I move, as an unopposed motion:

1. (1) That the House at its rising on Friday, 29 May, adjourn until Tuesday, 2 June; and
2. (2) that on and after Tuesday, 2 June, this House shall meet at 10 a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and that business be suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Agreed to.

I move—

When the Industrial Legislation Commission of Inquiry was appointed in 1948, it was specially charged with the duty of inquiring into, reporting upon and making recommendations concerning four Acts of Parliament. The first was the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1937, then the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941, then the Wage Act of 1937, and the Shops and Offices Act of 1939. Following upon the recommendations of the Commission, the first three of these measures have since been replaced by more modern legislation, and the Shops and Offices Act is, therefore, the last one of these four to come up for review. The Shops and Offices Act was promulgated in 1939, and it became operative in January 1940, so it has been in existence for 24 years. It has served a very good purpose in protecting the interests of many thousands of workers right throughout the Republic who were not subject to the provisions of any other industrial legislation. But, in spite of its title, this Act, generally speaking, applies only to shops as we ordinarily know them, i.e. establishments where goods are offered for sale or from which merchandise is sold, and to offices forming part of such shops. The employees working in many different kinds of offices which are not part of a shop as defined do not, therefore, enjoy the protection of the existing Act, and the object of the Bill now before the House is to give them that protection.

In many offices, such as attorneys, accountants, auditors, auctioneers, estate agents, brokers, doctors and dentists, and a host of others, where the employees are generally unorganized and, therefore, not in a position, as a body, to enter into agreements for the regulation of their conditions of employment, the employees are without any statutory protection. While I admit that numerous employers observe fair conditions of employment, in many cases I may say even exemplary conditions of employment, it is also true that there are many of them who are inclined to exploit the absence of legal control to the detriment, of course, of their workers. My Department has over a number of years received innumerable complaints regarding excessive hours of work, non-payment for overtime, employment without annual leave, no sick leave, termination of employment without notice, etc., and I think it has become essential that the existing Shops and Offices Act should also now be modernized in order to fill the gap where no industrial agreements or wage determinations are in operation.

Hon. members will remember that this Bill was first published in draft form in the Government Gazette on 13 April 1962, for general information, and all interested parties were invited to make representations in regard to the draft Bill. It took some time to correlate all the representations received, which were many, and, after due consideration thereof, and after many discussions, a final draft of the Bill was prepared, and it was eventually introduced in this House and read a first time on 15 February 1963. Thereafter, and before the second reading of the Bill was taken, it was referred to a Select Committee for examination and with leave to submit an amended Bill. The Select Committee was busy with the Bill during the whole of last session and heard voluminous evidence. Some of the evidence was in favour of the Bill, and other evidence was against the principles of the Bill. The Committee, in the light of the evidence it heard, decided to make several amendments to the original draft Bill. I propose dealing with those amendments later, but at this stage I should like to express my thanks to the Select Committee for the worthy task they performed. It was a difficult task. Many objections were raised. They had to be sorted out and considered, and I am grateful for the work which that Select Committee performed. I should like to draw attention to the unanimity which existed amongst members of the Committee on virtually all the clauses of the Bill, and I am sure that this will contribute very largely towards expediting the progress of the Bill through Parliament.

Hon. members will observe that there was only one division, in Clause 3 of the Bill, where it was moved by certain members that the hours of work stipulated in Clause 3 should be reduced from 46 hours to 44 hours, and the Select Committee decided to retain the 46 hours by a majority vote.

Are you on the side of the minority?

I am accepting the recommendation of the Select Committe that it should be 46 hours.

Are you prepared to give it consideration if you are convinced in this debate?

Well, that is another matter. I am in a position to give good reasons why it should be 46 hours. Generally speaking, the Bill incorporates all the main provisions of the existing Shops and Offices Act in so far as they relate to conditions of employment, but these have now in some ways been modernized, in line with all our latest wage determinations and other industrial legislation. For instance, I take this point that while the ordinary hours of work will remain at 46 hours a week, the overtime rate has been increased from 1¼ to 1⅓ times the ordinary wage; work on Sundays and on public holidays will have to be paid for on the same basis as provided in the Factories Act, as amended in 1960, and in all cases overtime and Sunday time will have to be calculated on an employee’s ordinary wage plus his cost-of-living allowance. As far as Sunday work is concerned, hon. members will note from Clause 5 that, except for shops which are allowed to open on Sundays, all work in ordinary shops and offices forming part of such shops is totally prohibited. In all other offices work may be performed on Sunday, but at special rates of pay. All employees will be entitled to leave on full pay in respect of all statutory public holidays, but special provisions are prescribed for those who are required to work on any public holiday.

An innovation in the Bill is the introduction of paid sick leave for all shop and office workers, and while it was originally intended to allow employees ten days’ sick leave per annum on full pay in the case of employees working a five-day week and 12 days in the case of all other employees, the Select Committee has decided upon 30 and 36 days, respectively, for five-day week and six-day week employees in every cycle of three years. Sir, I agree with this recommendation because it ensures that while an employee is not deprived of his earnings in respect of a few days occasional sickness, it also makes provision for those workers who are unfortunate enough to contract an illness that keeps them away from their work for more than ten or 12 days. The same principle applies, of course, throughout the Public Service and most of the recent wage determinations contain similar provisions but they are spread over a cycle of two years and not three years.

The Bill also contains provisions dealing with the obligations arising from any contract of employment and how that contract may be terminated. The present Act, that is the present Shops and Offices Act, makes no provision for notice to be given when an employee’s services are to be terminated and consequently an employee who is summarily dismissed without just cause, has no redress except by way of a civil action for damages. The same applies where an employee deserts his employment without due notice. The employer’s business might be seriously disrupted as a result of the desertion—yet he can do nothing about it unless he can prove damages. And, of course, the costs of litigation being what they are to-day, it becomes a serious matter for either party to have to resort to litigation.

This deficiency is rectified in Clause 8 of the Bill, which not only provides for the period of notice to be given for the termination of employment, but also that such notice shall not run concurrently with nor be given during an employee’s absence on ordinary leave or on sick leave. This is in accordance with virtually all our wage regulating instruments.

Other new features relate to the recovery and the disposal of moneys underpaid and Court Orders in connection therewith. It is, of course, one of the cardinal principles underlying all our industrial legislation, that the State takes up the cudgels on behalf of the employee who has illegally been deprived of his just dues. As a matter of fact, our legislation specifically prohibits an employee from recovering underpaid moneys by civil proceedings unless the Attorney-General declines to take criminal action and Clauses 18 to 20 are designed to extend those principles also to employees in shops and offices which are not yet subject to any wage regulating measures.

The Bill also prohibits victimization and provides for legal presumptions in connection with acts or omissions by managers, agents or employees. These provisions are not new, however, since they are also contained in the Wage Act and in the Industrial Conciliation Act and I don’t think it will be necessary to go into any details in this connection. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I should say something about the application of the Bill itself and especially those types of employees who will not be covered.

As hon. members know the existing Shops and Offices Act, while applying, generally speaking, only to shops and offices attached to such shops, can be extended by notice in the Government Gazette to any class of office specified in the notice, that is the existing law, but this has never been done. It has always been considered undesirable to apply the provisions of the Act on a piecemeal basis. It was always felt by my Department that there was no justification for applying the Act to certain offices only, while others remained excluded, and it would have been a most difficult if not an impossible task to specify all the various types of offices in a Government Notice. In the circumstances it was decided to amend the Act in order to bring all offices where any form of clerical work is performed within the ambit of the law—with certain exceptions, of course, which are set out.

The provisions of Clause 2 (1) of the Bill dealing with exclusions, are perfectly straightforward and will be clearer still if hon. members will read it in conjunction with the Explanatory Memorandum but, Mr. Speaker, I think I should just give a little more detail in connection with some of the more important paragraphs.

I want to deal now with paragraph (a). There has been some doubt as to whether the Bill would apply to employees working in offices in connection with factories—this is particularly so with regard to factory offices situated away from the registered factory premises. The Select Committee has now recommended the amendment as printed in the Bill, to make it quite clear beyond any doubt that the Bill will not apply to such offices. They will be controlled, as heretofore, by the relevant provisions of the Factories Act itself.

I come now to paragraph (h). In addition to the institutions originally proposed to be excluded, the Select Committee has recommended that the Atomic Energy Board and the South African Reserve Bank should also be excluded. These two bodies, like the other institutions specified, are semi-State organizations whose conditions of employment are more or less on a par with those of the Public Service and there appears to be no reason why they should be covered by the Bill.

Paragraph (m) excludes persons employed in the rendering of medical or health services even though they might perform some clerical work which is incidental thereto. Most nurses employed by doctors or dentists to assist them with patients in their surgeries, also do some clerical work, but it is not the intention that they should be covered by the Bill merely by reason of the little writing or typing that they might do. The same applies in respect of nurses in private hospitals, but those employees who have nothing to do with the treatment or the care or the nursing of patients and who are engaged in clerical work such as making appointments, collecting money, issuing receipts, keeping books and performing office work generally, will be covered by the Bill.

