact that the Union is no longer sending an annual whaling expedition to the Antarctic Ocean and her activities in this sphere are now confined to two land stations (Durban and Saldanha). I feel that the Union’s trade interests are not affected to any important extent by the abolition of this preference.
9. (9) Boxwood: The Union’s exports of this product to the United Kingdom (£2,348 in 1959) have become relatively insignificant. I feel that the abolition of this preference will not have any material consequences.
10. (10) Goat skins: The Union’s export to the United Kingdom amounted to £44,000 in 1959. The other six-member countries of EFTA are not large exporters of this product, and it is felt that the abolition of this preference will not prejudice the Union’s trade interests.
11. (11) Oyster grit: Exports of this product stopped completely a number of years ago.
12. (12) Wattle bark and wattle extract: The Union’s exports of bark to the United Kingdom amounted to £1.155 in 1959 and of extract £1,130,000. As far as can be ascertained the other six-member countries of EFTA are not important exporters of vegetable tanning extracts, and it is felt that the abolition of the Union’s preference on this product will not appreciably increase the strong competition which South African wattle exporters are experiencing at present. It is only the Union’s preference on wattle bark and wattle extract that is guaranteed; the preference on other tanning materials and tanning extracts is not guaranteed.

Generally speaking it can be said that the products which I have just mentioned are either of little importance to the Union’s export trade to the United Kingdom or that they are products in respect of which the other EFTA countries are not important direct competitors of the Union on the British market. As far as canned lobster and frozen fillets of hake are concerned, these countries are, it is true, indirect competitors.

I may add that the abolition of the import tariffs within the European Free Trade Association only apply to so-called “industrial products”. With certain exceptions (and “blue-veined” cheese is one of the exceptions) they do not cover agricultural produce. That means that the Union’s contractual tariff preferences in the United Kingdom on fresh, dried and canned fruit and wines are retained. On the other hand, the Union’s non-contractual tariff preferences in the United Kingdom on industrial products are affected by the establishment of EFTA. And the abolition of these preferences will adversely affect the Union’s exports such as canned pilchards, ham and timber products (particularly hard board). The United Kingdom, however, is at liberty to abolish these preferences without the Union’s acquiescence, in view of the fact that they were not guaranteed to the Union in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20 August 1932, between the Governments of the two countries. As far as the motion under discussion is concerned, the abolition of these preferences is not relevant either.

I now come to portion (b) of my motion, which asks this House to approve of the exchange of notes between the Governments of the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom in connection with the abolition of the preference which the Union enjoys in the United Kingdom on citrus fruit and citrus peels preserved in brine. In 1959 the Government of the United Kingdom approached the Union Government with a request for the abolition of the relevant tariff preference because British importers could not get sufficient customs-free supplies from Commonwealth countries.

In terms of Article 4 of the Ottawa Trade Agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom, the Union enjoys a guaranteed preference of 10 per cent ad valorem on fruit preserved by chemicals or artificial heat, except fruit which is preserved in sugar. The British authorities feel that this description covers citrus fruit preserved in brine, but not the peels. The Union does not export citrus fruit and citrus peels preserved in brine, but these products are used as a raw material in the manufacture of candied peel, and the Union’s exports of candied peel and cut and dehydrated peel amounted to £157,476 in 1959, of which exports to the value of £139,687 went to the United Kingdom.

The abolition of the preference on citrus fruit and citrus peels preserved in brine will probably affect the Union’s exports of candied peel detrimentally in an indirect way because the whole object of the abolition of the preference is to help British manufacturers of candied peel, and they will presumably increase their production and thus make it difficult to dispose of Union candied peel in the United Kingdom market. The Union’s preference on candied peel will, however, remain in operation and the British authorities feel that they cannot be expected to pay compensation for the indirect effect of the abolition of this preference on the Union’s exports of candied peel.

The British authorities have been informed that the Union Government agrees to their request on the understanding that the question of compensation for the abandonment of this preference will be taken into consideration when the Union again conducts tariff negotiations with the United Kingdom. Notes have been exchanged between the two governments to confirm the Union’s acquiescence, and the House is now being asked to approve of this exchange of notes as well as the previous exchange of notes.

I second.

I think this House will be indebted to the hon. Minister for the lengthy explanation he has given in regard to these notes which, according to him—and I have no doubt he is right—do not in themselves amount to any very serious threat to any of the exports to which they refer. Of course, what is at issue here is the whole question of our relations in regard to the free trade area and to an even greater extent to what may be going to happen in respect of the common market. Before you interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I know that that is out of order and I only mentioned it in order to say that I think a discussion on the two matters, EFTA and the common market, will have to be taken up with the hon. Minister on his Vote, and I am sure he will be prepared to have a full discussion on the matter. Otherwise, we have no objection to this resolution.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The necessity for the introduction of this Bill arises from the change in the Union’s form of government as from 31 May 1961.

The Constitution provides in Section 3 that all references in existing legislation to, amongst others, the Crown, the Queen, the Governor-General and the State, shall be deemed as from 31 May 1961 to be references to the State President or the republic, as the case may be, while in Section 107 it makes provision for the continued validity of any existing laws as from 31 May 1961.

It is necessary, however, to make special provision in respect of the continued validity of certain provisions and restrictions contained in a few Acts which fall under my Department. I have in mind, for example, the Merchandise Marks Act, 1941 (Act No. 17 of 1941), the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act, 1916 (Act No. 9 of 1916) and the Standards Act, 1945 (Act 24 of 1945).

I might mention by way of explanation that Section 14 of the Merchandise Marks Act prohibits any person in the exercise of his trade, business, profession or occupation, except under certain circumstances, from using as a trade mark any effigy, portrait, etc., of the King, the Queen, a member of the Royal Family, the Governor-General, a Minister of State of the Union, a President of the Republic of the Orange Free State, the Royal Arms, the Arms of the Union or imitations of it which may be misleading, as well as reproductions of the Union Flag.

Similarly, Section 100 of the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act and Section 14 (3) of the Standards Act, contain restrictions and prohibitions of this nature in connection with the use and registration of trade and standard marks.

It is clear, therefore, having regard to the wording of the relevant sections of the Constitution, that specific provision must be made for the continued validity, as from 31 May 1961 of the above-mentioned restrictions and prohibitions in respect of effigies, etc., of the King, the Queen and the Governor-General, and that these references to the King, the Queen and the Governor-General cannot simply be assumed to be references to the State President. It is necessary therefore to provide for the continued validity of these legal provisions as from 31 May 1961 so as to include the State President of the Republic of South Africa as well.

It is scarcely necessary for me to explain the necessity for these legal provisions, and that is all that is contemplated in the Bill before the House. I move.

As I understand it, Sir, the hon. the Minister, on the advice of his law advisers, introduces this Bill as being consequential to the Constitution Bill. On that understanding we have no objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Companies Acts provides that a foreign company which transacts business in the Union, may incorporate in the Union. Recently the Department had to deal with the case of a big foreign company which does a great deal of business in the Union and which is at present in the process of incorporating in the Union. The company has found, however, that there are quite a number of hindrances and obstacles, which entail not only expense but also involve a considerable amount of administrative delay and trade dislocation.

The Act provides for certain concessions to be made and Section 203 of the Companies Act provides that if such a company, a foreign company which is incorporated here, can convince the court by producing a certificate from the Registrar of Companies that it has complied with certain requirements in the process of incorporation, for example, with reference to the liquidation of the company abroad, the issue of shares to members of the new company, and the non-issue of further shares to other persons, the court may order that no transfer duties shall be payable on the transfer of the immovable property of the foreign company to the new company.

However, this concession does not go far enough, although it goes fairly far, because the exemption from transfer duties on transferring immovable property from the foreign company to the new company, can only be given when application in that regard has been made to every provincial or local division of the Supreme Court in whose area of jurisdiction the company concerned owns immovable property. In other words, at the present time a company which owns immovable property over the whole of the Union has to apply to every local or provincial division of the Supreme Court. The company that we came across recently, that wishes to incorporate in South Africa, has businesses in all the provinces of the Union, and it therefore has to apply to all the provincial divisions. This is a requirement which not only entails expense, but a considerable duplication of work as well as difficulties and delays. Our proposal now is to bring about a change in this respect.

It is also felt that a change should be brought about in other respects. On examining the case in question it appears that there is no legal provision to facilitate the transfer of trade licences, business certificates from local authorities, roadworthy certificates for motor vehicles, etc., when a foreign company is incorporated as a new company in the Union. In other words, when a foreign company is incorporated as a new company in the Union, there is the great problem of the transfer of all the business certificates, trade licences, roadworthy certificates for motor vehicles, etc., from the foreign to the new company. As far as roadworthy certificates are concerned, it may be mentioned, for example, that in case of the company concerned they have approximately 600 motor vehicles. When incorporation is proceeded with all those motor vehicles will have to be withdrawn from service and roadworthy certificates will have to be obtained for all of them. In the case of a company which mainly or to a large extent needs motor vehicles for its business, this causes considerable dislocation and expense. Although a certain amount of State income which is mainly of a provincial nature, has to be sacrificed here, we are of the opinion that the transfers of companies of this sort should be encouraged and that it ought to be facilitated to the greatest extent, but within the limits of proper control and subject to the provisions of the Act, by eliminating hindrances and obstacles as far as possible. I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me that we should not place any unnecessary hindrances in the way of foreign companies that wish to incorporate in South Africa.

The object of the Bill before the House is simply to give effect to this idea and, as hon. members will observe, the proposals contained therein amount to this that the Companies Act is being amended as follows: (a) Provision is being made that all licences, whether issued in terms of Union legislation or provincial ordinances, as from the date of transfer of the business and property of the foreign company to the new incorporated company, will simply remain in existence in the name of the incorporated company but still in terms of a court order. I hope that is clear. If a foreign company incorporates in South Africa and all the licences are transferred to the new company, it must still be done in terms of a court order; (b) provision is being made that such a company need not go to all the divisions of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction it owns property but that it need only go for an Order of Court to the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction its address is registered. This amendment will also cover applications for exemption with reference to transfer duties, roadworthy certificates, licences, etc.

Hon. members will observe that the court still retains its discretion in these cases and that the obligations which have to be complied with at the present time with reference to the payment of licence fees and the renewal of licences, etc., are left undisturbed in the normal course of events.

While the present provisions of the Act entail great expense and dislocation for the companies concerned, the loss of State income, if the proposed amendments are accepted, will be trivial. May I just say in conclusion that all the provincial administrations have been consulted in this connection and that they have given their approval to the proposed amendment to the Act.

It says much for the work of the Milne Commission on Company Law, and the work of this House, that amendments of this kind are so rare. In most countries amendments to the Company Law come quite frequently. This amendment is really an extension of the definition of the assets of a company, and in that respect it is an obvious amendment that was, naturally, not foreseen at the time but in the light of experience we now find necessary. We support the Bill that the hon. the Minister has now introduced.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in respect of the transfer duty which the farmers have to pay when they acquire land under Section 20. Where the Department allocates land to farmers on closer settlements and under Section 23, the farmers pay transfer duty only when they take transfer of the property, namely when they pay the final instalment. But when farmers purchase land under Section 20—that is where they pay one-tenth—they have to pay the transfer duty right at the beginning. The land does not get registered in their name, however, until such time as they have paid the final instalment. My request to the hon. the Minister is to consider including the transfer duty payable by these farmers in their final payment, in other words, when they take transfer of the property; when they apply for a Crown Land Certificate and it is issued to them.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) in so far as the Section 20 settlers are concerned. In the other cases where the land belongs to the Government it only happens at a later stage, but in the case of Section 20 land, transfer duty is payable immediately whereas the land gets registered in the name of the Government. Those people are in urgent need of that money because they are in a stage where they are starting their farming operations. I wish to support the hon. member therefore in his request that it should only become payable at a later stage. He can only apply for a Crown Land Certificate after five years and normally he only applies for a Crown Land Certificate at a much later stage. I think it is desirable that it should only be paid at that stage because when the farmer is issued with a Crown Land Certificate he is in a much better financial position pay the transfer duty. We want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to consider whether it is not possible changing this. Will it not be possible to allow the farmer to pay transfer duty only when he applies for the Crown Land Certificate, in other words, when he becomes the real owner of the land? I think administratively this causes a great deal of trouble because it often happens that the farmer finds himself in real difficulty, that he cannot apply for the issue of a Crown Land Certificate and that his contract as lessee gets cancelled. If the Department of Lands lets the land to somebody else an agreement has to be entered into that the money has been refunded to the original farmer—or some other agreement has to be entered into. That is why I think it will be better and more reasonable if transfer duty only became payable against the issue of the Crown Land Certificate. We want to make a friendly request to the Minister to consider this.

I will consider the matter. That has always been the position in the past and there must have been good reasons for it. Seeing that this is the first time that this has been brought to my notice I cannot promise that I will be in favour of a change, but I will go into the matter. I think the reason is that in the case of every sale or purchase transaction transfer duty is payable. What happens in the case of Section 20 land is this: The Government buys the land on behalf of that person and the contract commences when that person goes on to that land as lessee. That is why transfer duty has to be paid at that stage. But in the case of Section 23 land the actual physical act of selling the land only takes place when the man has paid for it, that is to say, at a much later stage. I think that is the reason. It may be a good reason but I will give my attention to the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—“Surveys”, R1,480,000. put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 8.—“Forestry”, R1,200,000,

There are one or two matters that I would like to touch upon very briefly at this stage before coming to a rather more important question. Firstly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister something about the contribution to the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau, R5,080 under sub-heading G. Is it the intention of the Government to continue to pay that contribution to the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau?

Then I want to come back to a point which I raised last year, and that is this: we are in difficulties in connection with our wattle industry in this country. Indeed, the position is going from bad to worse. I do not want to go into all the details of that matter for the moment because the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) will be dealing with it. However I do want to come back to a point which I raised last year and that is that in the same way as with the sugar farmer the price of his products is determined by a test carried out on delivery of his product at the factory, so too in the case of the wattle bark farmer. I know the difficulties in connection with establishing the recoverable tannin content from a parcel of bark, but this is a matter which, I am certain, can be determined if an appropriate scientific body were to apply the minds of the officials concerned to the task. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not make this a very special point in connection with our wattle bark industry. The classification at the present time is giving rise to a lot of difficulty, as we knew it would. It is not easy, as I say. The notice which is there for the classification of our bark is being interpreted by different officials in different ways, quite naturally, because they are all human. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any question of mala fides, that is not my suggestions. But bark can be judged in one manner by one official and in a different manner by another official at another mill. Then there is the question of the lapse of time, which may be due to a number of circumstances beyond the control of the farmer, from the time the bark is taken off the tree until the time it is delivered. And that delay may affect the appearance of the bark and so forth. Now this question of classification would fall away if an easy system were devised in order to establish the recoverable content of the bark, so that the man would be paid on the tannin content of the bark and not on the bark itself. A man sending in bark with a low tannin content would get a lower price than the man sending bark with a higher tannin content, who would get a higher price, so that the price was commensurate with the tannin content. It is the tannin content that is important, not the residue but the recoverable tannin. On that basis, difficult as it may be, I hope the Minister will get the appropriate bodies to put people on to apply their minds to hammer out the difficulty of bark classification.

Then I want to come to a matter which is of very great importance to us, and that is this question of what is now called the selection of elite trees and the recovery of elite seed.

Does that apply to wattle only?

No, it covers wattle as well, and it is very important in that respect, but I would also like to link with it the development of our pine forests. I read an article the other day which said that for practical purposes out of half a million trees planted out in a plantation you will be lucky if you find four or five which can be classed as elite for the purposes of collecting elite seed. It is quite obvious that this is a very long-term procedure which the ordinary farmer cannot possibly undertake in his lifetime. Only an agency such as the Government can carry out such a long-term process. When you take a pine tree which has a growing life of 30 years and you have trees that come up to standard and you watch them and see that they maintain their standard of perfection right throughout their lifetime, your final determination will only come about when that tree is on the sawbench, because of defects which may not show themselves during its life but only on the sawbench. The ordinary farmer can never hope to get two rotations. If he takes seed from an elite tree at the end of its life and grows trees from it, he will never reap that seed; only the Government can do it. I hope the Forestry Department will make available to farmers the seeds of elite trees and that this will be a close preserve of the Forestry Department. I have heard more than whispers of very good returns indeed from such strains of seed. It applies to wattle also, but the Government does not go in for wattle growing except by accident. In regard to wattle, the production of elite seed has fallen into the hands of other people, and it is a short rotation of nine to 11 years, but I want to make a special appeal to the Government through the Minister in regard to pine, to let some of the people who go in for big plantations have some of the elite seed and not to keep it to themselves. The ordinary farmers cannot get it. Even if the Government keeps an eye on those trees and retains a right in respect of the seed got from those trees, let us do that, but do give the ordinary commercial farmer an opportunity to get elite seed.