As far as paragraph (n) is concerned, the principle has been firmly established by the Wage Board that employees who fall within the higher income group, are well able to look after their own interests and in the Board’s recommendations of recent years, which were subsequently published as wage determinations, employees earning a certain salary were exempted from control as far as their hours of work were concerned. Such employees are usually employed as managers or in other executive positions and their duties should not be restricted by certain limitations on their hours of work. Generally speaking they can, by virtue of their experience or skills, demand more favourable conditions of employment than the lower paid groups and whereas they do at times, as necessity demands, work extended hours, they are, of course, amply compensated for that extra work. This is, of course, no new principle as exemption from the provisions relating to hours of work, has for years been granted in terms of the Factories Act in respect of certain classes of employees on the basis of their remuneration, and the amounts specified for exemption have from time to time been increased by proclamation in the Gazette. Similar exemption has now been granted under the present Shops and Offices Act, and it is important to note that the amounts specified in Clause 2 (1) (m) may also from time to time be increased by the State President by proclamation.

Paragraph (o) excludes all mine workers and other mining officials who may perform a certain amount of clerical work, provided such work is wholly or mainly performed below the collar of the shaft of the mine. It follows, therefore, that all clerical workers on the surface are covered by the Bill.

Paragraph (q) has also been inserted by the Select Committee in order, firstly, to meet establishments that employ large numbers of employees and who have their own domestic conditions of employment, and secondly, in order to encourage collective bargaining between employers and employees.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that with two minor exceptions, the Bill incorporates all the recommendations of the Industrial Legislation Commission of Inquiry to which I referred at the opening of my remarks. Whereas the Commission had recommended that the confinement allowance be increased to R4 per week, the Bill provides for R2.50. This figure is the same as under the Factories Act. By far the majority of employees are contributors in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act and they enjoy the higher benefits of that Act. I think it must be remembered, that unlike the Unemployment Insurance Act, where both the employers and the employees contribute to a central fund according to their wage groups the allowances provided for in the Bill, are paid from State monies, and I am of the opinion that to increase the allowances beyond that prescribed in the Factories Act, will not be justified.

The other recommendations of the Commission which has not been accepted, is that commercial travellers and their assistants, caretakers, watchmen, delivery employees and persons tending to animals, should be excluded from the definition of “employee”. It will be noted that they have not been so excluded with the result that although certain provisions of the Bill relating to hours of work will not apply to these categories, as well as certain others like property salesmen and insurance agents by virtue of Clause 3 (3) (a) and (c) those employees will nevertheless be entitled to the other benefits of the Bill such as annual leave and sick leave on full pay.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all appreciate that the Bill is very wide in its application and there may be cases of difficulty which will be experienced especially with regard to the prescribed hours of work, but I want to emphasize that such cases can always be dealt with by way of exemption. At the same time I wish to make it quite clear that exemptions will not be issued at random, every application will be considered strictly on its merits. I might mention that it is the intention to effect promulgation of the Act, when finally passed, in such a way that employers will have ample time to adjust their affairs in conformity with the new provisions, or where this is impracticable, to allow them sufficient time to make representations for exemption under Clause 14 of the Bill.

That I think covers the main effects of the Bill, and I now move the second reading.

We on this side, as I expect most hon. members realize, are going to support the second reading of this Bill. We served on the Select Committee and, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, we did achieve a considerable amount of unanimity in connection with the task which was entrusted to us. The one exception was the question of hours of work, but I will deal with that later.

The hon. the Minister has given an outline of the history of the legislation with which we are dealing here. I think there is one matter which he did not deal with, perhaps understandably, and that is the fact that over the years members on this side of the House have introduced private members’ motions asking for relief of one sort or another to white-collar workers. I think that is an important fact, because it does indicate that this Bill is long overdue and that the provisions which we are now considering will give relief to a considerable number of workers who in the past, I am sorry to say, have not had the benefit of legislative protection and have in the main, unfortunately, been exploited to a certain extent. I think it is most important that we should look at this Bill and look at it also in the light of the evidence which was placed before us. I think if we do that, then one thing will become abundantly clear and that is that the evidence did show as far as the employees were concerned, as represented by the National Union of Distributive Workers, and also as far as certain employers were concerned, an acceptance of the principle and a desire that collective bargaining should take place rather that conditions should be imposed upon them by way of this type of legislation. I think the Minister has indicated that when we, as a Select Committee, introduced Clause 2 (1) (q), we had in mind an extention of the principle of collective bargaining, mainly where it has not been found possible in the past to organize workers into trade unions. But I think it is important that we should realize that both sides of the House, as far as I am able to judge, are very keen on the establishment, where possible, of trade unions for the purpose of negotiating agreements rather than that the employees should fall under the provisions of an act of this sort. I say that, Sir, because evidence was given before the Select Committee, and I think it is necessary that I should deal with some of that evidence so that the House will be in a position to appreciate the viewpoint of employees as well as employers. I find that from the employers’ point of view the evidence submitted by the Afrikaans Handelsinstituut at page 73, bears out this contention. I quote a portion of paragraph 221—

I want to underline this portion—

I think that clearly indicates that as far as the representations made by the Afrikaans Handelsinstituut are concerned, they would have preferred to see collective bargaining between trade unions and employers’ organizations. Then on page 103, paragraph 251, the following question was put to the witnesses—

Mr. Bornman replied as follows—

There again we find that this desire on the part of a section of employers that trade unions should be established to negotiate agreements by way of collective bargaining is firmly stated. As far as the employees are concerned we find that their difficulty has been to get trade unions established, and whether or not employers were speaking with their tongue in their cheek when they put forward this strong claim for better negotiations by way of trade union agreements I do not know, but it would appear from the evidence given before us that no real effort has been made to encourage the setting up of strong trade unions to enable collective bargaining to take place. The complaint by the existing trade unions is that they find it extremely difficult to organize workers into trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. My plea here is that the Minister should indicate Government policy in this regard quite clearly. He should indicate that it is the policy of the Government, as it was the policy of the United Party Government, that the greatest possible encouragement should be given to all workers to form themselves into trade unions so as to give effect to the well-known policy of collective bargaining for the regulation of wages and conditions of employment in industry generally.

That is the policy of the Government.

Sir, that is the policy of the Government but the activities of the colleague of the hon. the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice, have not always made it clear that that is the intention of the Government as far as trade unions are concerned. We have had complaints over the years from the trade unions that their activities are interfered with by the Department of Justice through its various officers.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

You are unnecessarily dragging politics into this.

It is not a question of politics. The trade union movement has made it quite clear from time to time that their activities are in the interests of the workers. The trade union movement, because of the activities of agitators who have tried to use the legitimate trade union movement for other purposes, has come under a certain amount of suspicion. I have no objection to agitators who are using the trade union movement for their own ends being dealt with, if you are able to establish that they are in fact agitating in the trade union for objectives other than legitimate trade union objectives, but it is because of the present confusion and uncertainty that there is a feeling at present in trade union circles that there is not the necessary encouragement from the Government for the formation of strong trade unions. That is unfortunate, and I think the Minister is in a position to-day to make an appeal to both employers and employees and to impress upon them that it is in their own interest to do what they possibly can to strengthen the trade union movement. Sir, this is not one of those things that can just grow without encouragement from all sides. The fact that the Select Committee did introduce this clause, makes it quite clear that there is no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on this question of the desirability of setting up machinery for collective bargaining rather than having conditions imposed or stipulated in legislation which applies to those who are not covered by any wage-regulating machine. The goal should be to ensure that every worker is covered by collective bargaining rather than by means of machinery of this sort; it is an ideal, and because it is an ideal we have to do our level best to live up to it. But because there has been failure in the past, the present Bill is now before us in its present form. It is designed to make provision in the main for those employees who are not organized at all and who may not in the foreseeable future be organized. It is designed to help them along that path; to make them appreciate the value of negotiation, of collective bargainings that is why Clause 2 (1) (q) has been introduced into this Bill. I think we have taken a very important step here to encourage this ideal, until such time as it is possible for us to get far better coverage of all workers through the trade union movement. It is true that the evidence which was submitted to us in this regard was not completely conclusive, but I suggest that there is sufficient evidence in the report of the Select Committee to indicate to the Minister that if he is able to pursuade employers to give the necessary facilities to trade unions.

I am thinking particularly of stop-order facilities for the collection of subscriptions for that sort of facility will make it possible for the trade unions to organize workers in the way in which they should be organized if we are to develop the system of collective bargaining.

Are you and your party in favour of stop orders?

Yes, in the interests of strong, legitimate trade unionism in South Africa.

You are in favour of it?

Yes, I can say that quite conclusively. The principle has been established, and it is in operation in Government Departments throughout the country. I see nothing wrong with it, provided the Minister is satisfied with the constitution of the trade union. It is the Minister’s responsibility to see that the constitution is such that there cannot be any abuse of this principle in the establishment of legitimate trade unionism in South Africa.

In other words, that it is a registered trade union?