I wish to say something about the use of timber in South Africa. I want to point out that last year the building industry used plus minus 8,000,000 cubic feet of locally grown timber but in addition another 10,000,000 cubic feet had to be imported. I think the competition between our locally grown soft timber and its competitor which is imported from overseas is sometimes unfair. It often happens that methods are deliberately employed to make the local product unpopular for purely financial considerations. I think we should remedy the position as far as this unreasonable prejudice against our local timber is concerned. It is obvious that the buying public does not realize that our locally produced soft timber, which conforms to specifications of the South African Bureau of Standards is certainly just as good and often much better than the imported article. I think this is a crime which is not being committed by the public alone. Here I have tender forms from Government Departments. I have here, for example, the tender form from the local Stores Superintendent’s Office of the Railways in Cape Town in which they ask for 8,000 feet Oregon and 1,200 feet Baltic deal and another 2,000 feet Oregon. Then they ask for 2,000 feet Oregon or South African timber, and they accept the tender in respect of the Oregon and not in respect of the indigenous timber. I have another tender form in which they ask for 2,000 flooring boards, Baltic or Oregon, not South African, and if they receive a tender for indigenous pine, they give preference to the Baltic which is more expensive. It goes on like that. In this particular tender form they ask for 35,000 feet Baltic flooring boards. They get a tender for indigenous timber but that is not accepted. I can give more examples and I think the time has arrived that we publicize our timber, and not only publicize it, but that we request the Minister that his Department should seriously consider excercising control as regards quality when timber is sold for building purposes, in respect of the imported as well as the locally grown product. I suggest that the permits for the importation of timber for building purposes should state specifically that timber should not be imported of a quality below that laid down by the specifications of the Bureau of Standards. I believe that if we exercise control over the quality of imported timber, this periodic slump in the market as far as our locally grown timber is concerned, will be something of the past; because the public will realize that our locally produced timber which conforms to the specifications of the Bureau of Standards, is as good as the imported timber. It is unfortunately necessary to issue a warning that at certain privately owned sawmills timber which is not of the right thickness is sawn into boards for building purposes instead of using it for boxes. I think something will have to be done in that direction as well. Such timber often tends to warp. I think if we continue to allow them to saw that timber for building purposes it will in the long run adversely affect the stability of our local timber industry.

Where we still have the position that we have to import 10,000,000 cubic feet of timber for our building industry, I wish to point out that where import permits are applied for I find, for example, that according to the minutes of the last meeting which took place between various people of the Department, and Commerce, they asked for permission to import a tremendous quantity of timber. They asked permission to import 7,400,000 cubic feet and 3.2 million feet in future to be placed in reserve, without taking into account the fact that there was 4.3 million feet of imported timber over from the previous year which had not been used. I think that when import permits are granted those permits should be conditional inasmuch as that timber should conform to the specifications laid down by the Bureau of Standards, otherwise the permits should not be granted. Furthermore I feel that all the timber that is used locally should also conform to those specifications and that we should ask our Government Departments to use more indigenous timber.

Then I want to refer to another aspect. In the case of newspaper we use 80,000 ton. The Sappi-factory produces 40,000 ton as it is. In that way the country saves R4,000,000 in foreign exchange. It also means that a further R2,500,000 per annum is spent locally in the form of salaries, supplies and raw material. We know that a big factory is shortly to be opened at Piet Retief. In other words South Africa is able to supply all our needs as far as newspaper is concerned as well as our other paper requirements and carton requirements. The fact that this one factory, Sappi, saves that amount of money for the country because it processes indigenous timber, is an example of the enormous saving that can be effected in the timber industry, for the lumbermen and the sawmills and all the labour required, and also of a saving of exchange if we see to it that more indigenous timber is used. I know architects are inclined to state in their specifications that imported timber should be used for building purposes because their remuneration is often calculated on a percentage basis of the costs and imported timber is more expensive hence they make a bigger profit. I think we should try to counter that tendency and try to persuade those people to be more patriotic and to use more indigenous timber.

I am going to ask the Minister to make a statement in regard to the wattle industry. It is many years now since we have spoken about the matter in the House. I can remember that seven years ago the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and I pointed out that something had to be done in regard to the wattle industry, especially at a time when we did not even know under which Minister this industry was going to fall. At one time it resorted under the Minister of Defence, and at another time it was under the Minister of Economic Affairs, and now it is under the Minister of Forestry. More than a year ago we had a Bill dealing with the wattle industry which the Minister in charge of the wattle industry told us would be the Magna Charta of the wattle industry. That Bill provided for the establishment of a board which would evolve a formula for the determination of prices and which would determine the system of grading and the regulation of production. That was more than a year ago, but we have heard nothing further. In the meantime the wattle industry has gone from bad to worse, and this is a considerable industry. It is a £6,000,000 per annum industry, and it means a great deal to the people interested in that industry, because this is not something that gives you an immediate return. You have to wait for nine to 11 years for your trees to mature before you can cut for the first time. Usually the farmer has to establish a certain number of trees each year. It is four years now that the wattle industry has been in the doldrums and since the bottom has dropped out of the market. We find some very disturbing news amongst the farmers. Usually the wattle farmer is not a man who goes in for anything else. Usually in the wattle-growing areas the people who grow wattle go in for wattle only and they are wholly dependent on that wattle. Take the position of a man who started wattle-growing ten years ago. He has now reaped his first crop but he has to plant trees every year, and that means that he must wait another nine years before he can get his final return. When the Minister introduced this Bill last year he called it the Magna Charta of the wattle-growers, and we thought that with the establishment of this board the people in the industry would know, where they are, but in the Press we see that people are eradicating trees that are three or four years old. How true it is I do not know, but I can quote my own case, where I have been cutting this year, and the man who is in partnership with me, and who has actually been on the ad hoc Committee of the Minister, suggested to me that we do not re-establish the trees, and that we should rather plant something else. All this time we have not had a single word of guidance from the Minister or his Department. I have been told—and I want the Minister to correct me if it is not right—that a circular has been sent to various wattle-growing areas asking people whether it is true that they are eradicating two- and three-year-old trees, and if so, what acreage have they cleared. I think the wattle-growers have the right to demand from the Minister to tell us what the future of the industry will be, and when he is going to form this board. The Minister cannot tell me that the millers, the manufacturers and the growers cannot reach agreement and that that is why he is not establishing the board, because this is what he said at the time—

If that is the case, why has the Minister not done his job, and why have the wattle-growers not been told what the future of the industry is? Must we eradicate our trees, or must we re-establish the areas we are cutting at present? I think this Government is shelving its responsibility, and also the Minister, when he declines to make a statement and to give guidance to the farmers, because the farmers have the right, after the introduction of this Bill, and after the shilly-shallying of the Government over the years, to know what the position is, because this is something which has been passed from one Minister to the other and now it is under this Minister and he said he had the power to make an agreement himself. I do not think that the wattle-growers themselves have done nothing. They have their own research institute and they have tried to find other avenues for the sale of their products. They are also partners in the Research Institute of the Leather Industry and are doing their best to help themselves, but the ordinary grower is looking to the Government for a lead to-day, and the Minister should make a statement in regard to the whole matter.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) in what she has said. It is clear that she is dissatisfied about something that has happened in Natal. I do not know whether it is in connection with the wattle-growing industry or in connection with Ladysmith but I too am dissatisfied and I am so in regard to the same matter about which the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martin) has expressed dissatisfaction. It is something for which we cannot blame the Minister of Forestry. On the contrary I want to thank him for the lead which he has given in order to develop this important industry, this industry in which approximately R400,000,000 is already invested and in respect of which provision is made in the Estimates this year for an amount of R77,780 in respect of direct assistance and as a contribution towards research in this industry. The hon. the Minister has gone further this year and he has made provision for advertising which will focus attention on the importance of this industry. An amount of R20,000 is provided for that purpose, and I should like to say something in regard to advertising. I notice that R15,000 is provided for direct advertising purposes. I shall be pleased if the Minister will go into that at a later stage. An amount is also set aside for an advertising society and printing matter.

But the one respect in which greater publicity is necessary as far as this industry is concerned is that the users of timber should be made to realize that our indigenous timber is not inferior to the imported timber. Our advertising campaign should emphasize the fact that our own timber is good and that by using local timber employment is provided for many of our own people. We should try to break down that belief that imported timber is better. As the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has said, many people who use timber, such as building contractors, Government Departments and provincial authorities allow themselves to be guided by the architect when they order their timber requirements. They themselves do not really know what is best or what is most suitable. That is why I feel that our advertising campaign should bring this fact home to the people concerned and that in this respect we should seek the co-operation of everybody interested.

I think the greatest sinner in this respect is the South African Railways. We have said this on previous occasions in this House but we still find that where the Railways ask for timber specifications in their tender forms they give preference to imported timber; imported timber is given preference. Tender No. 8614 which closes on 26 May relates to flooring boards and provides for specifications as approved of by the South African Bureau of Standards, with certain other conditions. I am informed that those further conditions are higher to-day than those of the Bureau of Standards, but the imported timber is hardly able to conform to them. Out of a total of 589,000 cubic feet which is required in this tender form, a mere 100,000 feet has to be indigenous timber, and the balance of 480,000 feet has to be imported timber like Baltic and Redwood. Where we have the assurance that for these purposes our own timber is as good as the imported timber, I think it is reprehensible on the part of one of our Government Departments to give preference to imported timber. About a month ago I was struck by the huge supply of timber lying in the Table Bay Docks. Two years ago after a similar discussion in this House I had the privilege of attending a demonstration which was given by the Bureau of Standards at the Railways’ timberyard at Salt River. I think other hon. members were also present. Afterwards they had a film show which showed clearly that for these purposes our own timber was just as good as the imported timber. That is why one is entitled to ask, Sir, apart from using the timber why it should specifically be stated in the tender forms of the Railways that they want imported timber? Imported timber is naturally better in some cases because South Africa cannot supply timber of more than 20 feet in length, but in none of these tenders to which I or the hon. member for Wakkerstroom have referred do they ask for timber of over 20 feet in length. What is more, before the Bureau of Standards laid down certain specifications in respect of imported timber in so far as the condition if the timber when it entered the country was concerned. It may be that it had to comply to certain specifications when it was purchased overseas, but not when it landed in this country, and it could very well have arrived here in a different condition. That is why I want to ask whether, because of the policy which the Railways are still following to-day, we are not assisting those people who are only interested in the bigger profits they can make on the imported timber?

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to say something on this occasion about those people who are employed in the timber industry. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that his Department follows the policy which it does follow, namely, the policy of giving preference to White and Coloured employees in the Western Cape. Naturally there are problems attached to the change-over but fortunately they are small problems. I have an afforestation settlement in my constituency at Jonkershoek, where the White people are gradually being withdrawn and replaced by Coloured. The result is that many of the houses which were formerly occupied by those lumbermen are standing empty to-day. I want to ask the Minister whether, in consultation with the National Housing Commission, some of those houses can be made available to the public of Stellenbosch which is experiencing a serious housing shortage at the moment. This settlement is only a few miles outside Stellenbosch in beautiful surroundings. People who have been living there for many years say they do not wish to live anywhere else. Electricity has been laid on up to a point near the fish breeding station, and if it can be taken further I think the Department will be able to let those houses at a profitable rental in the meantime. I want to pay tribute to-day to those people who work in the Department of Forestry. They work behind the scences without the limelight being focused on them and they do wonderful work. They are building up a big industry in this country but because they live more or less in seclusion, because they do not come into the limelight every day, it is not generally known what they are doing. That is also the reason why they are not always acquainted with what is envisaged and planned for the future. When you talk to these people you are struck by the fact that they are anxious to be informed as to what the authorities have in mind as far as they and the Department are concerned. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to appoint a kind of personnel or welfare officer who can concentrate on informing these people on matters such as bonusses, pension benefits, etc. and who can investigate individual cases where problems arise. Mr. Chairman, allow me also to say a few words in connection with sawmills. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us any information with regard to the outcome of any talks he had with the Argentine when he went over there last year. We know that he went over on behalf of the Government to attend a celebration. We sat here for some two and a half days with the representatives of the wattle industry, dealing with the difficulties that the South African wattle grower and still more the exporter of extract were experiencing in the European market with the marketing of our wattle products. We know that since the agreements which had been operating in the past in relation to prices, have lapsed, there has been no stand-still agreement and quebracho extract has been sold in Europe at a lower price through the help of the Government and been freed from taxation by the Argentine Government, which has affected our growers and our market to such an extent that the growers of South African wattle have been given very small quotas of their total production during the last two years. This year there has been a further cut in quotas, and this is affecting the wattle grower to such an extent that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) was quite right in saying what she did. She said that she did know that two-year-old wattles were being eradicated, in other words, being pulled out. I know of a number of planters who have pulled out 100-acre patches of 18-month to two-year-old wattles. Practically my next door neighbour has already eradicated over 300 acres of wattle, and he is planting maize where wattle had been planted over the last 35 to 40 years. We already have an over-production of maize. However, he is getting good crops off that land because it has been cropping wattle for so long. I think, however, that it is to the detriment of the country as a whole, because we already have an over-production of maize. I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether the Government has been able to do anything in relation to markets in Europe to help the wattle growers as to price and to save this competition with quebracho. Many of the people who have taken our wattle have gone to pine where they can grow pine. Well, so far so good, but it is only a man with a lot of capital who can wait, and the small wattle grower is experiencing great financial difficulty in carrying on in the meantime. The crops from pines take longer to mature and you need more fire protection and more capital. Many of the smaller growers are not in a position to grow pine in place of wattle. Others have gone in for gum plantations instead of wattle, but in my opinion, it is to the detriment of the country that we have to do these things. Land that is highly suitable for the production of wattle should, if possible, be kept under wattle. The wattle industry has been helping our foreign exchange problem and bringing in money through exports.

There is one other matter that I want to deal with and that is the question of the Port Jackson. Sir, if you go on the Garden Route you will find great areas and long stretches of the national road where the beautiful view is completely blotted out by the Port Jackson willow, the green wattle and other wattle which are just growing there as weeds. I understand that the seeds from these wattles and the Port Jackson willow are coming mainly from Government Forestry land. I understand that they are not being cleaned; they are ripening and spreading the seed all over the place, and if it goes on spreading at the rate it is doing, not only is there a great danger of fire spreading from the road into plantations and into farms where it will do tremendous damage, but it will spoil the whole of the Garden Route for the tourist traffic. I think that is a great pity and I think we should see, if possible, that the willow does not get out of hand. Even up here on Signal Hill, from which you have a beautiful view, most of the view up there at the moment is being spoilt by willow which has grown up, and the bulk of the road from the turn-off into Kloof Nek along to Signal Hill bend, is shut off by willow that is coming up. I know that that is, of course, the responsibility of the Cape Town Corporation. I was up there yesterday and I was surprised to find that on a great section of that route you have no view at all to-day. I have heard other people say that visitors who have been taken up there have said, “What a pity that so much of the view is being ruined by these scrubby trees coming up”. They did not know what they were. I heard that remark passed by several people from the Southern Cross. There was a huge crowd of tourists up there for the view. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should go into the question of seeing that the willow does not get out of hand and that it does not do harm where it is not wanted. We know that it was introduced into this country and that it has done great work in certain areas to check wind erosion where the soil is especially sandy, but I feel that we must be very careful that we do not have this willow spreading throughout the country to the detriment of grazing in the farming areas.

I have made the request which I wish to make to the Minister to-day on so many previous occasions that I am sure the whole House probably knows that I am once again going to ask him to consider this question of providing grazing rights on forest reserves. I have in mind in particular the Winterhoek Forest Reserve. This is a matter which I raise with the hon. the Minister annually. After my request last year the Minister visited that area at Steytlerville and met the farmers who were interested in this and who were keen either to purchase or hire grazing in that forest reserve. We know that the Minister was very sympathetically inclined, and that he made them the offer that in view of the fact that they did not have sufficient grazing to carry on with their stock farming operations, he would try to place them on the Sand/Vet River settlement. We want to express our appreciation of the Minister’s sympathetic attitude but I may say that after the Minister had left I met various of those farmers. They were very disappointed. Perhaps it is necessary for me to give the House the background of the whole set-up there. The Winterhoek Forest Reserve is between 30,000 and 40,000 morgen in extent. This of course excludes the Kouga Forest Reserve which adjoins it and which makes the whole area more or less 130,000 morgen. A community of approximately 30 farmers is settled at Hotnotspoort at the foot of this Winterhoek Forest Reserve. They own small pieces of land but have enjoyed free grazing on that reserve before the Winterhoek Forest Reserve was fenced in. In many cases the land has been bequeathed by one generation to the other, with the result that the land has been sub-divided, as I have already explained on numerous occasions. Some of those farmers own a mere 11 morgen; some 14 and others 28 morgen up to 200 morgen. When the Forest Department land was fenced in and when those people could no longer use that reserve, they found it very difficult to make a living from their stock farming operations. They then applied to the Department of Forestry for permission to hire that land and their application was granted. But then at a later stage the Department of Forestry advised them that it could no longer let them have that land unless they farmed more systematically and that they should not regard the grazing which was being provided to them as additional grazing but merely as grazing to tide them over the period during which they introduced a system to restore their own veld. From the nature of things it is of course impossible for the poor man, even if he were to plan his land, if he only has 11 or 14 or 28 morgen and he requires two morgen per sheep or goat according to his district planning, to make a living from the same number of stock on the forest reserve as the number he will be allowed to keep on his own land under a worked-out plan. Those farmers were disappointed when they learned that the Minister did not see his way clear either to sell that land to them or to let it to them but that he would rather assist them by placing them somewhere else because those farmers were born and bred there. Their forefathers had lived there and it will be very hard on the older farmers to move them to a totally new area particularly an area like the Sand/Vet River settlement which is so far away from where they are to day and where they will have to go in for irrigation. I think they will also find it very difficult to adapt themselves to a different type of farming under new conditions. I want to plead once again with the Minister this afternoon, not to follow a policy of getting rid of all Government land, but to continue providing that particular community who find themselves in difficulty to-day and who cannot adapt themselves anywhere else, with grazing in the reserve if he does not see his way clear to sell that adjoining land to them.

Then I should also like to ask the Minister whether the offer which he made in respect of the Sand/Vet River scheme cannot be put into effect in respect of the Kouga scheme when that settlement becomes available. We know that will still take a number of years but we trust that the Minister will see his way clear to make a similar offer to those who may wish to avail themselves of it. Mr. Chairman, though hon. members may find it boring to have to listen to the same plea every year in connection with the same matter. I once again make this plea to-day and I hope that in future it will not be necessary for me to plead on behalf of that particular community.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. When I looked at the Estimates I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a mere R250 was being made available to hunting clubs. It may be that further provision is made for that purpose somewhere else in the Estimates and that I have not noticed it but the complaint in my constituency, where there are large areas of forest reserves where the Department does not really carry on farming operations, but which are surrounded by stock farmers, is that the vermin breed in those forest reserves. Those reserves are not divided into camps, they consist of large areas of unfenced land. More than one type of vermin is to be found there; there are jackal, lynx and tiger. They all come from the reserves and if the Department contributes a mere R250 to these vermin hunting clubs, it seems to me that the Government which is such a large land-owner is not doing its duty in assisting in destroying vermin. I have already received complaints from stock farmers whose farms adjoin those reserves that they are not allowed to follow the vermin into the reserves It may be contended that if they were allowed to do so that may be used as an excuse to shoot game there or to do something or other that is illegal, but we feel that the Department of Forestry and the Department of Lands who is responsible for Government land should assist more in exterminating vermin.

I think the Natal members in the House have put up a very good case on behalf of the wattle growers who grow wattle for a living. I am interested in wattle from another point of view. I am interested in the water sheds, in the marshes and the sponges that are being destroyed as a result of the growth of wattle and the destruction of the water that we expect from those water sheds. This is an extremely important matter to us in the summer rainfall area. It is important to us that we should try to retain the waters that we have had over the years from the perennial rivers. In certain of the Forestry Department reserves wattle is growing wild and it is the self-seed that is causing the greatest amount of trouble. Sir, the Minister can discuss this matter with his officials and they will tell him that in certain areas, and particularly in the marshlands and in the sponges, wattle has taken over completely. It is to be found there like hair on a dog’s back. It can never become of any use. When it is six to eight years old it is only one and a half to two inches thick, but the effect upon the resources of the catchment areas is such that the water supplies below are dwindling away. Sir, what is happening as a result of that is what I referred to last year, that you have a ribbon of wattle down every river, and it cannot be kept under control if the Forestry Department continues to allow the growth of wattle there and the spreading of the seeds. We have appealed time and again to Soil Conservation to try to overcome the difficulty. They have issued enforcement orders on the lower riparian owners in those rivers calling upon them to destroy that wattle; they have the power to do so, but in desperation they have given up now because their appeals to the Forestry Department remain unheard. Those sources of seed continue to be washed down and they are deposited anything from 10 to 100 yards on either side of the river banks. That state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. The wattle in some of those Forestry reserves is growing from the very top of the Amatola mountains a thousand feet down into the marshlands and the catchment areas below. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister please to give instructions that that wattle must be wiped out at the earliest possible date. Sir, it is not impossible. It could be done under contract or it could be sold; there are various ways in which the lower riparian owners are overcoming the difficulty. They give it away as firewood, and the same thing could be done by the Minister’s Department. Sir, perennial rivers in the grassland areas which have run for as long as we can remember are going dry to-day. Why? Because the upper reaches, the catchment areas, the marshes and the sponges are being destroyed by this growth of wattle; the seed is going down the rivers and affecting the water supplies. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister because this is a matter that is seriously affecting every farmer in the Eastern Province. Sir, in saying that I am not asking the Minister to interfere with the growth of wattle where it is grown for a living, but I am sure that if the Minister saw the state of affairs in some of those marshes and catchment areas he would take action.

I think it is appropriate that I reply at this stage. I do not mean by that, that the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and hon. members behind me cannot get up again after I have finished, but I feel that I should reply now otherwise my reply may take rather a long time.

The hon. member for King William’s Town and Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) raised matters which to a certain extent are related to each other. They referred to the useful plants that were imported here and which are now becoming weeds and in some cases a menace. I may say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that as far as the Port Jacksons along our coastal areas are concerned, I am filled with a great amount of misgiving when I see what is taking place.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who lives in the Caledon District knows what is taking place along the coast there, and I can assure him that that is taking place right up past Port Elizabeth and up the west coast. This Port Jackson was one of the most useful trees that was ever imported into this country, but it is rather like the old man of the sea. We have now got him on our back and like many of these things that were imported—like the starlings for instance—it is now becoming a menace in South Africa. I have on various occasions, when I have opened agricultural shows in these areas and when I have dealt with agricultural unions, impressed upon them the necessity of getting rid of these sporadic Port Jacksons before they cease to be sporadic and become a menace.

A blanket.

Yes, before they become a blanket. In my younger days I often used to go and shoot in these coastal regions and I know the sandy coastal regions well, and I know how this is becoming a menace. The same applies to wattle, although the position there is slightly different. The danger in the case of wattle is largely a danger to water supplies. The Department of Forestry is responsible for maintaining our water supplies in as much as it must give protection to our catchment areas against erosion or over-grazing or fires and that is a matter that I will ask the Department to go into. As far as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who also raised the question of Port Jackson is concerned, most of this Port Jackson is on privately owned land, and in most cases the problem has not become too great yet, but if the farmers themselves do not do something about it, it will become, a much greater problem. Along the coastal areas, most of which are renosterbosch areas, it is necessary from time to time to burn the veld, and I think the hon. member knows just as well as I do that if you burn the veld you immediately quadruple the amount of Port Jackson; you do not kill it. It immediately increases to a terrific extent.

Wattle is the same.

I have not an intimate knowledge of wattle but I presume it is exactly the same in the case of wattle. It increases tremendously, and both these are problems to which we will have to give serious attention.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) wanted to know what was happening to our contribution to the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau. We are investigating that matter and I cannot say at the present time what the position will be.

The hon. member also raised a very interesting matter and that is the selection of élite seed, especially pine seed. We are fully aware of the necessity for the production of élite seed and we already have two experimental stations which are doing extremely interesting work in that connection. The one is in Zululand and the other is near Sabie in the Transvaal. I visited the Sabie station last year. The work that is being done there is very interesting. I do not want to go into the details, but as the hon. member has pointed out you have to wait until the tree is an old tree before you know whether it is a good type, and you can make your selection. Another point that the hon. member did not raise is that the seed that you collect from that tree might be fertilized by another tree in the neighbourhood that is no good at all, so you do not even know whether the seed that you are getting from a first-class tree is going to be as good as the mother parent.

It may be bad in the second generation.

It may be bad in the second generation but it may be bad right away if the other parent is no good. What we are doing there is something that amazed me to some extent. They are grafting branches of a good tree on to small pine trees. I was not aware of the fact that pine trees could graft, because some trees cannot graft. However, they are grafting pine trees with great success. If you find a tree that you regard as a first-class tree, you take the tips of the branches and you graft them on to small trees with the result that you can produce a large number of trees for the production of seed that all come from the one mother tree. It also has the advantage that a grafted tree bears fruit much sooner. It never gets as big as the mother tree, but it bears fruit much sooner. Its seed is hand-pollinated, so that the male parent is also a good selected tree. The seed is not affected by the fact that the tree has been grafted and remains to a large extent a stunted tree. When you plant a seedling raised from this seed, the qualities revert to the parent. We are having a lot of success and as soon as we have sufficient seed we will begin to use it and we will also make it available to private people who are planting on a commercial scale.

The hon. member also raised the question of the testing of quality for bark and he wanted to know whether an easy way had not been found to determine this. I understand that this matter is being investigated at the present time. They have not yet found an easy way but they are investigating the matter to see if they cannot do so.

*The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and various other hon. members, including the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood), referred to the whole question of the wattle industry. I must say that I feel very sorry for the wattle growers in South Africa to-day. To tell the truth. I also feel sorry for the wattle growers in the rest of the world, although we probably produce half the tannin derived from wattle. As the result of circumstances beyond our control, the bottom fell out of the tannin market, mainly because there was an export tax on quebracho, which is the great competitor of wattle and which grows wild in the Argentine and in Paraguay. It need not be planted; one need only harvest the crop. There was always an export tax on it which kept the price of quebracho on more or less the same level as that of wattle.

When the Argentine Government last year abolished this tax, the price of quebracho fell tremendously. It, therefore, did not have the effect which the quebracho producers expected, viz. that they would derive a bigger income from their quebracho, but although the drop was not yet fatal for them it still had a harmful effect on the quebracho growers in the Argentine. When I was there about nine months ago I had discussions with the quebracho producers. I can just tell the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that I am in constant touch with the wattle growers and their organization. They come to see me continually and I know about everything that goes on. Possibly they do not tell her everything that goes on, and they have good reason for doing so. But they do come and talk to me and I know precisely what goes on, and I keep them au fait by letter or verbally every time a new development takes place. But, as I said. I had discussions in the Argentine with the Camera, which is more or less the equivalent of the Wattle Bark Association here. That association was established in the interest of the quebracho industry, and they were very favourably disposed to an agreement to fix a quota in the interest of the industry as a whole, so that we would have stability in the world market and be able to obtain a reasonable price for the product. I must say, however, that one of their difficulties is that, in the past ten years, according to them, and particularly after the Second World War, when the price of tannin was high, we conquered a large proportion of their market, and they want that to be taken into consideration, when it comes to fixing quotas, that we deprived them of a large proportion of their market. That is a difficulty they mentioned, but in any case they are prepared to discuss the matter. Then the question arose whether the Argentinian Government would be prepared to co-operate also. I then went to interview the Argentine Minister of Commerce and Industry, who is the Minister under whom the quebracho industry falls in the Argentine. He told me that he was very sympathetic to negotiations but that the negotiations should not take place, as in the past, between the industry here and the industry there (for reasons I do not want to go into now), but that the negotiations should rather take place on a governmental level. He also told me, however, that as far as the Argentine was concerned the time was not ripe yet; that because of political aspects in regard to the quebracho industry the time was not ripe yet. He would let me know as soon as he thought the time was ripe, and then we could commence discussions. I then instructed our Ambassador there to inquire every month from them whether the time was not yet ripe, because we cannot initiate negotiations unless they are willing to commence them, and, as I said, they said that the time was not ripe yet. I therefore continually caused inquiries to be made as to whether the time had not arrived to start negotiations. Now a conference is going to be held in Brazil, I think next month or the month thereafter, of the eucalyptus industry in the world, and I hope to send one of our senior officials there, and my intention is that he should thereafter go to the Argentine again to take up the matter there and to see whether we cannot set the negotiations in motion. He will then get into touch with their Department of Commerce and Industry with a view to commencing the negotiations. As I say, the position is that we cannot do anything until such time as they are willing, and hitherto they have not yet intimated that they are willing to negotiate.

In regard to the Wattle Act, I clearly said last year when I introduced the Bill that the committee appointed was an ad hoc committee consisting of representatives of the State, viz. the Forestry Department, the millers, the manufacturers of wattle extract and the wattle growers. This ad hoc committee would have discussions with the various branches interested in the industry and that they would then try to arrive at an agreement which they would submit to me and which I would accept if it was satisfactory. I would then be able to accept it in toto if it was satisfactory, or perhaps I would partly accept it. They have been busy all the time and they encountered certain difficulties which delayed matters, but recently, about two weeks ago, I wrote to them inquiring whether they could now come to a point, because unless they come to an agreement I cannot promulgate the Act. The whole object of the Wattle Act is to place the control of the wattle industry in the hands of the industry itself, i.e. the three parties, the wattle producers, the manufacturers of the final product and the bark millers. I hope that the inquiry I sent them will bear fruit. The hon. member for Drakensberg wants me simply to jump in and to force an agreement on to them. No, we do not do things in that way. I am dealing with sensible people, and we do things in a sensible way. Only when it appears to be impossible to solve the problems sensibly will other steps perhaps be taken, but I am sure that will not be necessary.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) again discussed the matter of the use of imported timber in competition with our own timber. He and also the other hon. members who referred to it raised a matter close to my heart. I want to give him, and also the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. H. H. Smit), who also spoke about it, the assurance that I am very interested in the matter. It will surely interest hon. members to hear how tremendously the timber industry in our country has grown. I am taking ten-year periods. In 1939-40 our plantation produced 10,000,000 cubic feet of timber. Then years later it had already increased to 26,000,000 cubic feet and in 1959-60, last year, 42,000,000 cubic feet was produced. That shows the tremendous progress made. If we just think for a moment that the timber sold by my Department 20 years ago produced only £117,000 and that its value last year was just below £2,000,000, it indicates further how the revenue derived from that industry has increased. In fact, the revenue derived from the timber now far exceeds the expenditure. Of course, I am not taking the capital expenditure into account, because those are assets being created for the future, but the position is that we are now already getting about twice as much for our timber as the ordinary expenditure of the Forestry Department in that regard. I think that proves that our forefathers who decided many years ago to build up our forestry industry made a very wise decision.

I now come to the point mentioned by the hon. member, viz. that at the moment we have quite a lot or surplus timber in South Africa. It is true that we have a large surplus of a certain class of building timber as well as an artificial surplus of unsawn timber. This surplus is due to the so-called filling out. When one plants a plantation, I think one plants five or six times as many trees as will eventually remain standing there. They are planted close together in order to make the trees grow straight and then one continually thins out the trees. This timber which has been thinned out finds a market in other countries of the world in connection with the manufacture of pulp and other articles like cardboard, hardboard, newsprint, and other types of paper. Here in South Africa we have much more of that type of timber than we have a market for at present. The hon. member mentioned Sappi, which is the greatest consumer in South Africa of this type of timber and which will commence this month to make newsprint here in South Africa for the first time. They have already made paper for periodicals, but they have not made newsprint yet. It is estimated that they will be able to produce approximately 40 per cent or more of the newsprint required but unfortunately they are far from the coast and the cost of transporting that paper to Cape Town or Port Elizabeth is so high that newsprint coming from overseas—in view of the fact that shipping freight is much cheaper than rail transport—can compete with them, and it is doubtful whether they will really be able to deliver newsprint at the coast which will compete with the imported newsprint, on account of the long distance it will have to be transported by rail.

I may say, however, that there are also other interests which are beginning to be interested in the superfluous, thinned-out timber and which are starting to nibble and which may possibly absorb some of this timber. Some interest is definitely discernible in connection with manufacturing other products from this type of timber, and I think that there is a reasonable possibility that more of this timber will be used in future. The trouble is that it is very expensive to process this timber. The manufacture of paper pulp, for example, requires a minimum capital of R6,000,000 to R8,000,000 to make it economic. We hope, however, that use will be made of this surplus timber to an increasing extent. In regard to the use of timber for the building of houses, various types of timber are used for the building of certain types of houses and the hon. member is correct in saying that to a large extent imported timber is still being used, but we can say that timber is being produced in this country to-day which is equal in quality to the imported timber. Now the hon. member may ask me why we do not make more use of our own timber. The hon. member mentioned a figure of 10,000,000 cubic feet being imported in one year. Well, there are a couple of reasons why South African timber is not being used in every case where it can be used. During the war when we could not import timber much South African timber was used, and in many cases that timber was not of the right quality. A terrific amount of bad timber was put on the market and that created a prejudice against our own timber. Now hon. members know how difficult it is to break down prejudice. It is said that a great statesman of the past once said that he could always remember having quarrelled with somebody even though he had forgotten the reason for the quarrel; he simply remembered that he had quarrelled with the person. The same applies to prejudice. People do not know what is wrong with South African timber, but at the back of their minds they still have the idea ever since that time that our timber is not good, and that prejudice is one of the main reasons why they do not use our own timber. We should try to remove that prejudice. Secondly, the experience is that engineers and architects when drawing up tender forms have become so accustomed to state that it must be Oregon pine that in many cases imported timber is used when it is not necessary to do so. It even happens that a clerk just automatically fills in “Oregon pine” simply because he has grown accustomed to doing so all these years.