It must be registered, yes. The basis is registration of the trade union; that is the only basis on which it can operate, and from there onwards the development of what we want. I think the Deputy Minister of Labour, when he opened the congress of the Artisan Staff Association in Durban this year, said the objective, as far as the Government was concerned, was the creation of strong trade unions. We want to make it quite clear that we also support that objective. Because we set the thing in motion, when the Opposition was in power, in terms of the I.C. Act and the registration of trade unions and all that goes with it was clearly defined in that Act. But there has been this breakdown, and I believe mainly due to discouragement by employers rather than lack of drive by those who wished to create trade unions. There have been cases where employers have forbidden any trade union activity in so far as their workers were concerned. We know that has happened. But I say to the Minister that I can think of nothing that will be of greater benefit to South Africa in the industrial field than the encouragement and the development of legitimate trade unionism. That is the most powerful factor in the maintenance of industrial peace and the gradual and beneficial improvement of conditions of all sections of our workers.

The Bill itself has, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, some provisions which were not present in the old Act which the Select Committee has amended. In some instances the Select Committee could not get agreement on the type of amendment it had in mind. The first of these was in connection with the hours of work. The Minister has indicated that there was a division of opinion and a division was actually taken on the question of the reduction from 46 to 44 hours per week. The evidence in this regard is found on page 14 of the Select Committee report, paragraph 15a. The National Union of Distributive Workers were being cross-examined on the basis of the memorandum they had submitted. Paragraph 15 reads—

I want to interrupt myself and say that the Minister has indicated that he was going to produce conclusive evidence to substantiate his reasoning for not accepting a reduction in the weekly hours as suggested by the minority on the Select Committee. But, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the Minister did not do that. He did not give us any evidence in support of the retention of a 46-hour week. I want to put my case, and I hope somebody on the other side will provide the evidence which the Minister failed to give to the House. To continue—

This Union represents, I suppose, collectively the largest group of workers that are going to be affected by this Bill. Their evidence shows that in the main less than 46 hours are being worked to-day and that 44 hours is, in the main, more of an approximate number of hours worked per week than 46. If we turn to the monthly Bulletin of Statistics of April 1964, compiled by the Bureau of Statistics, Pretoria, on page 28 the average hours per week are less than 44 in the manufacturing and construction industries, where they deal with food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, clothing, footwear, wood and cork, furniture, paper products, printing, leather products, rubber products, chemical products, petroleum and coal, basic metal, metal products, machinery, electrical machinery, transport equipment and miscellaneous. The question arises as to why, in the case of shops and offices, we should insist on 46 hours per week. I think the case for an adjustment is very strong indeed. There were those on the Select Committee who believed that, although the case was very strong, the time was wrong. I believe that if the Minister were to consider the matter carefully, he would find that, not only is the case very strong, but that the time is also right. The time is right because of the immense volume of evidence which indicates that in the main less than 44 hours per week are being worked throughout the country to-day. I hope that when the Minister replies, or anybody else on the other side who takes part in the debate, he will present the case for the retention of 46 hours per week.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the question of annual leave. The question has been put why, after 24 years, there has been no increase in the number of days’ annual leave in this Bill. This Bill prescribes 14 days, and so did the other one. I think we have to accept that, although it would be desirable, even in this regard, to keep in line with the modern trend, i.e. more leave, we have to take into account the fact that, for the first time, we are introducing into a Shops and Offices Bill a provision for sick leave. Provision is made for 30 days’ sick leave over a period of three years. This is a tremendous step forward, particularly when we bear in mind that in so many instances ordinary annual leave has been used by workers in these undertakings whenever they have been ill. The result was that they never really had an annual holiday. Because of the provision for sick leave, I think we will, for the first time, find that ordinary paid leave will be utilized for the purpose it is intended for, i.e. recreation and holiday, rather than as a period to tide a person over when he is ill. I think we can claim that, although there has not been an increase in the actual number of annual leave days, there has been a tremendous step forward in the provision of sick leave. On this question of sick leave the Bill provides for certain safeguards in Clauses 6 and 7 as to its utilization. Clause 7 (1) (ii) reads—

Later on in the Bill “incapacity” is defined, but that is not the point I want to make. I want to take this opportunity of appealing to the Minister and to employers generally not to make use of this permissive power unnecessarily. Bearing in mind that if a person is to be granted sick leave, and he is away for up to three days, in terms of this clause the employer can demand a certificate from a medical practitioner if it means that the benefit of sick leave can be dissipated by the cost of getting that medical certificate. I think it is a point we have to bear in mind when we think in terms of this requirement. It is permissive as far as the employer is concerned. If the Minister finds that employers are unreasonable in their use of this permissive power he will have to take some remedial action. Otherwise I can see no purpose in providing for sick leave on full pay if the benefits are dissipated by the need of possibly two visits to the doctor to get the necessary certificate. It is not always possible for a doctor to certify at the instance of a first visit what the duration of the illness is going to be. He may say: “Well, you are suffering from so and so; I will issue a certificate and come and see you again later on.” The Bill requires the certificate to give the date on which the person was unfit for duty and the date on which, according to the medical opinion, such a person can resume work. That is the way I understand it. It invariably means two visits by the doctor to give the certificate and the cost of medical attention can very well out-weigh the benefit the person is going to receive as a result of his sick leave on full pay. One must admit that the provision for sick leave is a tremendous step forward. Because we want to see this legislation given a fair chance I think the Minister should pay particular attention to the extent to which the employer is going to make use of the permissive power in respect of the production of a medical certificate by the person in his employ. I think this is something the Minister will have to keep his eye on.

Clause 13 introduces into this Bill the question of confinement allowances. A great deal can be said about this provision. But a most serious defect, as far as I am concerned—and I think the Minister will concede the point after I have put it to him—is that in 13 (2) (a) it says this—

the allowances to which the Minister has referred. The point I want to make is that the conditions referred to have not up to now been made known to the employer or the employee. The way this clause is worded indicates that there is no compulsion at all on the Minister to make these conditions known to the employee or to the employer. I might also point out that these conditions determine what the requirement is before a person will qualify for the payment of this allowance. As the Minister will appreciate, if the qualifications that are required before this allowance can be paid are not in the regulations, it can quite easily happen that, in particular, if the time period in which an application has to be submitted is not known to the claimant, it can happen that the application will be submitted too late, in which case the claimant will no longer have a claim to this allowance. The question of the number of weeks of employment that must be completed before this allowance is payable is not laid down in these conditions. The suggestion I want to make to the Minister is to delete “determine” so that the clause will read “Subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe”. All that is necessary is to substitute “prescribe” for “determine”. Because once you use the word “prescribe”, legal opinion tells me, the provisions of Clause 31 (h) will enable the Minister to prescribe the conditions by way of regulation. In other words, the conditions the Minister lays down will appear in the regulations. I want to point out that the Bill makes provision for a copy of this Act, together with the regulations, must be in each office or shop which falls under the Bill. It would be wrong if, in the copy of the Act and the regulations, no mention was made of the conditions necessary before a person could qualify for the benefits provided for in Clause 13.

You want the word “prescribe” to be substituted for the word “determine”? I am prepared to accept that.

Thank you, Sir. I think that will make the clause much easier to apply.

There is another issue tied up with the question of sick leave and here we have a headache—I will be the first to admit that. We are still trying to work out a suitable amendment. This is the first Bill that has been introduced into Parliament in which provision is made for sick leave as well as for confinement allowances. That causes a complication. Take the case of a pregnant woman who develops an illness connected with her pregnancy. In terms of this clause she is entitled to benefits but you may find that the benefits of the sick leave will not apply to her because she may cease to be employed because of her pregnancy. Once she ceases to be employed any subsequent illness, caused by her pregnancy, will not entitle her to sick benefits which may have accumulated up to the maximum of 30 days. The point I want to make to the Minister is that where there is an illness due to pregnancy, an illness which would entitle the person to the benefits of sick leave he should make it possible for that sick leave to be paid to the extent to which such sick leave has accumulated. To me this is one of those issues for which we have no precedent as far as existing legislation is concerned. Where the element of permanent employment is absent it can be quite easy for an employer to terminate the services of an employee who falls pregnant and has up to 30 days’ sick leave due to her, in order to avoid paying that sick leave if she has an illness associated with her pregnancy or an illness which may be closely associated with it. This is not an easy problem to overcome. I admit there are difficulties. If possible we shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to meet this point and the Minister will then have an opportunity of giving it further consideration.

I want to point out that as far as annual leave is concerned, the provision exists that if an employee’s services are terminated he is entitled to the pro rata days of annual leave he has not utilized in that particular year. I am not pleading for the same principle to apply in the case of sick leave but what I am pleading for is the recognition of the fact that an accumulation of sick leave indicates good health on the part of the employee. It does appear to me to be unreasonable if, when the need arises in the case of a person who has accumulated sick leave, that person finds that she is going to be deprived of it because of her employer’s action in terminating her services because of her pregnancy. I put that to the Minister.

In general—other speakers on this side will deal with other aspects of this Bill—we think we have taken a tremendous step forward particularly in relation to the unorganized workers in this country. We think that if the provisions of this Bill are given a reasonable opportunity of working the Minister and the employees as well as the employers will find that the benefits conferred here will bring about a healthier working population than has hitherto been possible because of the weaknesses in the existing Act. I do hope that we are not going to get too many requests for amendments to this Act before it has been given an opportunity of being tried out.

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted in the first place to thank the hon. the Minister for his friendly remarks in connection with the work done by the Select Committee. May I also be permitted to express my appreciation of the excellent way in which the two parties co-operated in the Select Committee. As chairman I want to express my appreciation of that co-operation and testify to the fact that the representatives of the two parties in the Select Committee were imbued with one desire only and that was to produce a measure which will protect the low-paid worker in South Africa in particular without imposing undue hardship upon employers. I think if this Bill is correctly understood it will be conceded that the Select Committee succeeded to a very large extent in removing the misgivings of the employers’ organizations. I must say that unfortunately many of the employers who will now fall under this Act, if this Bill is passed, laboured under a misapprehension which I hope will be removed in the course of this debate.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this is the last industrial law which is now being revised and modernized. I must point out here that the existing Act contains a provision to the effect that the Minister may extend the scope of the Act, but that provision has not been invoked. At the same time I also want to draw attention of the House to the fact that no amendments have been made to the Act in the 25 years during which it has been on the Statute Book. When one looks at the reports of the Department, particularly those of the ’forties and the early ’fifties, one is struck by the fact that the Department announced year after year that the scope of the Act had not been extended to other offices because of the shortage of trained staff; in other words, when one reads those reports one cannot help coming to the conclusion that it was always the desire of the Department to bring all workers in the various offices within the scope of the Act but that that step was never taken because of the shortage of trained staff. We are now reaching the stage where that ideal is being realized, except for offices which fall under the exclusions provided for in Clause 2. Hitherto this Act has only applied to shops and offices and institutions which were regarded as shops in terms of the provisions of the Act. One admits that a drastic step is being taken here in extending it to all offices throughout the country, and in the circumstances it is understandable that large numbers of employers were fairly strongly opposed to the Bill. That is why we as a Select Committee tried to modify the provisions of the Bill to a certain extent and to make them more acceptable to the employers.

The Minister is now being authorized, by way of regulation, to make certain provisions of the Factories Act applicable to shops and offices under this Act. The Minister will now be able to divide the Republic into three areas. Area A will consist of the large cities. In area A all employees earning R1,920 per annum are excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Area B will comprise the larger towns. Then there is area C, which includes the smaller towns and the rural areas. In the latter two areas all persons earning a wage of R1,800 and R1,680 respectively are excluded from the provisions of the Act. If this provision is accepted, it will mean that all highly paid workers, all workers in the large cities earning more than R160 per month, will be excluded from the provisions of the Act, and in the larger towns all highly paid officials earning a wage in excess of R150 per month will be excluded, and in the smaller towns in the rural areas all servants earning R140 per month or more will be excluded. The Select Committee was of the opinion, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, that the more highly paid workers were able to protect themselves. Under present-day circumstances there is a great demand for the services of staff in these categories; they cannot easily be exploited, and there are certain difficulties which the employers pointed out as far as these workers are concerned; many of the highly paid employees have to travel; many of them have to attend functions; many of them have to attend conferences after hours, etc., and the employers felt, therefore, that these workers should be excluded from the operation of the Act. I think the concession which we are making here to meet the objections to the Bill as first published is a very important concession.

The second important concession which has been incorporated in the Bill to meet the objections of these bodies is contained in Clause 2 (1) (q), which has already been dealt with, but I should also like to say a few words about it. It is provided here that if at least 100 employees are employed in a certain type of industry, business or undertaking, and they enter into a written agreement with their employers in respect of conditions of service, the employers may submit that agreement to the Department of Labour and ask for the exclusion of that category of employees. If the Minister is convinced that the conditions of service provided for in that agreement, generally speaking, are not less favourable to such employees than the minimum conditions provided for in the Act, he may exempt such employers from the operation of the Act. This paragraph has been inserted in spite of the fact that general powers of exemption are granted to the Minister in terms of Clause 14. In this connection, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, we really had two aims in mind. The first was to exempt the large employers who have already entered into an agreement with their employees to regulate their conditions of service and who do not fall under the Industrial Conciliation Act. All employers who fall under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and who have entered into an agreement, are excluded in any event. There are large numbers of employers, like the banks, the building societies and insurance companies, for example, who have all entered into agreements with their employees to regulate conditions of service. Under the paragraph which we have now inserted, every one of these larger institutions will be able to come along and say: “These are the conditions of service under which our employees work; we entered into this agreement with them on a voluntary basis after negotiations”, and they can then ask for exemption. Once they have been granted exemption, that exemption remains in force as long as those conditions of service remain of force and effect. As soon as those conditions of service lapse, then the employees automatically fall under the provisions of the Act again. In other words, employees remain protected as far as the minimum conditions laid down in the Act are concerned.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has already dealt with the second aim, and that is that we would like to encourage employers to enter into agreements with their employees. We would like to promote collective bargaining. Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member suggested that the Government was not actively encouraging collective bargaining. I think there can be no doubt about the policy of this Government. South Africa has always been proud of its industrial legislation. The basis of our legislation is collective bargaining—voluntary negotiation between employer and employee. We are very proud of that legislation, and I do not think the hon. member has any right to accuse the Government of not wishing to encourage collective bargaining. The hon. member says that the activities of the Minister of Justice are really responsible for the fact that employees are afraid to organize themselves into trade unions. He says he has no objection to steps being taken against agitators. Well, I do not think the Opposition can mention a single case where the Minister acted against a trade union where that trade union was not in fact being misused for political ends and even for the purpose of undermining the State. I think that any country which is engaged in the present cold war must protect itself against subversive elements which may infiltrate into trade unions, particularly when their activities endanger the safety of the State. That is why I say unequivocally that the Government is in favour of collective bargaining, but we dare not allow the trade union movement to be used by agitators and by dangerous elements to undermine the State and to undermine the industrial life of this country.

I also want to try to give this House a clear picture of the minimum requirements which are provided for in this Bill. There are certain employers who, in my opinion, are labouring under a serious misapprehension as far as these minimum requirements are concerned. There are certain requirements in regard to which there is no difference of opinion, such as sick leave, for example. The existing Act contains no such provision…

There are certain employers who did object.

Yes, but there was no difference of opinion with regard to the principle; there was only a slight difference of opinion at the beginning with regard to the application of this principle. There was no fundamental objection to the provisions dealing with sick leave, nor was there any objection to the provisions with regard to ordinary leave, because the minimum requirements are very low. The Bill merely provides that the employer must give his employee at least fourteen days’ leave per annum, and I do not think there can be any objection to that provision. There is no fundamental objection to it, although there may perhaps be some objection to it as far as the application is concerned. Sir, I have said that as far as sick leave is concerned there can be no objection. The Bill provides that if a worker works a five-day week, he may be given 30 days’ sick leave in a cycle of three years; in other words, an average of ten days per annum; or if he works a five and a half-day week he must be given 36 days in a cycle of three years, or an average of 12 days per annum. I think the minimum requirements are very low and there can be no real objection as far as the principle is concerned.

Then there is also the prohibition on the employment of children under the age of 15 years. That is a provision which applies to-day in all modern states. Then there is the clause dealing with the provision of seats for female employees. Employers are required to provide one seat for every three workers or two for every six workers, etc., so as to ensure a certain amount of comfort for female employees. There can surely be no objection to that provision either.

Then I want to say a few words with regard to a provision which was also dealt with by the hon. member and that is the provision relating to the confinement allowance. The distributive workers, for example, objected to the fact that the allowance was only R2.50 per week; they said that the scale was too low. I want to point out that this provision only applies to female workers in receipt of very low wages. The more highly paid workers, as hon. members will remember, are provided for under the Unemployment Insurance Act. All employees who earn R546 or more per annum fall under that Act which contains certain provisions in this connection. Contributions are made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the employer, the employee and the State, whereas in this case the burden of paying this allowance of R2.50 is placed entirely on the shoulders of the State. These are people who do not fall under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and this allowance is paid out of monies voted for that purpose by Parliament. Sir, when one views the matter in that light, then it is not such a small allowance, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that these people will not be required to make any contribution towards the allowance; the allowance will be granted to them by the State. Viewed from that angle therefore this is a very favourable provision, in terms of which the State takes upon itself the burden of paying a confinement allowance to workers in this category.