What about Government Departments?

In many instances Government Departments are also the sinners. I pull them up as much as possible. Well, I have now made an arrangement with the millers that whenever a Government Department sends out a tender for timber which South Africa can produce, they immediately inform me. There is a very close liaison between the Association of Sawmillers, the Lumber Millers’ Association and myself. So they inform me, and then I settle accounts with the man who does not use South African wood when he can do so.

You pull him up?

Yes, and I am now beginning to approach the industry outside also and to write letters to them when I am informed by the Lumber Millers’ Association that some large firm can use South African timber but does not do so. Then I write to them and ask why they do not use South African timber. But of course it is essential that good South African timber should be marketed. That is the first requirement. We have also started doing something about that. We could not expect to find a market here in competition with imported timber if our product was not good. The Department then had discussions with the Bureau of Standards, which laid down certain requirements which had to be complied with, and then they put their mark on the timber. Last year we even asked the Bureau of Standards to make its specifications more stringent than they were before, and now one obtains good timber which is guaranteed. The builder must just make sure that it bears the stamp of the Bureau of Standards. But unfortunately everybody in South Africa does not appreciate the value of the Bureau of Standards. The housewives will, for example, go into a shop and buy a tin of jam because they like the label but without looking to see whether it bears the stamp of the Bureau of Standards. The housewives do just what the builders do. The builders are simply inclined to think that timber is timber. We must educate them to insist that it bears the stamp of the Bureau of Sandards, and they must learn that that stamp means that the timber complies with the requirements for which they need that timber. But we are making progress.

A second method we are adopting is the physical limitation on the importation of timber when we ourselves can supply the demand. Timber can only be imported on the strength of import permits. We have now had discussions with the Department of Commerce and Industries to the effect that they will limit the number of import permits as far as possible, as long as we have sufficient timber of the same measurements and at competitive prices.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Stellenbosch raised the point that our timber should be advertised more. He says that he notes that an amount is provided here for advertising. Not only do we advertise, but we do so together with the timber industry. It is only right that we should make a contribution because in so far as our timber industry is concerned we are dependent on the market, and the object of the advertisements is not to advertise any specific type of timber, but to propagate the use of South African timber. We co-operate with the lumber millers and do our share in order to encourage the use of South African timber. I think that the various steps taken by us will bear fruit. In fact, we are already beginning to see the results.

Will you not consider establishing quality control for all timber?

In regard to quality control for imported timber, that does not fall under my Department. On the whole one does not have many complaints against imported timber, but I repeat that it is essential that bad South African timber should disappear from the market. My Department does its best practically to compel the sawyers, who turn out a poor product and who are becoming fewer and fewer, as far as we can, to treat their timber in accordance with the specifications laid down by the Bureau and to get the stamp of the Bureau put on it.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) referred to a local difficulty which has arisen there. It is that there are a small number of people there who have small farms and who made a living partly by cultivating those farms and partly by allowing the animals to graze on land belonging to the Forestry Department. I must say in the first place that that type of land cannot ever be planted to trees. The area is very dry. The main object of having forestry reserves there is to protect the water, to protect the rivers originating in the mountains for the use of the people living lower down. The pieces of land which adjoin those people in fact fall within the forest reserves, but they do not serve any purpose in preserving the water sources, except perhaps only for those few people themselves. We are now busy with a proposition which I think will be ready within a week or two and which in my opinion will give a small group of farmers there complete satisfaction. This is not land which is actually required for the purposes of the Department of Forestry, nor for the protection of the water sources. The scheme has not been finalized yet and changes might still be made to it, but I think that in any case we will revert to what the position has been for the last 100 to 150 years, and I think he can tell the people there that they will be quite satisfied with the scheme we are evolving.

I would like to say something with reference to sub-heads (f) and (g), and also with reference to what the hon. member has just said in regard to the increased production of the forestry industry, as well as the potential for the future. It seems to me that we in South Africa do not do enough research. I notice that this year a larger sum has been made available to the University of Stellenbosch for research. Although that is appreciated, it still remains a fact that the percentage of our national income which is being devoted to research in regard to our timber industry is appreciably smaller, relatively speaking, than the sums spent by, e.g. America and Britain. I mention this because I am convinced that forestry is one of the industries in South Africa with a very great potential and one which in future will perhaps play a far greater role than we realize to-day. It is already a £200,000,000 industry to-day, and it is probably an industry which within the next 20 years will be doubled in scope and importance. That being so, I think that we should devote greater attention to research in future. Now the Minister might tell me that at the moment we are doing quite a lot in that regard, but then I would like to point out that there are certain aspects which definitely should receive attention. The first is that in South Africa probably a very large proportion of our forestry products is lost because we have not yet done enough in the way of making use of what are now regarded as waste products. With the erection of the large rayon factory, it is envisaged that a large proportion of the thinned out timber and also of the short lengths of timber will be used in future, and that trees will also probably be planted on a fairly large scale to provide specifically for that industry. But it remains a fact that transport plays a very important role and there are large areas of our country which are not anywhere near such a factory where the timber can be turned into pulp, and where a big proportion of it is lost. I am thinking, e.g. of my own constituency, where there are several dozen large sawmills and where a very large percentage of the waste products are lost, either in the form of sawdust or short lengths of timber or in the form of saplings which have been thinned out. I am thinking now of the present position, but if we consider that in future this is an industry which might become a R1,000,000,000 industry, and that instead of the R70,000,000 it means to South Africa annually now it might mean R100,000,000 or more, then one asks oneself whether any country with such a potential can afford to allow so much waste products to be lost and not to be used in the form of by-products. That is one side of it. On the other hand, I want to say that if we regard forestry as an industry which has to play a role in future in connection with our water development and the development of the Bantu reserves, we should remember that this is one of the industries which can be regarded as one which employs labour on a large scale, and as one which will play an important role in the development of the non-White in future. And because we must give a lead there also in regard to research, it is clear that we should attach the greatest importance to this industry. If we consider further that the 13 per cent of our country which is or will be in the position of the non-Whites in future is situated in the high rainfall area and also comprises a mountainous area which is eminently suitable for afforestation, then I think that this problem of waste products requires serious attention at present and also with an eye to the future. There is still much scope for development in regard to the processing of waste products. I want to say, for example, that the tendency is becoming increasingly apparent in the world and also in South Africa to regard timber as something with which houses can be built, and that that aspect of the industry is still on the eve of development. Now we also know that in this country, with its climatic vagaries, humidity plays a greater role than in other countries of the world and that there are to-day technical problems standing in the way of large-scale development in this direction.

In conclusion, therefore, I want to draw attention in the first place to the loss of waste products; secondly, to the fact that this will be of great benefit also for the Bantu reserves and in border areas, and thirdly, to the development of in regard to building wooden houses, and then I wonder, Sir, whether we really do justice to this industry with its tremendous potential. Therefore I want the Minister to consider whether the timber industry in South Africa is not becoming more important than we realize to-day and whether it is not necessary that much more research should be done in future, either by the State or by the universities, and whether we should not make more funds available for that purpose with a view to the day, which will come in ten or 20 years’ time, when the scope of this industry may be three or four times what it is to-day. I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. H. H. Smit) also spoke on these lines a year or two ago, and the University of Stellenbosch is being given a larger subsidy this year, for which I think they will be very grateful. But I think that we should think along revolutionary lines in regard to this matter and that we should take a more farsighted view of this industry than we perhaps did in the past.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to mention a few more matters in connection with forestry workers, and more particularly in regard to workers in the sawmills. The problem of our sawmill workers is that they work under Public Service regulations. They are public servants. There are now fewer sawmills because most of them have gone into private hands. But a sawmill actually operates like a factory. Workers in an ordinary factory share in the prosperity of the factory in the sense that they receive bonuses for increased production. In the past there was also such a system in the State-owned sawmills, namely, an incentive wage. It was stopped, however, because although production increased the quality deteriorated. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider regarding all sawmills as a group or as a unit and introducing some system of incentive wage where production and quality are increased and is made possible by the team work and organization of the whole unit at a sawmill.

The last point I wish to raise is in connection with forestry clerks at the sawmills. They work a six-day week instead of five days as is done by clerks on forestry settlements. One must take into consideration the fact that these people are usually not near a town and that they must therefore get some time off to attend to personal matters in the nearest town. I therefore ask whether some arrangement cannot be made so that these people may be treated in the same way as forestry clerks on the settlements. They have to work on Saturdays in order to attend to the public. My information is that the public very rarely come to the sawmills for timber on Saturdays. If a few do come then an arrangement could perhaps be made for one clerk to remain on duty on an exchange basis.

May I just say that I will give consideration to the matters raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) spoke about research and I do not think that we are doing sufficient research. But since I took over this Department the money devoted to research has been increased considerably. It was increased by no less than R40,000 during the last three years.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Public Works”, R19,665,000,

Mr. Chairman, I think the consideration of this Vote is the opportune moment for hon. Members of Parliament to utter a word of appreciation and thanks to the Secretary for Public Works and his personnel, the architects, the quantity surveyors and others concerned with the big task or extending the buildings of Parliament. I do not think there is anyone of us who can say that he is not delighted. It is a big improvement and the way in which it was done, the neat finsh and particularly the short time in which it was completed, is to the credit of the Department. Without going into detail I think I can leave it at saying that hon. members on this side of the House—and I think I am also speaking on behalf of hon. members opposite—appreciate it immensely.

I really appreciate what the hon. member has just said. The Department of Public Works is another of the Departments which it is so easy to sling mud at and when they hear that they have also done something good they do appreciate it. Now there are still two other matters in connection with Parliament which lie in store for us. The first is the years of negotiations which we had with the City Council of Cape Town to get Parliament Street incorporated in the parliamentary grounds and then to close it to the public. Those negotiations are now nearing completion and thereafter I will come to Parliament to get approval for the amendment of the agreement, which I think was concluded by Mr. Johnny Clarkson in 1939. By incorporating Parliament Street the appearance of the parliamentary building could then be improved considerably.

The second is that the old lot of barracks opposite should be changed. There is Marks Building which is a beautiful building but then there are also a lot of old buildings. The one is so high and the other so low; the one was built in this period and the other in that. The Government has succeeded in acquiring all those buildings, with the exception of two—the one on the top corner which belongs to the British Government and the one on the bottom corner of Plein Street which belongs to a bank. The Department is at present drawing up plans for rebuilding the entire block so that it may blend with Marks Building, and it will then no longer be necessary for the Government to hire so much office space elsewhere in Cape Town. The building will then fit in beautifully with the aesthetic, if not the ethical, appearance of the buildings of Parliament and improve it considerably.

I wish to refer to the item “Groote Schuur, R5,000. Maintainance Services”. I ask the hon. the Minister how far the Government’s title to Cecil Rhodes’ residence, “Groote Schuur”, has been affected by the change-over of our constitution from the Union as a member of the British Commonwealth under a monarchy to a republic outside the Commonwealth? And have the trustees under Cecil Rhodes’ will been consulted, and with what result? Under Clause 13 of his will. Mr. Rhodes bequeathed to his trustees his residence and gardens as a residence for the Prime Minister for the time being of a federal government of the states of South Africa, and until there shall be a federal government it was to be used as a park for the people. Cecil Rhodes’ ideal all along was a united South Africa under the Crown. This is borne out by other clauses of the will, and Clause 16 in particular provides for Rhodes scholarships, and contains a specific reference to his wish for the retention of the unity of the Empire. And Section 1 of Act No. 9 of 1910 vested the property in the Union Government and provided that Clause 13 of the will should be read as if the Union Government were the federal government. But it was never contemplated at any time that the Union would be converted into a republic, and there is no provision that I can find in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act that vests that property in the republic. Section 112 is the only provision I can find that may have some bearing on the subject, and that provides that certain rights and obligations and the conventions of any of the previous colonies that were incorporated in the Union of South Africa should vest in the republic. But it does not refer to a property of this kind.

To-day, with the creation of the Union as a republic outside the Commonwealth, the position, I submit, has fundamentally changed, and with the Government’s policy of dividing South Africa into separate states we are anything but a united South Africa. I think that Cecil Rhodes would turn in his grave if he knew that his stately home was to be occupied by a Prime Minister of a republic severed from the Crown and from the Commonwealth. I should like some information from the hon. the Minister on this matter.

Mr. Chairman. I know the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) is a man who feels strongly. He has to face a number of difficulties in which his antecedents and his background are going to make it more and more difficult. I could not, of course, refer to such things in this debate except to draw attention to the difficulties in which he finds himself; things like flags, oaths, openings of Parliament and so on; things in which he has shown various difficulties. I can quite understand that he is filled with complete horror to think that the house which was given to us by probably the greatest Empire builder South Africa ever had, should now become the house of a Prime Minister of a Republic of South Africa. I can see that he is filled with complete horror. But then he himself is also a bit of an anachronism …

He is a horror!

No, no! He is not a horror, he is a very kindly old gentleman indeed, but he is a bit of an anachronism. He rather inclines to live in the past. And I am afraid I have to assure the hon. member that the legal rights to Groote Schuur and the whole Groote Schuur Estate are not in any way affected. And when the Government of the republic takes over it becomes the owner of everything which belonged to the Union of South Africa beforehand.

Under what provision?

Under the provisions of that Act.

Which Act?

The hon. member need not be afraid and he need not lose his temper. That will not help him. He must just suffer in silence now as an old man—and I am also becoming an old man, and I also sometimes realize that it is best to give up the struggle and abide. Now he must give up the struggle and abide. Times have changed and the hon. member should try to change with those times or, if he cannot change with the times he should abide by the position as it is in South Africa to-day.

The hon. member need not be afraid. It will not be taken away from the Government. It will remain the official residence of the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa.

That is a very unsatisfactory reply. I have never heard such a lot of nonsense from an hon. Minister, and I regret very much indeed that the Minister should have taken up such a stupid attitude.

I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Should the hon. the Minister of Public Works be mistaken and the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) be right, will the hon. the Minister not, in order to make provision, ask the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) whether he will provide a house for the hon. the Prime Minister in Natal?

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Votes Nos. 41 to 44 (Posts and Telegraphs and Health).

On Vote No. 41.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, R63,048,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour, please?

Before dealing with the S.A.B.C., with which I want to deal at some length, I want to touch on one other point. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if this Government intends to carry out its Bantustan policy in full. If they are honest in their intentions, do they intend to give training to Africans to take control of and meet all the requirements of postal and telegraph services in the Native territories? In other words, we know that the Transkeian Bantu Authorities have asked for full independence; would the Minister tell us if the Government are training engineers and other postal officials in accordance with their policy’s requirements? Because if they are not then the Government is not fulfilling their duty—always supposing they honestly intend carrying out their policy in the Native territories.

I now want to come to the question of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. During last week’s debate the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question from me, said it was time that I understood the Broadcasting Act. He said that he was not prepared to take any action or to give this House any information about the Broadcasting Corporation. But the whole country is very concerned about the actions of the S.A.B.C. and what is taking place within the S.A.B.C. As a matter of fact we feel that the last batch of resignations from the Broadcasting Corporation, which included some of the most popular and experienced broadcasters and senior officials, starting from the Director-General himself, calls for a full investigation. It is time the public were told the truth about what is happening inside the S.A.B.C. It is no good the hon. the Minister turning around to us, both here and in public, and saying that the Broadcasting Corporation is quite independent and that he is not entitled to give us any information about it. I will go into details as to the slant on party political lines that has taken place in news items in recent months. I am prepared to give this guarantee, that if any programme chairman, or any broadcaster made a radio statement with a party political slant in support of the Opposition parties, somebody’s head would roll very, very quickly. There would be immediate interference by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, here we have a Director-General who, as I said the other day, has been bowler-hatted. There is no other way of expressing it. They went about it in a different way from the manner in which this Government bowler-hatted Mr. Marshall Clark, the then Manager of the Railways, but it was only different in method. We want to know, if the Director-General was as efficient as was stated by the Chairman of the Board of Governors, who paid tribute to his work and to the tremendous benefits his work had conferred upon the Broadcasting Corporation, and the very satisfactory expansion that had taken place under his guiding hand; if he was so efficient why did they want to get rid of him? I think the public is entitled to know. We have had statements by this hon. Minister in public speeches on various occasions. When it suits the hon. the Minister he can make any statement he wishes on any line of the Broadcasting Corporation. But we in this House who represent the people who pay for all the expenses of the Broadcasting Corporation, those people who pay licences for their receiver sets—we who represent them are unable to obtain any information as to why there is this upheaval. And I must say it rather smells of a scandal somewhere, something in the nature of interference with the individuals and the employees who work there.

During the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister we raised certain issues with regard to this hon. Minister. And in supporting the policy of this hon. Minister the Prime Minister drew attention to one particular speech which had been misquoted by the English-language Press. But he made no reference to all the other speeches which were harmful to the interests of and hurt most of the English-speaking people of South Africa. At the time of the referendum Mr. J. J. Kruger introduced a party political slant on all the news. He gave certain addresses over the radio which were resented by all the English-speaking listeners in this country. There was an outcry from one end of the country to the other. But those slanted news items continued. I guarantee that if anybody had done a similar thing on the Afrikaans programme, putting across slanted speeches supporting the Opposition parties, he would have been sacked on the turn. And if the hon. the Minister thinks that that is the way in which to bring unity to this country, or if he thinks we are not going to resent that sort of thing, he is very much mistaken. He is turning the Broadcasting Corporation into a propaganda machine for the Nationalist Party.

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would you be good enough to give me an illustration of what you call this slanted information for which Mr. Kruger has been responsible? I cannot answer any accusations unless you would be good enough to explain those accusations in detail.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have time to go into those details now, but I will supply them to the hon. the Minister in writing. There were three special addresses during that period by Mr. J. J. Kruger, at which there was a public outcry. And I have protested against them and pinpointed them in this House on previous occasions.

But you are not answering my question.

Well, let me answer you. You can make your own speech later on. The hon. the Minister on that occasion said “I cannot interfere”. But there has definitely been a slant, and I will tell the hon. the Minister about the latest one.

Tell me exactly what you are objecting to.

This was not Kruger, but I dealt with that because that is when it started. When the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference was on in London, was there not a slant on the news about what was happening at that Conference? We were told in the news item, and in special broadcasts that the Prime Minister was a hero, he had more or less fought to the death …

Of course he did.

To stay in the Commonwealth! He did not fight at all, he withdrew our application to stay in the Commonwealth.

Did you want him to bend his knee to those people?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Prime Minister went to that Conference to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth, why did he not keep us in, why did he withdraw and not fight?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the S.A.B.C. say that Dr. Verwoerd was a hero?

Yes.

Would you mind giving me the specific reference?

Well, they might not have used the word “hero” but they said that Dr. Verwoerd had done everything possible to stay in the Commonwealth.

And so he had.

He certainly had not. He had withdrawn the application. We were told on the 7 o’clock news that we were being kept in the Commonwealth, that we had been accepted.

And the other one too?

Never mind the other one, I am dealing with the S.A.B.C. And yet on the 11 o’clock news on the same night it said we were out, that the Prime Minister had withdrawn our application after a great fight to keep us within the Commonwealth. But what fight had we put up?

Then you could not go to bed in your Union Jack pyjamas.

You be quiet, you can make your own speech.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member can make his own speech. I let the hon. the Minister ask me three questions, and I will give him, in writing the exact date of those broadcasts by Kruger. I do not have the time to go into it now.

May I just ask the hon. member this? Does he realize it is quite impossible for me to answer vague accusations? That is why I hope the hon. member will be specific and mention every case that he objects to.

I have said, Mr. Chairman, that I will give them in writing so that there can be no hedging on this question. I have raised it before yet now the hon. the Minister says give them to me. When I asked him about it before he said he was not prepared to reply. Is he now prepared to give us a full answer? Is he prepared to see that there is no more interference in the S.A.B.C. and that the party political slant given to the broadcast news ceases? I think we are entitled to that undertaking.

How did the Government get these big crowds to welcome the hon. Prime Minister on his return to Pretoria and Cape Town? They used the S.A.B.C. to say “Here is the hero returning after this wonderful fight for the honour of South Africa, this fight to keep us in the Commonwealth”. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) entitled to say “That is a lie”?

Mr. Chairman, I say that is a lie, not specifically what that hon. member said, but I said the accusation is a lie.

Order, order! Will the hon. member withdraw that?

Mr. Chairman, I said the accusation is a lie.

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw the statement “That is a lie”?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned I was quoting various matters in which I said the S.A.B.C. had given a definite propaganda slant on behalf of the Government and the Nationalist Party, and the Minister asked me for examples. Up to now he has refused point blank to answer any of them, although they have been put to him on many occasions, and he just said: Give me the report of the speech. I assured him I would get it for him and submit it to him in writing, but will he give us an undertaking that he will now deal with these matters? Because I can quote him another example right away, and that is that on the night of 16 March this year on the English programme as part of the news certain opinions were broadcast. The opinions were quoted as if they were the considered opinion of South Africa on the question of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. And it was implied that these opinions were the considered opinion of South Africa as a whole and they were given the widest publicity to express South African opinion as such. But who gave those opinions? Were they the opinions of a cross-section of South Africa? Of course not. There were five or six, starting off with Mrs. Malan, and then also the wife of another departed prominent Nationalist, plus three or four other prominent Nationalists. These people were giving their considered opinion and of course it was all in favour of the Government having withdrawn our application to remain in the Commonwealth after having become a republic.

And how right they were!

If that were so, we would not be running into all the difficulties that this country is running into now, economically and otherwise.

What are they?

That interjection just shows that they do not understand the trouble we are walking into by being excluded from the Commonwealth, which they will see in the near future, unfortunately for the country. But, as I said, the Prime Minister who was boosted up by the S.A.B.C. news so that he was given a hero’s welcome when he returned from the Conference, where instead of fighting the issue and seeing that we were retained in the Commonwealth, he ran away….

Order! The Conference is not under discussion now.

I am dealing with the programme put out by the S.A.B.C. in relation to that subject. I was just referring to it in passing. The hon. the Minister asked me to give him instances of where the S.A.B.C. was used as a propaganda machine, and I am giving him this example.

Another matter on which I wish to find fault with the Minister is this. I would like him to tell us why he agreed to further new licence fees being applied by the S.A.B.C., i.e. the 10s. extra new licence on any second radio set that any listener has and 5s. for a third? Because we have up to now—and when I say “we” I mean the public and the listeners, the licensees who finance the whole S.A.B.C.—have had little or no say in how the Corporation is being conducted. In any other country of the Commonwealth—and we are still in the Commonwealth at the moment … [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh. That is how they feel about one of the most serious matters to have affected this country. But if any Minister in any Commonwealth country had the criticism over the last two or three years that has been levelled at this Minister for the way he has not only allowed the S.A.B.C. to be used as a propaganda machine, but also for the speeches he has made throughout the country on various occasions—we know the Prime Minister defended him in relation to one particular speech where he alleges that he was misquoted, but there has been no answer from the other side in relation to all his other speeches. If a Minister had the criticism in any other Commonwealth Parliament which has been levelled at him and substantiated, that Minister would resign. [Interjections.]

Order!

This Minister appointed the present Chairman of the Board of Governors and from the time he took over there has been a deterioration in the whole of the organization, and now we have a spate of resignations of some of the most experienced and popular broadcasters employed by the S.A.B.C.

Why?

That is what we are asking the Minister, but we have not yet been able to get a reply from him. We who pay should at least have some say and be given the information as to why there is this upheaval and why things are going from bad to worse in the S.A.B.C. I hope this Minister will in future answer the questions that are put on the Order Paper by hon. members of this House who are trying to find out what is happening to the S.A.B.C. and pointing out various other shortcomings as we see them, or in some instances they may not be shortcomings but we just wish to have the information in order to know how the S.A.B.C. is being run, and if we feel that things are going wrong we in this House who are responsible to the people should at least have that information from the Minister.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) really surprises me because the arguments he advanced this evening are really of no value. The one important argument which he used was to attack the hon. the Minister because the S.A.B.C. at the time of the Prime Ministers’ Conference broadcast in detail what happened in London. If that is not important news to the entire population of South Africa, even to the English-speaking section, then I do not know what is. Then the S.A.B.C. did not broadcast distorted news as the English Press does every day. No, the S.A.B.C. broadcast factual news and those facts, that Dr. Verwoerd tried everything within his power to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth, are the truth and they know it, but it does not suit the Opposition that the S.A.B.C. should broadcast the truth. The hon. member also used the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard. He accuses the S.A.B.C. of being responsible for the fact that there were so many thousands of people at the Jan Smuts and the D. F. Malan airports. If the return of the hon. the Prime Minister from the Conference, when it was already common knowledge that South Africa would be outside of the Commonwealth, was not an important occasion then I really don’t know. It is obvious that it was important news and the people went to the airports because they admired the hon. the Prime Minister for his courageous conduct there, because he fought and refused to let the Afro-Asian states dictate to South Africa as to what internal policy she should pursue. All the S.A.B.C. did was to give the mere facts that the hon. the Prime Minister would arrive at Jan Smuts Airport on such a date at such a time, and then again at the D. F. Malan Airport. But now it is a crime because the people of South Africa are interested and have a high regard for the hon. the Prime Minister. They went there spontaneously and I can assure you, Sir, that they would have travelled thousands of miles because they admire him. But the Opposition reluctantly reminds one of the Russian, Gagarin, who flew in the space ship and is to-day the hero of the world, but the scientists of Russia spent years on creating that space ship and then they opened the door for Gagarin to climb into the capsule. He then entered, lay down on his back, and then flew. The same is happening to the Opposition. The English Press prepares the capsule for them. The English Press starts the cry that something is wrong in the S.A.B.C.

Why do so many resign? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must not go too deeply into the English Press. We are now discussing the S.A.B.C.

I want to prove that the reason why these violent attacks are being made on the S.A.B.C. is because in the past the S.A.B.C. used the news from Sapa-Reuter and was no longer prepared to do so because that news is cooked. Sapa-Reuter belongs to the Hoggenheimers and the Oppenheimers of South Africa. They hold the shares and we will prove it this evening. Because the S.A.B.C. has now decided to obtain its own news sources and not to make use of Sapa-Reuter any longer, these venemous attacks on the S.A.B.C. must be made by the Press, and, of course, if the Press shouts then the Opposition also shouts, because they must get into that capsule. But the difference between them and Gagarin is that he at least knew where he was going and he knew that he would again return to Mother Earth, but the Opposition does not know where they are going. Some of them are for ever circling around the earth. Here are the Progressives. They are busy floating and at the next election they will fade away like stars. That is why these violent attacks are being made now.

The hon. member also mentioned the resignations from the S.A.B.C. and asked why Mr. Gideon Roos and others have resigned. We will give you the reasons. The S.A.B.C., like any other business undertaking, has developed to a stage where it cannot expand any further. Just as any other business undertaking makes new regulations in such cases so the chairman of the board of directors felt it necessary to do the same—and it is not the chairman alone; he is not the boss of the board of directors, he is only the chairman—the whole board of directors decided that the S.A.B.C. had reached a stage where a reorganization should take place. It was, therefore, decided to divide it into five independent departments. Mr. Gideon Roos was the director-general for many years and all his good work up to that stage is acknowledged and appreciated by us and the board of directors but the S.A.B.C. could no longer continue under the old system and it, therefore, divided into five different departments. Mr. Roos has become director of one of those departments of which he has the best knowledge. I presume that his salary has not been lowered. He retains the same salary. He is the director of that department. The five departments are the Department of Administration, of which Mr. de Bruin has been appointed director. The Director of Finance is Mr. Swanepoel, the Director of Programmes is Mr. Fuchs, the Director of Planning is Mr. Filmer, and the Director of Overseas and Commercial Programmes is Mr. Roos. [Time Limit.]

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the other half-hour. From an interjection the hon. the Minister made this afternoon, and from the attitude he has taken up on previous occasions when the affairs of the S.A.B.C. have been discussed, it would appear that his defence to the charges being brought against him is one of denying that there is any political slanting in the S.A.B.C., or that the S.A.B.C. is in any way being used as a political instrument of the Nationalist Party. In other words, it would seem that his defence is just a straight denial that that is so, and the Minister called for instances to back up allegations of slanting. It would seem that his intention is to take each one of these allegations one by one and to give possibly another interpretation to them. Well, I submit that that is not the correct approach to take in regard to this matter. I think that not a single hon. member in this House will deny that there is widespread public concern with regard to the affairs of the S.A.B.C. I am going to give instances of what I believe has caused this concern, and I shall be specific and give my references. However, that is not the point.

The point I want to make is that I do not think there is any hon. member here, and least of all the hon. the Minister, who can deny that there is widespread concern, and I submit that a situation has arisen where the Minister, if he wishes to argue that the S.A.B.C. is blameless and that the whole agitation is on a completely wrong and misinformed footing, then I suggest that he has a duty to the S.A.B.C. and to himself to have the whole situation investigated by some completely impartial body, when all the allegations can be examined and there can be cross-examination. As I say, I shall quote examples and I have a file here of allegations of bias, etc., in regard to the S.A.B.C. If I were to attempt to detail every single instance I would be here for the rest of the evening. I do not want to do that, but when I refer to something I shall be specific and give my example. But the point I wish to make at this stage is that there is widespread dissatisfaction and I feel that the Minister and the Government should take note of it.

Now, why is there this dissatisfaction? First of all, I would say it stems from the manner in which the hon. the Minister has reorganized the Board. Now what has he done? He has taken a man who has been closely associated with controversial political affairs for most of his career and he has made him Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the S.A.B.C.—and he is quite frank about it—is not the kind of impartial person politically who should have been appointed by the Minister if the Minister wished to emphasize the political impartiality of the Board. The Chairman of the Board is quite frank about his activities and he makes political speeches. He has made three political speeches since he has been Chairman of the Board, and I can name two in particular and give references. There was one on 20 October 1959. I have the cutting here and the Minister may see it. There was another at Kroonstad on 29 January 1961. The cutting is here and the Minister can have it. To both speeches very strong objections were raised. I as an impartial person reading them say that they were politically slanted speeches with a particular viewpoint biased to one ideology to which the Chairman subscribes, and he is quite frank about it. Then the Chairman wrote a book which aroused the most violent controversy.

Will the hon. member give instances of what he actually said?

No, with respect, I am not going to be diverted into long explanations. I will give the Minister the instances and he can have the cuttings, and then he can judge for himself. I say that the Chairman wrote a book which aroused violent controversy, “Die Afrikaner in Afrika”. The book is open to anybody to read, and I could spend hours quoting from it but I will not do so. I say that there is prima facie evidence that the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. is a man mixed up in sharp controversy of a particular kind, and in the eyes of the public he is not the impartial type of person who should be chairman of a body which should maintain a completely impartial line.

The next instance which I feel has shaken public confidence was the introduction to the S.A.B.C.’s staff of the editor of the Transvaler, which is well known to be the most sharply controversial newspaper supporting the Government, an extremist journal stating extreme viewpoints from the Government side, and this man was appointed cultural adviser to the S.A.B.C. We do not know exactly what his duties are, but there is no doubt, from the reports of his activities, that he holds a highly responsible position, because he has been used to make declarations on behalf of the S.A.B.C. on various matters, and he conducted a series of talks which aroused very sharp reactions throughout the country. Now I just want to mention what I believe to be the most outstanding controversial and biased talks, and I offer the Minister cuttings to support each one, which will prove that these talks aroused many objections from the public and much controversy. I quote 25 April 1960, when he gave a talk on the republic. On 16 May 1960, he dealt in a one-sided manner with the Commonwealth connection. On 20 May 1960, there was a further outcrop of complaints all over the country in regard to another of his talks. On 10 June 1960, he dealt with the White man’s refuge in Africa in a manner which aroused reactions, and 26 May 1960, he dealt with the incorporation of the Protectorates, also in a manner which provoked very sharp reactions. I say again that here we have prima facie evidence that this important official in his talks dealt with these subjects in a way which aroused sharp reactions from at least one section of the public, and I feel that this is a matter which should be investigated. The Minister can have all the cuttings to which I have referred. Then I ask what is the position and the duty of this official? It is clear that he is a highly important official because he makes pronouncements on important matters on behalf of the Board. With regard to his background, I have no objection to it. If he is a controversial journalist, that is nothing to be ashamed of, but the fact is that to place an official of that kind in the kind of position he holds in the S.A.B.C. is prima facie evidence of a lack of complete impartiality in this body.

Then, to come to the Board, the next event which undoubtedly caused public concern is the manner in which the control of the S.A.B.C. has been reorganized. Previously the Board was organized on orthodox lines, somewhat similar to the B.B.C. and other corporations which carry on similar functions. You had the Board and the Director-General and the staff. The Director-General was the cushion between the Board and the staff but he has now been removed, and you now have the position where the Board itself has taken over the function of running this body. I have complained that there is prima facie evidence that the Chairman of the Board, who has the major active say in its day-to-day running now, is politically biased, and that is something which wants to be examined. That undoubtedly has caused public concern, and I say that in the whole set-up and reactions of the public are understandable.