There was no real objection to the payment of overtime for work performed on Sundays and public holidays. The objections which were raised were really directed against the restrictions with regard to the number of working hours per week. The Bill limits the number of working hours per week to 46. There were also objections to the limitation in respect of the daily working hours. The Bill provides that an employee who works a five-day week may not work longer than nine and a quarter hours per day, and where an employee has to work a half-day on Saturdays, the Bill provides that his working day shall not be longer than eight and a half hours. In the case of people who work longer than a five and a half-day week, the Bill provides that they shall not work more than eight hours per day and that casual employees may not work longer than eight and a half hours per day. Sir, I do not want to weary the House with all the details. All I want to say is that there were certain employers who seemed to labour under a very serious misapprehension in respect of the obligation to pay overtime. In terms of the explanation of the law advisers, an explanation which the Select Committee accepted, the obligation to pay overtime only rests on employers if the maximum number of hours laid down here is exceeded. In other words, in the case of employees who work seven hours or seven and a half hours per day, the Bill provides that where they work a five-day week, they have to complete nine and a quarter hours per day before the employer has to pay overtime, and in the case of employees working a six-day week it means that they may work eight and a half hours before the employer has to start paying overtime. As far as the working week is concerned it means that in the case of employers who work 40 or 42 hours per week, employers have four hours in hand which they can spread over the working days in a week before they have to start paying overtime. In the evidence which they gave before the Select Committee many employers stated that they employed few people who worked more than four hours over and above the ordinary working hours of 40 or 42 hours per week. In other words, employers are under the impression that they have to pay overtime as soon as their employees have completed the seven-hour day or as soon as they have completed their 40 or 42 hours per week. In actual fact the legal obligation to pay overtime only comes into operation when the maximum numbers of hours prescribed in the Bill is reached; then only they have to pay overtime.

I should like to say a few words with regard to the proposal which was made by hon. members of the Opposition in the Select Committee and which has again been put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that we should reduce the number of working hours per week to 44. In this connection I must say that as chairman of the Select Committee I find myself in this position unfortunately that we frequently gave this explanation in respect of the 46-hour week to employers’ organizations who appeared before the Select Committee; we told them time and again that they would only start paying overtime once their employees had worked 46 hours. In other words, if, in the light of the representations made to us by employers who appeared before us, I now gave my support to a proposal that the number of working hours be reduced, I would feel that I had misled the employers. I think we brought them under the impression in the Select Committee that they would only have to pay overtime once the full working week of 46 hours had been completed. But apart from that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that there are many good reasons why we cannot at this stage agree to a reduction in the number of working hours. We have a shortage of manpower and I think it would be wrong at this stage to agree to shorter working hours, although the argument is advanced that there are large numbers of employees already who work less than 46 hours. But if we agree to this principle I am quite convinced that all trade union members who are still working more than a 44-hour week would agitate immediately for a reduction of their working hours, even though they do not fall under the Shops and Offices Act but under the Factories Act or under the Industrial Conciliation Act. I do not think it would be in the interests of the country at this stage. We are living in a period of expansion in the economic sphere and we have a shortage of manpower; we are living in a period in which there is a fair amount of inflationary pressure, and it is not going to be in the interests of employees to increase this inflationary pressure; they would then derive no benefit from a reduction in the number of working hours per week. I want to point out to hon. members that there are many countries in which the number of working hours per week has been reduced. America, for example, has a 40-hour working week at the present time. Those countries introduced a shorter working week as far back as 1935, just after the depression. It was done deliberately at that time to create more posts in order to cope with the unemployment problem and to bring more money into circulation. But we cannot make that our goal; it would not be in our interests to bring more money into circulation because it would only increase inflation, and having regard to our shortage of manpower it would serve no purpose to create more posts. In America at that time a little rhyme came into being which ran as follows, “Whether you work by the piece or by the day, increasing the hours increases the pay.” The experience in America was that an increase in the number of hours immediately brought about an increase in your wage bill. I have here a report of the I.L.O., which wants to kick us out to-day, about the question of a reduction in the number of working hours. This memorandum which was submitted to the controlling body of the International Labour Organization comes to the following conclusion in connection with the opportune time to bring about a reduction in the number of working hours. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said that this is the opportune moment. I say that it is not the opportune moment. This memorandum says—

These circumstances do not obtain in South Africa at the moment. These are the circumstances in which the climate would be favourable to bring about a reduction in the weekly hours. They then go on to explain when the circumstances would not be favourable—

I merely quote this opinion expressed by the I.L.O. to confirm that economically and psychologically this is not the right time to reduce the number of working hours per week.

Did the I.L.O. not recommend a 40-hour week?

Yes, and even the old League of Nations decided in favour of a 40-hour week as far back as 1937, and so far there are only three countries which have accepted it. We are in good company. In Britain and in France and Italy the people work longer hours than we in South Africa. In highly industrialized countries such as Canada and France they work even longer hours than we do.

There are one or two points which were raised by certain bodies before the Select Committee in connection with which there is a certain amount of doubt and about which I want to say a word or two. The hon. the Minister dealt with one of these matters—I just want to emphasize it again—and that is the Press Union and representatives of the engineering and steel industry expressed the fear before the Select Committee that offices which are situated away from the factories would now fall under the Shops and Offices Act; they expressed the fear that they would fall under two laws; that they would have to comply with two sets of legislative provisions in respect of their employees. Fortunately we have now been able to bring about a change in that regard. In the future all offices which are attached to factories, whether they are situated on the site of the factory or whether they are situated away from the site of the factory, will fall under the Factories Act. All printing works, for example, fall under the Factories Act. We have now been able to remove this doubt. The other matter has also been mentioned by the Minister, and that is the position of women who are employed by doctors. In that regard too we have been able to bring about clarity.

Sir, there is one minor amendment that I should like to move in the Committee Stage, an amendment which relates to the representations of the Gold Producers’ Committee. The Gold Producers’ Committee pointed out that there were certain categories of mine-workers who would normally not be regarded as office workers but who, according to the provisions of this measure, would now be regarded as office workers. [Time limit.]

As one of the members who served on the Select Committee, I am particularly glad to follow in this debate the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) who has just sat down, because I think it is perhaps fitting that I should express the sentiments of members that a compliment should be paid to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) for the manner in which he conducted the affairs of this Select Committee. I am sure I speak for the other members when I say that we want to express our appreciation for the very capable manner in which he did conduct the affairs of the Select Committee, which, let me say, has resulted in a Bill which can perhaps be described as the white collar workers’ charter and in respect of which there is perhaps the greatest degree of unanimity on any measure affecting the workers of South Africa that has yet emerged from this honourable House.

When it is considered that the bulk of the workers in our country are not protected by any agreements as to wages, sick leave, vacation benefits, or hours of work, etc., agreements as between employer and employee, then I do not think that it can be disputed that a responsibility rests on the State to give these classes of workers the necessary protection so that their labour will not be exploited. I make mention of this fundamental concept of State responsibility as we conceive it in this House and as we conceive it in our enlightened outlook to matters of labour control and its use in the 20th Century. I make mention of this because I think it was particularly horrifying to discover as we who served on the Select Committee did discover that there are still employers and employer organizations who have the outdated ideas of the 19th Century in regard to the exploitation of workers for private profit. I think one may parallel the views of these particular employers to those held by employers at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom in the last century. Sir, listen to this type of observation, and I quote, listen to the heartrending appeal of this class of employer before the Select Committee, an employer with a fat bank balance, with a shining big black motor-car and with every modern luxury and convenience in his private living standards—he told the Committee as I now tell it to the House—

In the Select Committee we dealt with sick leave and put certain questions to him. He delivered a homily on the issue of sick leave, Sir, and the misuse of sick leave by employees, in opposing the provisions that are contained in the Bill before the House, and he ended this part of his evidence in opposing these particular provisions of sick leave as presented in the Bill almost, let me say, with tears in his eyes—

Mr. Speaker, is it possible to believe that a responsible leader, a responsible representative of employers can come with such observations before the elected representatives of the people? He had plenty of sympathy for himself and his fellow employers, but not a thought of those who are earning him his dividends, who go back to their little homes. Not a thought of the working mothers, not a thought of the typists in his employ who are future working mothers, not a thought of the poor little clerks and all the others who are earning him his dividends and his black, shining motor-car and his luxuries at home. I think, Sir, such class of employer is entitled to very little sympathy. But this class of employer had other things to say before the Select Committee in regard to other provisions of the Bill, and it is well that I should focus attention upon them here. We were dealing with the complaints that have come and questions were put in the Select Committee on the position of white-collar workers, and the complaints that had been made to the Department over the years, and these matters were discussed with this particular employers’ representative, representing an employers’ organization, and he said this—

Then, when the Select Committee asked further questions in this regard, he said—

Workers whose interests this Bill seeks to protect, because they are protected by no other form of industrial agreements or legislation as agreements between employers and employees. I think this remark of this gentleman was, to most members of the Select Committee, the clearest example of the type of employer against whom this Bill will protect his employees. When it is considered also that in a 12-month period approximately 4,500 complaints in the Witwatersand area alone were lodged with the Department of Labour, complaints from white-collar workers not covered by any form of agreement, and covering such matters as the non-granting of annual leave, the refusal to grant sick leave, no overtime remuneration, and the termination of employment without notice—all things in regard to which this Bill seeks to protect the workers—I think that if an assessment is made for the whole of the Republic the figure will be well over 25,000 complaints lodged with the Department in all the urban centres in regard to the way in which these white-collar workers have been exploited. It is hard to believe that one can still find employers who can appear before the people’s representatives sitting on the Select Committee and make statements such as the following—

That was said by an employers’ representative, and he went on to say the following—

He was referring to the Bill before the Select Committee—

He felt he was wasting his time in appearing before the Select Committee. This witness, one witness representing an employers’ organization, was asked whether their delegation objected to the Bill because of humane considerations. He was put a very pertinent question by one of the hon. members opposite and he replied in these terms—