Now we come to the allegations in regard to the slanting of news, and I want to give the following quotation. I want to quote from an editorial in the Star. I think hon. members will appreciate that the Star is a highly responsible journal, probably one of the most responsible English-language journals in the country. [Interjections.] I believe the Star does its best to balance events as evenly as possible and as impartially as possible and it tries to give factual and unbiased comment, although when it has a point of view to express it is quite frank about it. This editorial appeared on 22 November 1960, and it says this—

Now I just want to mention some of the news items to which grave objection was taken, and on the question of grave objection may I just say this. The hon. the Minister and some of the spokesmen of the S.A.B.C. have contended that they are not getting shoals of letters of complaint from listeners. I believe the Minister himself has cited this as being an indication that the charges are unfounded. I would just say on that point that listeners would not write to the S.A.B.C., which is the culprit, on a matter of this kind. I say they are writing to the Press and the Press throughout the country is getting numerous letters of complaint, many more than they can publish, in regard to news-slanting and bias. I just want to give a few instances. I have here a file full of complaints which have been published in the Press. The Minister is welcome to it, but I am sure he has the same file. Some of the more blatant examples about which there were complaints were as follows. On 9 March 1960, there was a special programme which advocated South Africa’s becoming a republic at the time when the issue had not been settled by the referendum and was still highly controversial. This provoked considerable complaint that it was biased and one-sided and that no programme was broadcast giving the other point of view. On 23 March 1961, there were widespread protests throughout the Press over the reporting of the Prime Minister’s return to the country. I will not deal with that again. On 17 March 1961, there was a symposium on the decision to leave the Commonwealth. This I think was a particularly blatant example, because in this symposium people were selected to take part, people who were known to be extremists or strong supporters of the point of view of the extreme wing of the Nationalist Party. Then on 10 September 1960, in the Cape Times there was a further spate of allegations regarding a census which had been taken by those who were assisting in running the campaign against the republic in the referendum. These people, in monitoring the S.A.B.C., had worked it out that the ratio of news speeches reported by the S.A.B.C. in favour of the republic was three to one, as against those who were against it. The Minister can have that report if he wants it. The authority for that statement is given in the newspaper article. Sir, I want to mention a report which I have here —and the Minister can have that as well—of the resignation of a priest of the Church who gave up broadcasting because he complained bitterly of the propaganda which was put across the air after the religious broadcasts, which tended to favour the Nationalist Party.

I think I have given sufficient examples to warrant what I am asking for, and that is an impartial inquiry to test the accuracy or otherwise of these allegations. Finally I want to mention a circumstance which I also lend support to the very serious feelings on the part of the public that the S.A.B.C. is being turned into something in the nature of a political instrument, and that is the decision to change over to V.H.F. The situation there in a nutshell is that something like R24,000,000 is to be spent in introducing V.H.F. What is V.H.F.? V.H.F. is a system which can only be received over very, very short distances. The Minister has given us a long explanation of V.H.F. so I will not go into greater detail. I just want to quote from a report by the Television Society of South Africa which consists of experts on this subject. This report says—

Then, listing further points about V.H.F. it says—

The point is this: That the charge is made that the reason for introducing V.H.F. is to impose a blackout on South Africa, a blackout because people ultimately will be compelled, in order to get the South African broadcasts, to purchase the V.H.F. sets. And if they have V.H.F. sets, Sir, they will be unable to receive broadcasts from other parts of the country unless they purchase very expensive sets with the necessary modifications. The point is this that the suggestion that this is being introduced to improve broadcasting and to eliminate disturbances is met by the fact that if this R24,000,000 were spent in improving the strength and the general technical efficiency of our existing instruments, then, Sir, we would have just as good a broadcasting system as we would have with the V.H.F. system. In any case the introduction of the V.H.F. system must of necessity put back for at least five years the introduction of television because it is obvious that the S.A.B.C. cannot, with its limited income even with fairly substantial assistance from the Government, afford the cost or the technical personnel to introduce television while at the same time it is busy introducing the V.H.F. system, which will not be brought to its full efficiency within five years. So it is reasonable to assume that for at least five years the introduction of television will be dropped by the State. A much more sensible and logical procedure would have been not to have this V.H.F. system, but to have improved our existing broadcasting transmissions and to meet as soon as possible what is a very great public demand, namely, television. That would have been the logical thing to do. The fact that the hon. the Minister and the Broadcasting Corporation have apparently not been logical in this matter must lead to the very grave feeling and suspicion that the introduction of the V.H.F. system has a political motive behind it.

I say that for these reasons which I have given, the public is concerned. The faith of the public in the impartiality of the S.A.B.C. has been shaken, and if the hon. the Minister wishes to remove those fears and to establish his complete innocence and to establish the fact that he stands for the principle that the S.A.B.C. should be completely independent, then the least he can do is to conduct an impartial investigation by impartial people to see whether these allegations are true. He should then react on such findings. That is the only way in which public feelings on this matter will be stilled. It is no good hon. members saying that the public is being stupid and that we are being stupid in raising these matters and that the whole of this agitation is inspired by some sinister motive. That will get us nowhere. The fact is that there is agitation, and that it apparently rests on very important and substantial factors. I say therefore that the least the hon. the Minister can do is to have an investigation.

I want to conclude by saying this: It is no good the hon. the Minister taking refuge by saying that the S.A.B.C. is an impartial corporation and that he cannot interfere in any way. Mr. Chairman, that principle would be sound and good if the hon. the Minister were himself anxious to be completely impartial. But we have a suspicion that he is not. What the public fears is that what the hon. the Minister has done, in a nutshell, is to place people in charge in key positions in the S.A.B.C. who are able to slant the news and to turn it into an instrument for Nationalist Party propaganda. Then the hon. the Minister sits back and says: “I won’t interfere; it has nothing to do with me; this is a corporation.” Any corporation can be subverted if that method is used. A very large section of the public feels that the hon. the Minister has done that. I say that in his own interests, if he wishes to clear himself and the corporation, then the investigation which I have urged is the very least that he can carry out.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) by his reference to V.H.F. at the end of his speech has actually given away his whole purpose in seeing politics in everything the S.A.B.C. does. He has quoted to us what the Television Association has had to say about V.H.F., but if he wanted to be fair in discussing the intention to introduce V.H.F., then he would also have read to the Committee what else the Television Association has had to say. He need only have mentioned three points which appeared in that same circular, namely—

I do not want to enlarge on this matter any further, Mr. Chairman. I just want to refer the hon. member to the report of the commission of inquiry which the previous Government appointed in 1946, the membership of which was as follows: Gladys Evelyn Bosman (born Steyn), James Stormont Dunn, Nicolas Charles Krone, Edward Douglas Saunders, August Arnold Schoch, Joseph White and Raymond William Wilcox. On page 37 of that report they deal with V.H.F. and they say—

Now that V.H.F. is to be introduced, why does the hon. member for Parktown attach a political motive to this step? I am afraid that his whole speech to-night has rested on that type of argument. In everything the S.A.B.C. does he sees political motives, and I think he is being very wilful. The evidence he has quoted and on which he has based his case is ridiculous. He has based all his complaints on the Star and the Cape Times, of all newspapers. Not on the public, Mr. Chairman, although he tried to imply that. The Opposition and the mining magnate Press have now for weeks past to the accompaniment of a great fanfare been attacking the S.A.B.C. Because there have been minor staff changes and allegations against certain news broadcasts, they are placing the whole of the S.A.B.C. under suspicion and they are in fact trying to damn it. They have spoken about staff who have been “kicked out”; the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has said that the S.A.B.C. is merely a “propaganda juke-box”. The exaggerated tone of this whole campaign against the S.A.B.C. really makes one suspect that there is really something seriously wrong, that we are once again merely seeing the same old tactics which the Opposition always adopt when they have something to hide. What we have heard tonight, and previously, Mr. Chairman, is merely the noisier and less restrained form of the agitation which the mining magnate Press has launched against the S.A.B.C. The Opposition are in effect really taking up the cudgels on behalf of that Press. I do not read all the newspapers, but here in Cape Town it has been the Cape Argus particularly which has now been attacking the S.A.B.C. for weeks past through reports and leading articles. It is building up a case and encouraging protests against the S.A.B.C. I shall give the House one or two examples to show how this agitation has really emanated from that Press and then we must seek the reason why the Press is dragging a national institution such as the S.A.B.C. through the mud. Here I have an extract from the Cape Argus of 17 March—

This came from the Argus parliamentary staff and they said—

These people sat here on the Press gallery and they wrote “Anger throughout the country”, Here I have another one which appeared on 27 March—

This was with reference to the Western Cape, and then they say that the secretary of the Local Advisory Council, Mrs. H. H. Turck, had confirmed this report—

Sir, this is a report! This is a news report. The public are invited to send in complaints. Here is another extract—

This is an anonymous association with anonymous members which had supposedly been established in Johannesburg in order to organize so that the Minister will be flooded with letters of protest. Here is another heading—

But according to this same report the chairman said—

In a leading article the Argus said the following on 25 March—

Then it said—

Mr. Chairman, I say that this is the source from which this campaign emanates. That is the language the Opposition are using tonight. They are taking the protest by these newspapers against the S.A.B.C. a stage further. But, Mr. Chairman, history often follows a very peculiar pattern. Let me go back to the Cape Argus which has had so much to say about the S.A.B.C. Until recently the Argus had an editor who suddenly had to resign. He was formerly attached to the S.A.B.C. as a news commentator in Durban. In 1945 his services with the S.A.B.C. were suddenly terminated and then the Natal Daily News which belongs to the Argus Group, wrote a very complimentary article about Mr. Broughton. It wrote—

Mr. Chairman, one now wonders whether Mr. Broughton was really yet again the “victim” of a “witch hunt”. Perhaps the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) can tell us. Another interesting question which I want to ask is as follows: Is it the position that in the Argus circles, “merit and popularity” no longer count to-day as the Daily News said at that time was the position in broadcasting circles? At that time a United Party Government was in power and the Natal Daily News charge against the S.A.B.C. was that in the broadcasting service of those days merit and popularity counted for nothing. Now I believe, seeing that the United Party are trying to vent their fault-finding of the S.A.B.C. on the Minister, that they are substantiating the charge which the Natal Daily News levelled at the S.A.B.C. at the time when the United Party were in power. I assume that that is the position; otherwise there is no logic in their behaviour. It is quite clear that the United Party want to get rid of the charges which were levelled at them at that time by transferring them to this Government, irrespective of what the present situation is. They simply want to get rid of that accusation against them. It reminds me of the poem by Langenhoven in which he said—

That is more or less what they are doing today. [Time limit.]

I think we should get the record straight. Numerous letters of complaint have been appearing in the Press lately but the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs says that he has not received any complaints at all. I should like to read a letter to this Committee, addressed to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and incidentally also to myself in my capacity as Member of Parliament. This letter says—

How many signatories are there to that letter?

This is a letter written three weeks ago and signed by 45 people. The Minister has had this letter in his possession for three weeks but notwithstanding that he says he has had no complaints. That is rather an extraordinary thing.

Has he acknowledged the letter?

I do not know. You know, Mr. Chairman, that a great many of us feel to-day when we listen to the broadcasts, that we are reminded of Zeezen. We all know the reports that came from that source were completely unreliable.

Good old German.

Quite right; that is exactly where those news reports came from. I think it is perfectly obvious that the majority of the members on the other side of the House only look at this matter from one angle. They only want to see one side; the same as Zeezen gave us the news only from one side. That is why they do not mind at all the present setup in the S.A.B.C. But a great many of us resent it intensely because at one time it was a wonderful service which gave wonderful broadcasts.

Well, having got rid of that particular item which I trust the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will acknowledge as he also received a copy, I want to go on to something else. The next question I want to raise is the question of profiteering under the new decimalization scheme. The Minister of Finance has appealed to traders not to take unfair advantage of the coinage change-over. At various times the hon. the Minister has threatened to take action. I want to ask hon. members what they would say as regards a Ministerial Department which makes a profit of 20 per cent on the change-over; whether that is not something that should be studied by the Cabinet.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss decimalization now.

Mr. Chairman, surely stamps fall under the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to the present position in case he is unaware of it. In the olden days a firm sending out accounts could send out 240 accounts for £1. To-day they can only send out 200. And if anybody knows anything about figures, that is 20 per cent. When they put the stamp on the receipt, in the olden days they could receipt 240; to-day they can only receipt 200. And then the same thing happens when they send that receipt off to the customer. Formerly they could send 240 receipts for £1 but to-day they can only send 200. In other words, on a £3 transaction these firms have to pay an extra 12s. to-day. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is not taking advantage of the change-over? The Post Office says that they make up for that in other respects. Some of these firms have written letters of protest about this whole set-up but the Department keeps on saying that it is being made good in other ways. Can the hon. the Minister tell me in what other way these firms who send out accounts and receipts are compensated? I am not talking about the stamping of share certificates or anything of that sort. I am talking about the ordinary trader who sends out receipts. This Minister is making 20 per cent profit on this decimilization scheme. I think it is scandalous. [Interjections.] I dare say the farmers are not worried about this. I do think we are entitled to a proper explanation from the Minister in regard to this extra surcharge. What does the Minister propose to do about it because I do not think that is fair, particularly in view of the appeal of the Minister of Finance that the change-over should not be taken advantage of. I will be glad to know how the Minister can explain, what I call, this scandalous imposition on the public.

The Opposition are now indulging in all sorts of sombre speculations regarding the staff changes in the S.A.B.C. [Interjections.] The agitation against the the S.A.B.C. has now been going on for weeks on end and we must now have the opportunity to reply. [Interjections.] For weeks past they have now been placing a national institution in South Africa under suspicion, and we must take this opportunity to reply. They are making a great fuss about the staff changes and they are trying to tell the public that there is such upheaval in the S.A.B.C. that the S.A.B.C. will soon have lost all its staff. I have just said that history sometimes follows a peculiar pattern. That party, the tattered remnants of which sit on those benches to-day, were a powerful ruling party in 1945. In 1945 there was not a surplus of good announcers in South Africa. In 1945 a debate was held in the House of Assembly, on the dismissal of Mr. Broughton—to which I have already referred—and during that debate Mr. Derbyshire said the following (Col. 5829)—

But, Mr. Chairman, it was not only Bagnall, Potter and Broughton. Cecil Wightman was another (I believe he is now to resume his programme “Snoektown Calling”). Nor was it those four alone. The then member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) rose and said—

He went on—

Mr. Chairman, “Marais Steyn was discharged instantly”. This was the forerunner of a whole series of “instant discharges”. I am very sorry the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is not here to-night. The list of names of the persons who were in the S.A.B.C. at that time is very interesting: Barnett Potter, the infamous editor of the equally infamous Union Review of that time; Gordon Bagnall who recently, together with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), proposed a toast at a meeting of the Sons of England here in Cape Town; Morris Broughton who until recently was the editor of the Cape Argus; Pieter Beukes, who is to-day the editor of the Landstem, of which the main shareholders are the Cape Times/Daily Mail complex, together with the Leader of the Opposition Sir de Villiers Graaff, and Marais Steyn. If I had to describe him to-day, I would have to make use of the English expression: “Chief cook and bottle washer”, and I could perhaps improve it to read “chief policy maker and trouble shooter of the United Party”. Those are five of the six who were involved at the time, Mr. Chairman, and I do not even refer to the many others who were not involved. The sixth one was Cecil Wightman. Sir, do you know why he was dismissed? Mr. Arthur Barlow said (Col. 5825)—

This is the party which accuses us to-day and which is trying to make the country believe that the S.A.B.C. is being used for propaganda purposes. That is one reason. The S.A.B.C. is too South African to-day. The S.A.B.C. is too South African as compared with the time when the S.A.B.C. was simply a United Party organization. It was not enough at that time that the whole broadcasting service of the S.A.B.C. was merely a creation of the Argus papers. No, the whole S.A.B.C. was in addition staffed entirely by active United Party supporters and anti-Nationalists. Hon. members can see who worked for the S.A.B.C. at that time. I want to put it to the House that at that time the S.A.B.C. was used as a training school for the United Party’s propagandists. I want to prove to the House in the light of the facts that at that time the S.A.B.C. was used as a propaganda machine of the United Party and as the hand-maiden of the Argus Group. If hon. members of the Opposition do not want to admit that, Mr. Chairman, allow me to refresh their memories. In 1950 a debate was held in this House during which the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with reference to a memorandum which the then Information Bureau had submitted to the United Party Government said—

And then the hon. member for Yeoville said on 14 April—

I have never heard a more self-condemnatory statement than this remark by the hon. member for Yeoville. That was the position of the S.A.B.C. during the great days of that party. It was staffed entirely by United Party supporters and ani-Nationalists; the news service of the S.A.B.C. was merely a creation of the Argus newspapers, and the whole S.A.B.C. was utilized to help fight elections for the United Party. That is how they mutilated and abused a public service. Now they have the temerity to compare by implication the S.A.B.C. of those days with the S.A.B.C. of to-day—a magnificent South African institution. Of course the present-day service will not meet their requirements as they laid them down in practice at that time. Of course, if that is their idea of a public service, they would find fault with the S.A.B.C. to-day. I say that this whole agitation against the Broadcasting Corporation has emanated from the mining magnate Press. The S.A.B.C. as I have said, is too South African to-day as compared with the time when it was staffed exclusively by United Party supporters. I say that the United Party and the mining Press want to create an image of this Minister amongst the English-speaking people which is intended not merely to create opposition to the radio service amongst the English-speaking people, but also to the policy of the National Party. I say that the United Party must now step into the breech in order to defend the news monopoly which the mining Press has in South Africa, now that the S.A.B.C. has laid down a yardstick by which the reliability of those newspapers and the accuracy and reliability of the reports which they provide to the English-speaking Press who can only read the English-medium newspapers of the mining Press, can be judged. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I cause a break-down in the S.A.B.C. service. I intend to deal with another matter that is important namely the part that the Coloured people play in the Post Office service. I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister examples of how the Coloured people suffer because they are Coloured. I will deal at a later stage with the question of pay and the differentiation in that pay as between White and Coloureds. I first want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to certain facts which have been brought to my notice. I am sure hon. members opposite will be surprised and at the same time I hope they will be proud of the fact that in areas like Somerset West, Somerset Strand, Stellenbosch and Worcester every postman who carries a post-bag is a Coloured man. It shows to what extent the Coloured people are integrated in the economy of South Africa. That fact should convince every member of the Government that if they still want to keep the Coloured people out of our economy they will find it impossible to do so. I regret that the hon. member who deals with Coloured affairs is walking out because I am sure he would be interested in the difference in pay between the White and Coloured employees. I feel sure this is a matter which he will take up with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, if he has the interests of the Coloured people at heart. Let me give one or two instances of discrimination. I am told that in one particular area when the Coloured persons work overtime, they are not paid extra. When they have to deliver letters into the late hours of the evening, after working from early morning, they receive no overtime pay for that extra work. And yet the European clerk who sits in the post office, waiting for the Coloured people to return to clock in or to clock out, that European clerk gets paid for overtime. He sits in his office doing nothing, while the Coloured person works and gets no additional pay for the extra work. Now surely, the hon. the Minister should immediately investigate that. It is most unfair. I hope that my information is correct, but that is the information I have received from these persons. There is another case that to my mind merits attention from the Department and that is the case of a man who came to see me and told me that he has been in the service of the Department for well over 20 years. Some 20-odd years ago he became ill and the doctor said that he suffered, I think, from T.B. He recovered sufficiently to be put, not on the fixed staff, but on the temporary staff—he was employed as a temporary postman. He has been a temporary postman for 20 years and despite the fact that he has never again been attended by a medical officer and despite the fact that he has not been boarded out after 20 years, this man cannot be put on the fixed establishment and cannot enjoy the privileges which flow from being on the fixed establishment. I would like the hon. the Minister to give me his assurance that he will have this case investigated and see that this man receives all the credit for the service he has rendered in that Department.