He was referring to those which the Bill now lays down—

He even objected to the very minimum requirements which this Bill lays down and which were discussed before the Select Committee. I think it was the unanimous view of members of the Select Committee that exactly the opposite is the case. This Bill protects the conditions of employment of the overwhelming majority of workers who are not covered by any other form of industrial agreements. What is more, it supplies the incentive for them to organize for the negotiation of agreements which will offer them even better minimum standards of employment than the Bill itself lays down. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana dealt very fully with that question. There is no doubt whatever that this Bill creates that incentive for workers who are not organized to organize themselves to get conditions of service which are better even than the minimum standards provided for in this Bill. Yet you have to contend with this type of attitude as evidenced by another employers’ representative, who said this—

He talks about a “bother”, because the Bill provides that the employer has to keep certain records in order that the inspectors of the Department can see that employers comply with the law. The conception of the exploitation of labour for private gain, I believe, has been completely rejected by most enlightened employers. I think it is almost fundamental to-day that good labour relations between management and labour and the recognition of the right of the Government to legislate for such relations, is essential for a healthy and stable economy in any country, apart from all the other social benefits that accrue from satisfactory conditions of employment. The social benefits that accrue from a measure of this nature cannot even be estimated. We, in the Select Committee, had evidence that some employers’ organizations claim the right to regulate general conditions of employment on the basis of the principle of supply and demand in regard to labour. One of them stated—

What is this witness contending? The employers’ organization that he represents contended, on the basis of this argument, that they have the right to extract the most, in an employers’ market, from those who offer themselves for employment; in other words, the right to exploit labour to the fullest extent by giving as little as possible in return. That is the principle he expounded. I am glad to say that this type of view did not prevail in the main, or on the part of the majority of those who gave evidence. What I have quoted here are the statements made by representatives of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. I mention their name, because I think the attitude of these people should be exposed, and there is plenty more of it. I commend to hon. members that they should read this evidence. The S.A. Handelsinstituut claimed that they also represented some 5,000 other smaller firms, and that they employed in these firms between 100,000 and 150,000 of this class of worker, and, as far as the country districts are concerned, they claimed that they represented 80 per cent of all office workers in country areas. They even went further and claimed that they represented 25 per cent of the commercial organizations in the country. They sum up their attitude to the measure in their final evidence by saying this—

I do not believe that this is the attitude of the majority of the members of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. May I say this, too, that if they claim to represent the majority of the office workers in the rural areas, I think hon. members who served with me on the Select Committee will agree with me when I say that the evidence adduced before the Select Committee shows clearly that if there was one group of office workers who clearly need protection in terms of this Bill, it is those employed in the rural areas. But when I draw attention to a commercial organization, I want to say that it was not only employers’ organizations in the commercial and industrial field who objected, but also in the professional field, the organizations representing legal, accountancy and other interests. They claimed that, by the nature of their profession, they, as employers, should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. But what were the facts produced in evidence? I will take only one instance of one profession, the legal profession. In a period of 12 months on the Rand there were no fewer than 478 complaints by people employed in legal offices, who lodged complaints with the Department of Labour against their exploitation by their employers on various grounds. In another area, Pretoria, the record was even worse. There, in the legal profession, there were no fewer than 960 complaints lodged on issues like the termination of employment without notice, working extensive overtime without payment, no sick leave, the refusal to grant annual leave, etc.

Having said this, my plea to the Minister is this, that he should apply the provisions of this Bill as strictly as possible. When it comes to the consideration of granting any exemptions, he should give the matter very careful consideration before granting any exemptions at all, and when applications for exemptions are lodged with the Department, they should receive the fullest investigation before any consideration is given to granting exemptions.

But there is another thing. The Bill provides that its provisions be published in every shop and office to which the Bill is applicable, but I want to tell the Minister that there are very few employees, if any, who will read the details of a Bill like this when it is pinned to the door of some office. So I would suggest to the Minister that an easily understandable pamphlet should be made available setting out the benefits granted to the workers, stating what they are entitled to by way of leave and pension and overtime pay, sick leave and maternity grants, etc., and that this be made available to those seeking employment at labour bureaux and elsewhere, and that it be widely distributed to these workers so that they will have a full understanding of the law as it affects them and as it applies to their employers.

I want to make one or two comments about the minimum level of R1,920 which is laid down in the Bill. I have no objection to the principle in regard to areas. That has been discussed very fully and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) dealt with it. But in the Select Committee every witness was asked what he considered to be a satisfactory level. There were varying answers, and some refused to answer. The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut refused to answer any question dealing with the actual provisions of the Bill, because they said it would be tantamount to committing themselves to those provisions, but in the main the witnesses answered the questions freely. This is the figure arrived at by the Committee after very careful deliberation, and I want to ask the Minister to keep an open mind about it. Conditions change, and so do income levels. For years we had a fight in this House about whether the level on which unemployments benefits are paid should be increased or not, and the employers on the Unemployment Insurance Board fought it tooth and nail.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I am just drawing a parallel. I say that the same argument will apply here in due course. Personally, I would have liked to see the unemployment insurance figure of R2,500 applied, because I thought it was more realistic, but I agreed to this figure, like other members of the Select Committee, after careful consideration of all the issues involved.

It can be changed by proclamation.

Yes, and that is why I am making this plea to the Minister, that he should observe the situation and determine this figure year by year, and that it should not be regarded as static at this stage. He must take conditions in the labour market generally into consideration, so that he will have an open mind in regard to this figure, and that he should reconsider it every 12 months or every 24 months, so that no impression is left that this is merely a static figure. That is why the provision was included that it can be changed by proclamation. I appeal to the Minister that he keep the matter constantly under review, and that he should even consider the area, because there is now decentralization of our industries to the rural areas and therefore the differences which formerly existed between the urban and the rural areas are no longer so big. These are all factors which, will have to be considered.

Then I should like to join the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in regard to his plea that the Minister should give deep consideration to reducing the hours of working to 44 hours a week. I think the Minister will agree with me that there is no industrial agreement which he has approved which provides for more than 44 hours. I cannot think of one.

In the motor industry it is 46 hours.

That is probably the exception, but generally the trend to-day is to accept a 44-hour week. I think that to make it realistic and to give the Bill real meaning in the minds of these many thousands of workers—and there are many more workers not covered by agreements than those who are covered …

In the Factories Act it is 46 hours, and it works quite weil.

Yes, but we have to make a start somewhere, so that is no argument. But the pressure is undoubtedly there in so far as the workers are concerned, to bring it into uniformity with all the other agreements so that we can accept, as a matter of national policy, a 44-hour week throughout the country. The hon. member for Pretoria (West), in support of his contention that it should stay at 46 hours, quoted the report of then I.L.O., but he neglected to point out that the average accepted by the I.L.O. is not a 46-hour week, but much less, so he will admit that his argument is not valid.

When we come to the Committee Stage we will discuss these matters in full. There are other factors like automation and the reduction of labour and the need to employ more labour, but I think the strongest contention as far as we are concerned is that there should be some Uniformity of working hours, both for the man employed in an office and the one employed in industry. If we accept a 44-hour week as the national standard, then the workers will know where they stand, and also the employers.

I conclude by once again pleading with the Minister that when this measure is placed on the statute book it will be applied with the greatest stringency, because I think we will agree there is no sympathy with the class of employer who appeared before the Select Committee who takes a stand to-day on the outdated conception of employment of labour based on nineteenth-century standards. Those days are gone. There is a responsibility on employers to ensure that the labour force receives the best possible treatment, and while this Bill provides only minimum standards, I hope that employers will accept it as the minimum standard but that they will try to grant better conditions of employment. [Time limit.]

You will permit me to say a few words also. Recently the pattern has beep for the discussion of measures on which we are in agreement to take longer than that on measures in regard to which we are not in agreement, and therefore you will permit me to be in the fashion, too. (Laughter). We have listened to the eulogies on both sides. I think the people appreciate this legislation very much indeed. Before proceeding, I should just like to round off an argument which my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der, Wait), could not complete because of the time limit. This was, namely, that similar legislation and similar provisions have already been on the statute book for 25 years, and have operated successfully, and that during that quarter of a century this legislation was administered by the Department of Labour with so much circumspection that we had no complaints from those employers to whom it applied. During all this time it was never amended, and there would only have been amendments in the event of any complaints, so that we may now surely assume without hesitation that if there are certain parties who are horrified because these provisions are now also being applied to them, and will also include other employers, I predict that they will have the same experience other employers have had, namely that the Department will apply the law with so much wisdom and circumspection that there will not be any complaints for the next 25 years either. I am very certain that that will be the case. I merely wished to complete that argument for the sake of those who may be feeling perturbed, for the simple reason that they may not understand the provisions and have not had that experience. I may reassure them that the same Department that applied it so successfully to other employers will do so in this case as well.