I want to come now to the disparity between the wages of the European and non-European employees, and I want to express my regret that since I spoke last time on this subject, nothing has been done to change the position as it existed last year.

You want equal pay for all the people?

I certainly want equal pay for equal work. I say to the hon. member that I can bring him cases where a Coloured employee in the Post Office has to do the same work as a European postman, has to carry the same responsibility, has to work the same hours, has every responsibility of the White man and yet there is a difference of over £400 a year in their salaries. I ask the hon. member for Somerset East whether he can justify that difference in pay for the same work. I will tell the hon. member through you, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. Minister’s reply to me was last year. It was a staggering reply. All the economists of South Africa were staggered when the hon. Minister said to me: “A £ to a European is not much money; a £ to a Coloured man is a lot of money; a £ to the Bantu is a fortune, and upon that basis we pay.” Not on the basis of their work. I can quote what the hon. Minister said, if the hon. member so desires. Not on the basis of their work and the service they render are they paid, but they are paid on the basis of the colour of their skin. And that is why I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister who deals with Coloured Affairs is sitting here. He should take the matter up with the Government.

Since when has it been like that?

That does not matter. The time has come for us to correct an iniquity which has existed in this country in the past, and the hon. member should be the first to say that this iniquity cannot be perpetuated. He should help me, not only in the interest of the Coloured people, but should help me in the interest of South Africa, because without helping the Coloured people to rise in the economic field, South Africa will never prosper. The wealth of the Coloured people and what they are worth to this country does not justify this continued discrimination in the pay for equal work.

Do you demand the same for the Bantu?

Don’t drag that red-herring across the trail. I am prepared to say to the hon. member who wants to know whether I want the same for the Bantu, that if the Bantu does the same work as the European, he should get the same pay. Let me try and convince the hon. members and let me ask them whether they can justify what the Minister said last year. I read from Hansard, Vol. 105, Col. 7592, on 13 May 1960—

Mr. Chairman, how can they live on satisfaction? They must live on money. The Minister continued—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him. I do not intend speaking along those lines. I want to bring the United Party and the Opposition back to the subject of the Broadcasting Corporation which they are so eager to criticize. We want to put this matter to them for the simple reason that the United Party and their Press have recently been making every possible attempt to bring the Broadcasting Corporation into discredit amongst the people outside and the impression is being created that all the reports which the S.A.B.C. broadcasts have one or other ulterior motive and that the reporting is inaccurate. This is the opportunity and the only opportunity which we on this side of the House have to defend the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. is an organization which cannot defend itself. The Act prohibits the Minister from supplying information in respect of the S.A.B.C. and this is an Act which the United Party passed in 1936. The S.A.B.C. is not present here to-day and cannot defend itself and the United Party are continuously misleading the people outside by making all sorts of allegations about the S.A.B.C. We therefore want to take this opportunity to give the people outside the true picture. Mr. Chairman, why have these persistent and systematic attacks been launched on the S.A.B.C.? I want to state here tonight that the only reason is that the S.A.B.C. is now in a position to give the world and South Africa, and particularly the English-speaking people, the news in an unbiased form. That is why the Opposition and the English-medium Press are continuously criticizing the S.A.B.C. because the truth is now reaching the English-speaking people as well.

That is untrue.

Order! I warn the hon. member for Transkeian Territories for the last time.

Mr. Chairman, I am making no more interjections than any other hon. member.

The hon. member must not argue with the Chair.

I say that that is the only reason why we have had these persistent attacks on the S.A.B.C. and I want to give the facts relating to the whole position. Until a few years ago the S.A.B.C. was solely dependent on the news provided by Sapa-Reuter and I want to say at once that I can quite understand the argument used by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) when I discussed this matter on a previous occasion. But I want to make this clear. I have no objection to the representatives of Sapa-Reuter in the Press gallery; I have no objections to anything that is South African, but we all know that the Sapa-Reuter news goes through an organization which can alter that news as it wishes and it comes out at the other end in a form which suits its masters. That is why we object to Sapa-Reuter and its channels, and until a few years ago the S.A.B.C. was solely dependent on Sapa-Reuter for its news reports. It was in reality “His Master’s Voice” and it repeated what Sapa-Reuter had said. The S.A.B.C. has in the meantime developed a new system. At the moment it links up with four international news agencies, including the French News Agency, United Press and others. It also has its own news service. Every day it receives from various sources news reports totalling as many as 300,000 words and the news is then condensed and processed and of that total wordage it uses 40,000 words daily. It follows that under the circumstances the S.A.B.C. can now sift the news and can report it in a very clear and objective form. This poison which was deliberately added because certain persons wished it to be spread, can be extracted and the news can be presented in a purely objective form. The S.A.B.C.’s news service has developed tremendously. The whole organization has expanded tremendously with the result that the S.A.B.C. is now able to give the country a genuinely objective news service on what is really a very economic but also a very scientific basis. But I now want to tell the United Party and the Opposition, and I repeat what I stated on a previous occasion when the matter was discussed, that the actual position is that the United Party has been so conditioned over the years to the news having that specific colour that hon. members can no longer accept objective news at all, and it seems to me that as far as they are concerned, objective news to-day is news which is biased in a certain direction. That is the problem. Objective news is no longer acceptable to them. The whole position has been caused by the Press. I admit at once that the Press does not belong to the United Party but it is becoming clearer by the day that the United Party in recent times belongs to the United Party Press. They are the owners and hon. members opposite belong to the Press. I am deliberately putting the matter in this way. This Press is deliberately trying to diminish the sphere of influence of the S.A.B.C. and to break the S.A.B.C., if at all possible, by claiming that the S.A.B.C. is broadcasting prejudiced reports, that its broadcast are biased and that it has become a party propaganda machine.

Do you not listen to the broadcasts?

I listen regularly, but the position is simply that the United Party Press is trying to break the S.A.B.C. There are various reasons for this. The one main reason is that the English-speaking public in South Africa are now also receiving the news in a different form from that supplied by the English newspapers, news with a different tone to that dished up by the English-medium newspapers. But there is another reason, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will allow me to put it. It is that the Press as such, and here I am referring specifically to the Argus Group, is in actual fact controlled by the mining groups in South Africa and it is of the utmost importance to the mining groups in South Africa that this Government should be broken if it is possible in practice. I shall show why it is important to them.

Order! The hon. member must not take that point too far. He cannot discuss the Press to-day.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to give the reason why these attacks are being made on the S.A.B.C., namely that the Press has certain objects and I am trying to show why that is the position. I represent a mining constituency and as a matter of interest I have tried to ascertain what the actual position is. I find that the following was the position as regards the Argus Group in November 1960. The authorized capital of the company at that stage totalled £1,500,000 (£ shares); the issued capital was £1,195,650; of this the Anglo-American Mining Group held 35,000 shares, the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company (Ltd.) (a mining group as well), held 18,680 shares; he Argus Group, officials and affiliates, held 300,045 shares: Syfret’s Trust held 170,362; and Central Mining and Rand Mines (the Engelhard Group) held 142,227 shares.

On a point of order: What does that have to do with the Vote under discussion?

I am coming to the point, Mr. Chairman. I am merely trying to substantiate my argument. Union Corporation held 15,000 shares and the Chamber of Mines 15,000 shares. In other words 49.93 per cent of the total number of shares of the Argus Group are held by mining companies, and the object of the mining companies is to break the Government because apartheid as such is being applied in the mines and it is depriving them of tremendous profits.

Order! The hon. member must not go any further into that aspect.

No, Mr. Chairman, I now want to turn immediately to another matter, namely the resignations from the S.A.B.C. about which so much has been said. I want to say at once that there are resignations, but once again the Press has over-emphasized the resignations under present circumstances because here are the facts. I want to take the past four years as an example, and the information I have has been supplied officially. In 1958 there was a 4 per cent resignation rate in the case of the male senior staff of the S.A.B.C. while in 1959 it was 2.3 per cent. At that time no fuss was made about resignations. It was not necessary for their purposes at the time. In 1960 the resignation rate was 2.1 per cent in the case of male senior staff. In the past financial year, the resignation rate in the case of senior White staff of members of the S.A.B.C., was 1.8 per cent. [Laughter.] It is pointless making a farce of this matter; these are the facts. The Press and the Opposition have created the impression that something is very wrong with the S.A.B.C. and that is why the staff are resigning. The facts show that only 1.8 per cent have resigned as compared with 4 per cent in 1958 when no fuss was made because at that time it did not suit the Press and the United Party to make a fuss. 1.8 per cent is a very low percentage when one takes into account the fact that the S.A.B.C. has already developed into a large organization which has 1,535 Whites in its service (that is to say, in December 1960). [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has told this Committee that the South African Broadcasting Corporation is to-day no longer solely dependent on Sapa-Reuter but that it has now created its own broadcasting news service and, according to the hon. member, the news has now become far more objective. Allow me to say in passing that if the S.A.B.C. wants to make its news as objective as possible, no one has any objection. Let them investigate every possible method of providing the best possible news service and let the news be as unbiased as possible. But here I for example also have a letter from a voter in my constituency who listens regularly, and who has taken particular note of the political bias which has been given to certain S.A.B.C. broadcasts. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that the example which I am now going to give, is an example of objective news. This person writes as follows—

And these are the objective remarks made by Mr. Johan de Bruyn. This is not merely news which he has obtained from Sapa-Reuter, but this came from the wonderful news service of the Broadcasting Corporation. These are his objective comments—

And who arranged this broadcast? As a matter of fact, who arranged the welcome? The public of Johannesburg? Was it arranged by the Mayor of Johannesburg?

It was spontaneous.

So spontaneous that Mr. Jack Steyl, the provincial organizing secretary of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, made the welcoming speech. He organized the whole meeting on that occasion, just as the meeting in Cape Town to welcome the Prime Minister was arranged. I do not mind at all; the Nationalist Party can arrange as many meetings as it likes for its leaders. We do not begrudge them that. We arrange the same meetings for our leaders. But what this side of the House objects to is that one of the comments made by the radio commentator, Mr. Johan de Bruyn, was the following: “It makes one happy: one feels like being with your own people.” One feels so happy to-day as if one is with one’s own people.

Was he broadcasting in English?

No, this person wrote in English. The hon. member knows after all that Mr. Johan de Bruyn would give his commentary in Afrikaans. But I want to go further. Last year, after the hon. the Prime Minister had announced on 20 January that sooner or later the people would be asked whether they wanted a republic in South Africa or not, what happened? The South African Broadcasting Corporation immediately approached five or six people, most of them Afrikaans-speaking. The one was a school principal, the other a businessman and so on, and these people had to give reasons why they would welcome a republic in South Africa. And strangely enough the South African Broadcasting Corporation came across an Afrikaans-speaking person who spoke with an English accent and who was not in favour of a republic in South Africa. But that is not all. Last year I myself sat and listened on 2 September to a radio programme, and I now want to ask the hon. member for Randfontein whether this was an example of objective news. There was a radio programme under the innocent title of “Bring together those who belong together from inner conviction”.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, who used those words in South Africa? None other than a previous leader of the Nationalist Party, the late Dr. Malan. This programme was written by Mr. C. W. Fuchs, and produced by Mr. Jan Schutte. On that occasion speeches were broadcast, actual speeches, which had been made by the late Adv. Strydom, the late Dr. Malan and other former leaders of the Nationalist Party. It concluded by using statements made by the present Prime Minister in this House itself. I now ask the hon. member for Randfontein who says that the Broadcasting Corporation merely wants to make its news objective, whether this was objectivity.

On a point of order, is the hon. member deliberately concealing the fact that the Leader of the Opposition also took part?

It seems to me that the hon. member is referring to the Union Festival in Bloemfontein in which the Leader of the Opposition participated, but I am referring to a radio broadcast on 2 September 1960.

Was it a “play”?

It was not “fool’s play”, I repeat that we on this side of the House have no objection if the news service is made objective, but our objection is that the S.A.B.C. is being used to-day as an appendage of the Nationalist Party’s information service. The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. Marais) has referred to Mr. Gordon Bagnall, Mr. Cecil Whiteman and Mr. Marais Steyn who were dismissed. He has quoted from a speech made by Mr. Arthur Barlow. In any case, no one takes any notice of Mr. Arthur Barlow, except Mr. Arthur Barlow himself.

On a point of order, I did not put it in that way.

The hon. member quoted after all that these people were dismissed from the S.A.B.C. after they had become involved in politics. But to-day, under the Government’s policy, the position is that the more political one is, the easier it is for one to enter the service of the S.A.B.C, [Time limit.]