I wish to make a few comments. Firstly, in regard to the plea for a 44 hour week, it seems to me that some of us are pleading for shorter working hours, simply because it has been the fashion for years, without having the slightest idea why they are pleading for it. Let us first see what the original reason was why there, has always been this insistence on shorter working hours. There were only two reasons. The first was that one should not overtax the employee. With the increase in human understanding, the reasonable relations which have arisen between employer and employee have become a world pattern, and where we at the present time have a working week of 46 hours no one need tell me that anybody is being physically overtaxed.

The other reason why shorter working hours were urged, virtually throughout the world, was merely to devise a method to provide work for more employees. These were the only two reasons. Nobody who is reasonably familiar with industrial legislation can say that because of those two original principles, in accordance with which working hours have been reduced in all civilized countries, it should be applicable further, for who can allege that unemployment exists and therefore more people must be given an opportunity to find employment? To-day nobody can raise that plea. And in regard to the other principle, nobody can say to-day, with a clear conscience, that when one works for 46 hours per week one is being physically overtaxed. I have made some calculations, and I find a week consists of 168 hours, and if one works for 46 of those hours, and sleeps 7 hours a day, there are 73 hours left for eating, recreation, sleeping, studying or amusement. Who on earth can say that if the social order provides for such an allocation, one still has the right to contend that the working hours should be reduced still further? I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that at the present time there really is no reason at all why the working hours should be reduced.

But you have been pleading for shorter hours all your life!

Yes, but there is a limit to everything, is there not? Does he not know that whenever the word “too” occurs before anything, it is bad? You may be too good, and then others say you are mad.

There must surely be some reason why you plead for shorter hours, and not merely because you have always heard such pleas being made. We cannot always sing the same tune. You cannot drive along at 60 miles per hour in a motor car and then play a concertina and sing: “The devil turns on the brake and I drive the red span”. That is something that simply does not fit in with the vehicle in which you are travelling. Why do hon. members still continue to talk about a further reduction in working hours, when already there is compliance with all the requirements of any healthy person? Do not tell me that healthy people cannot work 46 hours per week. I think it is a waste of time and breath to plead for a further reduction in working hours, because 46 hours per week is a reasonable time to work; nobody can argue that one is physically overtaxing oneself when one works 46 hours per week. I hope, therefore, that this parrot-cry that hours should be reduced to 44 hours per week will now come to an end. There is no justification in modern times for that demand.

Then I should like to make a few comments in regard to the good start the hon. the Minister has made in connection with the award of a confinement allowance in those cases not covered in this respect under any other legislation. I should like to say, firstly, that I am very grateful for this concession. Effect is now being given here to some extent to something I pleaded for two years ago under the Industrical Conciliation Act and under the Vote of the hon. the Minister. I think I should just remind the hon. the Minister of that once again. In the absence of something better we have to welcome these provisions, but I should like to bring home to the Government and to the hon. the Minister that the question of a confinement allowance is in my view so important that I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear in the near future to take the necessary steps to ensure that confinement allowances are no longer awarded piecemeal under various measures. This is a matter of so much national importance that provision should be made for confinement allowances on another level. This is not something which should be dependent upon contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund or contributions to a trade union. I feel that as it is not a matter of sectional interest, but of national interest, that the responsibility for the payment of a confinement allowance should be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State.

Then I should just like to say that I am very sorry the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has thought it fit and necessary to allege that the Minister of Justice, in other words the police, are interfering in the activities and the organization of the trade unions in South Africa. It is very unfortunate that the hon. gentleman has done so, for he knows as well as I and any other member of this House that the police never interfere in the activities or the organization of the trade unions. Where there is interference, however, and where there should be an inquiry, not only into the affairs of the trade union movement, but any organization in this country, is where there are good grounds for believing that people are abusing their positions in order to set afoot an agitation against the national interest. The hon. member cannot mention one single case where the police have interfered in the normal activities of trade unions. I say very emphatically that this is not so. But when a so-called organizer or secretary of a trade union abuses his position to implant certain things in the minds of the workers, which have no bearing at all on the trade union movement, and which give rise to prejudicial consequences for the State, then it is duty of the police to intervene, whether it is a trade union or any other organization.

[Inaudible.]

That is my point precisely. The hon. member wished to suggest that the police are messing up the organization of the trade unions. That is what he said, and that is wrong; it is unwarranted.

That is also untrue.

The trade unions must be jealous of their organization, and they should not permit their officials to abuse their position to condition the workers to foreign ideologies which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

In conclusion I should just like to be in the fashion too by saying that I heartily welcome this measure.

Having listened to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) I can only say that I am absolutely amazed that he as a former member of the Labour Party should adopt the attitude which he has adopted here in connection with the plea made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to shorten the working hours from 46 to 44 per week. Of all the members sitting on those benches he was the one member who I was quite certain would support the plea put forward from this side of the House. The question of infiltration of undesirable elements into the trade unions is a matter which we believe should be left to the trade unions. We believe in freedom for our trade union movement, and I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp, if he wishes to be consistent, should support the proposition that the trade unions should be free to manage their own affairs. Sir, I just want to say as one who did not serve on the Select Committee that the Select Committee’s report is an invaluable guide to members as to the representations made to Parliament and to the Government for the introduction of a measure of this nature. It is a valuable guide in assessing the provisions contained in this Bill, and I too would like to compliment the Select Committee on the outstanding work it has done. Sir, while we on this side of the House agree entirely with the main principles of this Bill, we have certain reservations with regard to certain provisions of the Bill and I wish to put certain points to the hon. the Minister of Labour for his consideration. Before doing so, however, I would like to add my support to the plea made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana for a reduction of the working hours. It has become obvious as time has progressed that there are certain employers who do not scruple to take advantage of their position when they realize that they can exploit their employees for their own material benefit. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has quoted at some length from the evidence placed before the Select Committee in this regard, and I think he substantiated the claim that unfortunately there are some employers who do not hesitate to exploit their employees. It is therefore gratifying to know that those persons who in the past have not enjoyed any legislative protection from such exploitation will now receive the necessary protection. I think in dealing with this question of the exploitation of employees, one must take into account the question of the hours which the employees are required to work. The trend nowadays is to work shorter hours. The National Distributive Workers Union who gave evidence before the Select Committee said that at their congresses they had urged a 40-hour week, but realizing that in all probability a 40-hour week would not be accepted by the Select Committee, they put forward a plea for a 44-hour week. I think it is important to note that it is clear from the evidence given by employees’ representatives that in the vast majority of cases employees are pressing for a 42½-hour week. It is only in the smaller establishments that employees are required to work a 44-hour week and in very rare cases slightly more than 44 hours per week. In raising this matter I particularly have in mind the exploitation which can take place and which indeed is taking place amongst the Indian section of the community, where shops are kept open for very long hours and the staff is required to work exceedingly long hours, particularly on Friday evenings. There are also White-owned shops were employees are required to work particularly long hours on Friday evenings. Employers are able to take advantage of the fact that there is a degree of unemployment amongst the Indians, particularly in the case of unskilled workers. The result is that Indians who might toy with the idea of giving up their employment because they feel that they are being exploited, would find it extremely difficult to find other employment. They are therefore at a great disadvantage and they have no alternative but to agree to work long hours at very low rates of pay. The major establishments, in which shorter hours are worked, find that by agreement with their employees they can even introduce a five-day week. More and more of the larger organizations to-day have introduced a five-day week. We know that the Factories Act, as the Minister has pointed out by way of interjection, provides for a 46-hour week, but we know that in most cases they have introduced a five-day week. Even in the case of offices attached to factories which fall under the Factories Act, the employees, by private agreement, work a five-day week or in those cases where they do not work a five-day week they have every alternative Saturday off, so although the Factories Act provides for a 46-hour week, a provision which also applies to the office staff, we find in many instances, in fact in almost all cases, that they do not work the full 46-hours per week. The employers find that these shorter hours make for a contented staff, particularly as far as office workers are concerned. I know of many factories which allow their office workers time off during the week in order to do their shopping. I think all this goes to show that the general trend to-day is to shorten the working hours, and I believe that our plea that the 46-hour week which is provided for in the Bill should be reduced to a 44-hour week is a reasonable plea, and I am sure that if the hon. the Minister accepted it it would be welcomed throughout the country. That is why it is difficult to appreciate the argument which is being put forward here by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). The hon. member believes that we should maintain a 46-hour week because of the shortage of manpower. We find that in most of the major establishments a 42½-hour week is maintained, and I cannot see therefore how it can be argued that the manpower position will be adversely affected if the Minister agrees to our plea for the introduction of a 44-hour week. The reason for our plea is that we want to stop the exploitation of employees which is taking place in certain instances. I feel that our request is a reasonable one and that it should be given further consideration by the Government and by the hon. the Minister. After all, in a five-day week it would only mean a reduction of 20 minutes per day in the working hours.

You are flogging a dead horse.

Business suspended at 12,45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing, with the question of the number of working hours provided for in this Bill and supporting the plea made by the hon. member for Umhlutazana to reduce the, hours from 46 to 44.