Perhaps it is desirable that I should deal at this stage with a few problems which have been raised here. The hon. member who has just sat down, has objected to the fact that when the Prime Minister returned to South Africa from overseas and was welcomed by Mr. Jack Steyl, the S.A.B.C. took no notice of it. Whether he was welcomed or not welcomed, it remains news—important news. When the Prime Minister of any country returns to his country, particularly under the circumstances which prevailed when our Prime Minister returned, circumstances which were of great importance and significance to the whole country, then it is news, and whatever the hon. member may say it remains news, and if it is news, then the S.A.B.C. must broadcast it. It so happens that I was also there, and if I remember correctly the person who said, “We are glad to be present here”, was not Mr. de Bruyn, but one of the speakers there. I think it is so typical, and it proves the absolute malice, that everything that can possibly be distorted to put the S.A.B.C. in a false light, is grasped at. The hon. member comes along and objects to the fact that a feature programme (“hoorbeeld”), a “play” as he called it, was put on the air in which a number of our great Afrikaners were featured. But that is not the only feature programme that has been broadcast. There are numerous feature programmes. Feature programmes are broadcast for English listeners, for the Bantu and for every section of the population. Must the name of the S.A.B.C. be besmirched again because of this? Why does the hon. member not mention the feature programmes which have been broadcast for the benefit of the English-speaking section and which they enjoyed listening to? Must this feature programme be besmirched because it was one which we as Afrikaans-speaking people enjoyed because it gave us pleasure? Surely that is an unfair accusation. I am grateful to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) because he is one of the few people who put forward facts here this evening. I appreciate it, even though his interpretation of the facts was entirely wrong. But how am I to interpret the attitude of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) and of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope)? When we ask them to give the facts so that we can argue on the basis of the facts, they say: “No, we are not going to give you the facts, because then we would detain the Committee too long.” And then the hon. member for Parktown still has the courage to say that he is quoting from the Star. And then he says: “Now I have put a prima facie case before the Committee”—a prima facie case after having quoted the Star, one of the newspapers which represent news in such a cunning way that nobody who thinks objectively will claim that that is a correct representation of the news. I have yet to meet the man who has been able to win a case in court by making vague statements such as the hon. member did. The hon. member for Parktown, as well as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), says that I made certain speeches. But when one asks them what I said in the course of those speeches they are tongue-tied and the hon. member then says that he may send it to me later on in writing. But, after all, we have to reply here. How can the hon. member expect me to reply to accusations when he refuses to tell me what the accusations are? This whole attack on the S.A.B.C. was extremely unfair and unjustified. But if hon. members opposite are unable to put forward charges, let me do so from a source to which they attach very great importance. We have been told by the newspapers that the slanting of news by the S.A.B.C. really started after the hon. the Prime Minister had withdrawn his application for membership of the Commonwealth. They tell us that every single person knows that. They say that it is not necessary for them to prove it because everybody knows it. The hon. member for Parktown has told us that the whole world is dissatisfied. In saying that he was merely repeating what the Star and the Rand Daily Mail and the Cape Times and those newspapers have been saying. Well, on 25 March a little more than a month ago, the Argus itself reported that the South African Broadcasting Advisory Committee for the Western Cape had said: “There are no complaints about the news service.” In other words, at that stage, 25 March according to the Advisory Committee for the Western Cape, there were no complaints about the news. Two days previously, on 23 March I was asked in this House how many letters of complaint had reached me. Hon. members were so under the influence of this propaganda in the newspapers that they thought that there must have been a flood of protests, because they expect the public to think as they do, and the public does not think as they do. On that day when this question was put to me I was able to say that one letter and one telegram had been sent to me. But on 8 April when they saw that the public did not share their opinion, that the public was being sensible, what happened then? On 8 April a letter appeared in the Rand Daily Mail from a certain Mr. Crews, in which he asked people please to send letters and postcards in their hundreds and thousands to the Minister of Posts—he did not say it in so many words but that is what it amounted to—and to say in that letter or postcard: “I am also an unhappy listener.” I then waited for the flood of correspondence, but I knew that it would not be forthcoming because I think my summing up of public opinion is more correct than of members on the other side. Sir, do you know how many I received? The total number of postcards and letters that I received was only 45. Three names appeared on one of them. Let us say therefore that there were 47. When this was not a success, the Cape Argus came forward with a new appeal in which it said—

One would have expected a flood of letters. During these two months we have received a total of 30 letters, telegrams and postcards. One of those 30 had 40 names on it. In other words, one must add another 39. I then thought that since they had sent so many to me, they had probably flooded the newspaper offices. I then got somebody to go through the editions of these four newspapers over the past two months to determine how many letters of complaint they had received—not letters containing complaints that had nothing to do with this matter but complaints in connection with the charges which had been made here. I found 21. If we include the letter mentioned by the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus), which bore 45 names, and add all the others, then the total is 139. How does this compare, however, with the total number of licences? I have mentioned the two Transvaal newspapers and the two Cape newspapers. Here in the southern Cape and in the Transvaal there are more than 500,000 licensees, but there are many more listeners—perhaps two or three times as many. Of those 500,000 or more licensees only 139 submitted protests, and that was after an organized campaign. Mr. Chairman, surely this is ridiculous. It proves one thing and that is that our public is infinitely more sensible than hon. members on the other side. Hon. members opposite are either so out of touch with the public that they do not know this, or they do know it and they are simply trying to mislead this House. After all, those are the only two alternatives.

They simply turn off the radio if they do not want to listen.

That is why it is so interesting, in spite of those distorted reports in newspapers which adopt that attitude, to find that there are members of the public who have the courage to write the sort of thing that I should like to read out to the Committee. I propose to quote just short extracts from a few letters. One English-speaking person wrote—

[Laughter.] The fact that hon. members opposite laugh only shows that they still do not realize this. Their judgment is so poor that one can understand why they can never get the support of the public. This person goes on to say—

This comes from an English-speaking person, and it shows how soberly the English-speaking people are beginning to think about these things.

Who wrote that letter?

I said that I was quoting it from the Cape Times. The writer’s name does not appear under the letter.

Mr. Chairman, is it in order for the hon. the Minister to read out a letter here without giving the name of the writer?

The hon. the Minister said that this letter was taken from the Cape Times.

As far as we know the Minister’s secretary could have written it.

Let me mention an example of another letter writer, an English-speaking person who also wrote to the Cape Times …

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister allowed to quote here from newspapers?

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member is so biased in his judgment that he does not offer the slightest objection to letters being quoted from the Cape Times to besmirch the S.A.B.C., but if I dare to quote a letter from the Cape Times defending the S.A.B.C. then he objects to it. That is his sense of justice.

On a point of personal explanation, that is quite untrue. I do not object to every letter that is quoted here.

If the hon. member wants to rise on a point of personal explanation, he must obtain the permission of the hon. member addressing the Committee.

This other writer says this—

As the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has said, the English readers of a newspaper like the Cape Times are also beginning to see it in this light—

Mr. Chairman, this shows what the opinion of the public is to-day, and it proves that hon. members on the other side are entirely out of touch with the people of South Africa. They have become a handful of defenders of a Press which never hesitates to incite White against White, and to incite the Black man against the White man.

Do you honestly believe that it was not a Nationalist who wrote it?

Order! If the hon. member wants to put a question, he knows how to do so.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the news which has been criticized here, it is necessary for me to bring certain principles to the notice of this House. The first is that while the S.A.B.C. may virtually have a monopoly, the Press of South Africa has a similar monopoly, a greater monopoly. The Press which is controlled by the mines, to which the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. Marais) referred, practically has a monopoly of English-speaking readers. It has an enormous monopoly, because it is clear from the letters which I have quoted here that generally speaking the English-speaking people hardly read any newspaper at all except those controlled by the mines. In the same way the S.A.B.C. also has a monopoly to a certain extent, but its monopoly is tempered by the fact that there are also other sources of news, for example from Lourenço Marques or the B.B.C. in London. There are also overseas radio stations. However, it has a limited monopoly. In these circumstances we must all admit that a tremendous responsibility rests on institutions such as the S.A.B.C. and the mining Press. That responsibility is to see that news is not used for personal gain or personal self-advancement. And that is precisely what the mining Press is doing today. The mining Press is not there for the benefit of the public; it is not there to give impartial news; it is not there in the interests of South Africa. It is only there in the interests of the owners of those newspapers. In other words, it is there in the interests of the mining concerns in South Africa. The S.A.B.C. is precisely the opposite; it is an independent body; it was established indirectly with public funds and its aim is not to make a profit. The S.A.B.C. is an unselfish institution. It is only there to serve the nation. But there is this difference between these two bodies. While a newspaper has a great deal of space in which it can give news—there need be no limit to the number of pages that it prints—the S.A.B.C. in the nature of things has a limited time for the dissemination of news. It cannot broadcast news for more than about ten minutes at a time, because after about ten minutes people no longer listen. They become tired and they have not got the time. In other words, the S.A.B.C. and every radio institution in the world consider it desirable to disseminate news by way of brief broadcasts. A broadcasting corporation therefore has to condense the news. It cannot give the news as fully as the Press is able to do.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you again —I think it was also the member for Innesdale or the hon. member for Randfontein who referred to this—that in the past the S.A.B.C. was virtually the slave of Sapa-Reuter. Because the S.A.B.C. only subscribed to a portion of the news from Sapa-Reuter, they received news from Sapa-Reuter in a condensed form. The S.A.B.C. had no other source of news and the result was that it always broadcast news reports from Sapa-Reuter. As hon. members on this side of the House have indicated, that news was “cooked”; it was news that had already been sifted in Europe, that had already been condensed and which, as a result of that condensation, could be cooked at the whim of the person who condensed it. But there has been a change now in that the S.A.B.C. has subscribed to other large news services—the French news service, the United Press—and in South Africa it has one of the finest news services in the world. It has an extensive news-gathering system for the whole of South Africa.

The S.A.B.C. is in a position to-day to give better and more accurate news than any of the newspapers. Even the Afrikans-language newspapers are unfortunately still in the grip of Sapa-Reuter, although they have also started freeing themselves by having independent representatives to collect the news for them. Mr. Chairman, you now see what is behind this criticism of the S.A.B.C. As hon. members on this side of the House have already said, we now find for the first time that the mining groups with their newspapers can no longer give the public the news simply in the way they like, and because they can no longer do so, and there is an independent body here which renders a service to the people of South Africa, an impartial news service, they want to make that news suspect in all possible ways so that it will not influence the public.

Let me now deal with what I regard as being definite principles as far as the transmission of news is concerned. The first is that whether it is the S.A.B.C. or the Press, which operates as a monopoly, it is their duty not to publish false reports which are detrimental to our country. It is their duty not to publish anything hysterical. It is their duty not to broadcast anything which is distorted and which has obviously been incited by emotion and which is not fair and objective, and they should desist from that sort of action.

The S.A.B.C. also makes use of Sapa. You said that the Sapa-Reuter news was very distorted. Is our own Sapa news also distorted?

I said that by getting news from abroad from the French news agency, from United Press, etc., we can see what is false and we can eliminate it.

And our own Sapa news?

Of course our own Sapa news is terribly distorted. Sapa’s news largely comes from the Argus Group, and the Argus news is news which has been fabricated to promote the interests of the mining groups.

The second principle in such an institution which broadcasts news and provides the public with news is that the facts they give and their comment should always be balanced. In times of stress and danger it is irresponsible on the part of a Press and particularly the S.A.B.C. to give news which can cause the public to panic. If, for example, there is somebody who makes hysterical remarks, who perhaps spreads the rumour that money will flow out of the country, it would be irresponsible to broadcast that report, particularly if it is obviously exaggerated and hysterical. In the third place it is essential for the correct publication of news that relevant facts should be arranged in the order of their importance. Then I say, in the fourth place, it is essential that comment, just like the facts, should be reasonable and balanced. That does not mean that if a member of the United Party says something one must always get a member of the National Party to say the opposite. It does not mean that when the Leader of the National Party speaks, the Leader of the United Party should also speak. It is essential in all circumstances to give a fair reproduction of the facts. What is said by the Prime Minister who rules the country is much more important than what is said by any other person. It is bigger news, and because he gave news and announced a policy it is of greater importance to South Africa, and fairness and justice and the correct relaying of news does not demand that a United Party supporter should make a contrary statement.

Having stated the position, let me come to a few specific allegations which were made against the S.A.B.C. to-night. Because hon. members said that we should refer to the Press, and because they themselves did not give the references, I have collected a few of the reports which appeared in the Cape Times and the Star, and I want to mention a few of the outstanding ones here. One of the attacks is that Gert Fourie is alleged to have said that the Union would stay within the Commonwealth—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also referred to this without specifically mentioning the words. Now the Cape Times pretends that this is false news. But what were the actual facts? Mr. Fourie cabled to South Africa what the feelings in England were. Let us now take the report of Sapa’s special representative. He said that according to “informed sources”—i.e. on the best authority—

Here Sapa said that the general feeling was that South Africa would remain in the Commonwealth. But the S.A.B.C. report is now being criticized as if it was a terrible distortion. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) repeated it. But Sapa’s special representative himself says so. Let me indicate what the feelings and convictions were in England on that very day. On the same day on which Dr. Verwoerd withdrew his application, the Star, that newspaper for which the hon. member for Parktown has such high regard, said the following—

At Lancaster House?

I am sorry that it took so long for this to penetrate to the hon. member’s mind, but the point is that the S.A.B.C. is attacked in regard to something which was also said by Sapa’s own representative in their news. This conviction was so widely held that the Star went further—

The conviction in regard to what was to happen in London was, in other words, so strong that the sharemarket rose and all these reports appeared, and yet the S.A.B.C.’s man is vilified and attacked and it is intimated that he is a liar and that he distorted the reports, although he said exactly what the others had said. Is that not typical of the way in which false allegations are made by the opposite side of the House? Allegations are simply made against the S.A.B.C., whether they are irresponsible or not, merely because they hope thereby to reflect the S.A.B.C. in the wrong light.

Is it correct that a report was transmitted by the S.A.B.C., not that the conviction was that South Africa would remain inside, but that he had been reliably informed that South Africa had been accepted in the Commonwealth; and is there not a difference between what the public feels and a report that we had been accepted?

I do not think the hon. member is reading the reports quite correctly. It was not said that South Africa would remain in the Commonwealth, but that it was the generally accepted opinion that South Africa would remain in. It was not stated as a fact. It was stated merely as a general conviction. The hon. member should read it again.

Let me now come to another attack which was made here by various hon. members. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) was the first to do so. They said “attempting to ensure Dr. Verwoerd a hero’s mass welcome What were the facts of the matter? I do not want to deal with the importance or otherwise of remaining in the Commonwealth. But we all thought it was important; the public considered it important. Everybody was tremendously interested in it. We know that it was not a struggle of just a few days. It was a struggle which had lasted a few years. We know that the struggle really commenced when Mr. Eric Louw was in London last year. Everybody was affected by it; everybody was interested in it. And the man who had to go and achieve it was the Prime Minister of the country—not a nonentity but the Prime Minister, the most important and the biggest man in our political life. We have therefore been under tension for a long time; we all took an interest and saw how much little things mattered, how even the smile of some or other ambassador counted, and how conclusions were drawn from small things. Now, Sir, this man returns after that incident. Is it not obvious that everything which this man does is of interest? Is it not of the greatest importance what the reaction of the public is? Is it not of the greatest importance to know how many welcomed him, whether it was 20 or 100,000? I am sorry the hon. member opposite shakes his head and cannot understand it yet, but I think he will understand it later. Every intelligent person will realize that it was of the greatest importance and of the greatest factual value. It had news value. It can be seen from most newspapers also that the reporter described every little thing said by Dr. Verwoerd and every movement he made, because the newspapers realized that it had news value. And it also had news value for the S.A.B.C. Then why is the S.A.B.C. being attacked in this deprecatory manner? I want to know from hon. members opposite whether that is right. Surely hon. members realize that these things have news value. Why do they pretend that the S.A.B.C. distorted the reports and gave them a slant? That cannot be a fair judgment. The motive can only be to besmirch and distort everything the S.A.B.C. does.

Mr. Chairman, it is sometimes a good thing also to hear the opinions of others. Let me now give you the opinion of Dagbreek. It refers to hon. members opposite—

If the Opposition …

Does that also belong to the mining magnates?

I think your soul belongs to them—

Now I come to another allegation which was made, I think, by the hon. member for Parktown. He asked what about those crowds mentioned by the S.A.B.C. in its news service. There were varying estimates about the number of people present at the Jan Smuts Airport. I can say this, that it all depends on when one was there. I was there and I had to return to Kempton Park, and when I returned to the airport there was one solid stream of motor cars from Kempton Park as far as one could see, all on their way to the airport. Along the sides of the roads from Kempton Park to the airport the cars were crowding each other. If a reporter had been there early, he would perhaps have seen just a small crowd of people—I accept that they were honest in their estimate. If they went later they would have seen infinitely more people. Now the hon. members say that the Transvaler said that there were 50,000 people, but the S.A.B.C. said there were 60,000, and therefore the S.A.B.C. is wrong. But surely that does not follow? Why does it not follow that the Transvaler was wrong, and why is it particularly the S.A.B.C. which was wrong? I say again that it is simply in order to distort everything the S.A.B.C. does and says, in an attempt by members opposite to prove that the S.A.B.C. distorts matters. We had the same sort of thing in Cape Town. I do not want to pretend that I could make an estimate, and I do not want to give an estimate of how many people there were. I cannot say that the Cape Times was wrong, or the Argus or the S.A.B.C. were wrong. The one said 10,000 and the other 15,000. I cannot say who was right, but why should the S.A.B.C. be singled out for blame; why could the Cape Times or the Argus not have been wrong? It was dark and it was very difficult to estimate how many people there were in the crowd. Surely that is not reasonable criticism? It is distorted criticism; it is prejudiced criticism which is simply intended to make a large and splendid institution suspect.

Then hon. members also referred to the comments made. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) referred to the comments broadcast over the Afrikaans programme with reference to the consultations in regard to the Commonwealth. But what is wrong with that? Let me read it to hon. members as it was taken from the English newspapers—I forget whether it was the Argus or the Cape Times. One of the persons who commented was Mrs. Jansen, the wife of the former Governor-General. She said—

Is that not fair? Is that not what all of us realize to-day? Do hon. members opposite not realize it? If it is fair, what objection have they to it?

Why, when the S.A.B.C. broadcast that this was the consensus of opinion, were the views of only five Nationalists broadcast over the English programme, and no other people were asked?

Were they Nationalists? That was over the Afrikaans programme.

Will the Minister make inquiries about that? He simply does not know what happened.

It was over the Afrikaans programme. Later what had been broadcast in the Afrikaans programme was relayed in the English programme. Does it make any difference whether I give my opinion in the English programme or if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) gives his in the Afrikaans programme? Hon. members are always complaining that we should not in South Africa be separated into Afrikaans and English-speaking people. They want our children to attend the same schools. Are they objecting to a few Afrikaans-speaking people being heard over the English transmitter?

Why do you not ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) to give his views over the Afrikaans transmitter?

Perhaps they will ask him next time. One cannot ask all the people in the world to give their opinions on a matter. [Interjections.] It does not matter whether it is a Nationalist or a United Party supporter.

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