The next clause with which I want to deal is Clause Having studied the provisions of this clause. I am sorry, to say that we are rather disappointed that the limit has been set at the low figure of R1,920. There are many salesmen in outfitters’ shops etc. who earn much more than R160 per month, and. I think in excluding all workers earning above R1,920 p.a. we are not being realistic. I believe that the limit should have been somewhere in the region of R2,400 per annum. We know that in order to make provision for the increased cost of living, employers are, adjusting the salaries and wages of their employees, and consequently there are persons, to-day who are not occupying important executive posts who are earning a good deal more than R160 per month. In many instances these persons—I have in mind salesmen in shops, for example—can be called upon to work extended hours and to perform all sorts of extraneous duties, but because their earnings exceed R1,920 they will receive no protection in terms of the Bill which is now before the House. I know that provision is made further on in the Bill for the maximum figure to be altered by proclamation by the State President in the Government Gazette, as well as the areas to which the Act is applicable. A further aspect of this exclusion clause is that the Bill provides that those persons who are employed at universities, colleges or other educational institutions will not fall within the ambit of this Bill. I want to refer here to persons who are associated with educational institutions and who, I believe, should receive some protection under this Bill. I refer to persons employed by private organizations which offer correspondence courses. They could probably be classified as employees of “other educational institutions”. Many of these people who do clerical work have to work extremely long hours, and I believe that they should not be excluded from the protection provided for in this Bill.

Another important aspect of this Bill is the question of annual leave, and here too I believe that the hon. the Minister should have gone further as far as the minimum period of annual leave is concerned. In dealing with this matter the explanatory memorandum states that 44 consecutive days’ annual leave for all employees is provided for in the existing Act. Sir, the existing Act has been on the Statute Book for over 20 years, and I think the hon. the Minister should have been a little more generous as far as annual leave is concerned. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say—

The National Union of Distributive. Workers, when they submitted their memorandum to the Select Committee which considered this Bill drew attention to the fact that wage determinations No. 223 and 174 cover approximately 235,000 employees of all races in the commercial and distributive trades, and they point out that wage determination No. 223 provides for not less than three weeks’ annual leave and that wage determination No. 174 provides for three weeks’ annual leave after two years service and 2½ weeks after the first year with one employer. In view of the provisions of these wage determinations, I feel that the hon. the Minister should give this matter this sympathetic re-consideration and provide for 21 consecutive working days rather than 14 days as provided for in this Bill.

As far as the question of military training is concerned I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not in the House at the moment because here too I believe that we aré dealing with a very important matter as fair as it affects the question of annual leave. We know that in the Defence Act, and I think also in the Apprenticeship Act, provision is made that four months of the period of nine months’ continuous military training can be counted as part of the period of apprenticeship. For the purposes of annual leave that same principle is being applied here, that is to say, that a person undergoing military training will have the right to claim that four months of that period should be counted as employment for the purposes of annual leave. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that consideration should be given to increasing this period from four months to six months. After all, persons who are called upon to undergo nine months’ continuous military training are called upon to make certain sacrifices. Many of them have to make financial sacrifices, and apprentices are called upon to make sacrifices as far as the period of their apprenticeship is concerned. In addition to this they will now be called upon to make a sacrifice as far as their annual leave is concerned. I would like to quote a concrete base to show that a person who is required to undergo nine months’ military training may have to work for a period of 17 months before he qualifies for his next annual leave in terms of the provisions of this Bill. For instance, take the case of a person who was granted leave in October and who then worked during the months of November, December, January, February and March. Then from the 1st April he is called upon to undergo his nine months’ military training. That will then take him to the end of December. Of those nine months four months is counted for the purposes of his annual leave, so when he returns to his employer he will be required to work from January to March, an additional three months, before he qualifies for his annual leave. I should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter and to see whether it would not be possible to make provision in this Bill for six out of nine months to be counted for the purposes of annual leave.

Then I want to say a few words with regard to Clause 11, the provisions of which are similar to the provisions of the Factories Act, which provides that no person shall require or permit any person under the age of 15 years to work as an employee in or in connection with a shop or an office. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would be possible to grant exemptions in certain instances which immediately come to one’s mind. I am not advocating a lowering of the age. I know that our juvenile affairs board have expressed great concern from time to time about the misuse of youthful labour. The fact of the matter is that many of these young people below the age of 15 years seek temporary employment prior to the Christmas period for perhaps two or three weeks. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that he should give sympathetic consideration to the question of exempting such persons from the provisions of this Bill. This gives them an opportunity to earn a little pocket money and perhaps help with the family budget. In paragraph (p) of the exclusion clause, i.e. Clause 2, it is specifically mentioned that persons who are temporarily employed at, and only for the duration of any agricultural, horticultural, industrial or similar show will not come under the provisions of this Bill. I therefore think that it would be fair and just if the hon. the Minister would give sympathetic consideration to that particular aspect.

Clause 27 deals with the question of making both the employee and the employer aware of the provisions of this Act. If you look at the relevant section you will notice that it has been altered slightly in that in terms of the existing Act summaries and extracts of the provisions affecting the employees must be displayed prominently by the employer. We know that a large number of employees are sometimes exploited through ignorance on their part of what their rights are, particularly in regard to labour matters. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the issuing of a summary or extract which must be simple and concise and which can be clearly understood by both employer and employee.

I might mention that in 1956 the Department of Labour issued a small booklet explaining the ramifications and the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was headed “A Guide to Contributors”. Those were actual contributors to a fund and had more right perhaps to ask for such a booklet but employees in this case might perhaps similarly be advised of what their rights are under the Bill which is now before us.

Clause 31 deals with the regulations to be issued. Under (d) it is provided that first-aid equipment should be provided in shops or offices by employers. I hope the Minister will see that this provision is carried out when this Bill becomes an Act. Unfortunately in a number of the smaller establishments and organizations very little provision is made in regard to first-aid. Tn times of sudden illness the necessary first-aid equipment is invariable not available that can be rendered to that employee. It is a provision which is strictly adhered to under the Factories Act where factories have proper equipment and sick rooms and so forth.

Finally I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to put the provisions of this Bill into effect as soon as possible. The final Clause merely says that it will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. I think this legislation is long overdue. Indeed if has become urgent in the present circumstances. I therefore hope the hon. the Minister will not delay the promulgation of this Bill, once it becomes an Act.

There is not much to be said about this Bill seeing that it is an agreed measure of the select committee. Before I say a few words I should like to deal with some of the remarks made by hon. members opposite. The remarks they have made, Mr. Speaker, are really not remarks which are relevant. Nor do I think they were intended for this House. Nor were they intended for the country because this House and this country know what the position is. Those remarks were intended for overseas consumption. It was dirty propaganda and I cannot do otherwise than to express my deepest displeasure and indignation about the fact that when discussing a measure such as this, the hon. member for Uhmlatuzana gets up and says the Department of Justice interferes with the trade unions. That is far from being true. There was a time right at the beginning when this party came into power that it did interfere but why? Because the previous Government had handed the trade union movement in South Africa over to the communists and the communist party. The fact of the matter is that the communist party existed in this country because of the closed-shop principle observed by the trade union movement. When that was done away with the communist party disappeared in South Africa. Hon. members opposite plead with us to recognize the principle of collective bargaining and say it is a good thing to observe that principle in the labour field. We believe in it. This Government has done more to bring the employers and the employees together in this country than any previous Government. But because of the condition which the communists and that party which was in power at the time brought about in the trade union movement there are thousands of employees in South Africa to-day who have no confidence in trade unionism whatsoever. They do not want anything to do with it. The position is beginning to improve under this Government.

Then the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) rubs it in further. He defends the hon. member for Uhmlatuzana and says they believe in the freedom of the trade unions as though we on this side do not believe in it. He suggests that we do not believe in the freedom of the trade unions. I repeat that the trade unions have acquired real freedom under this Government. They are free to negotiate. More industrial, wage and other agreements have been arrived at between employers and employees during the past years than during any previous period in our history. It is because of this fact that we have complete industrial peace in South Africa to-day. Since this Government has been in power there has not been a single strike of any significance. The last serious strike we had was in 1947 when that party was in power, that party which is so fond of the trade unions. Just as they pay lip service to so many other things, they also pay lip service to trade unionism.

We have industrial peace; the employees are satisfied. And we have it because of the way this Government has acted since 1948. Shortly after this Government came into power in 1947 a previous Minister of Labour, Mr. Schoeman, appointed the Botha Commission to inquire into all our industrial, wage and labour legislation. As a result of that report our industrial and labour legislation was amended and it became one of the best in the entire world. Those amendments created confidence amongst the workers. Those amendments effected by the National Party Government made the workers realize that at last they had a Government which acted as their protector and not as the protector of the friends of Russia. Under the previous Government the Minister of Labour was the protector of the friends of the Soviet Union when he had to see to the interests of the workers in South Africa.

This is the last piece of legislation which has not been revised since 1948. It is still as it was when placed on the Statute Book in 1939. As I have said I have not much to say about this legislation because there was a select committee which sat over a period of two sessions, i.e., last year and this year. We reached 100 per cent unanimity. The last day of our sitting, however, it appeared for the first time that the United Party members did not agree as far as the hours of work were concerned.

That is not right.

I say that appeared to be the position on the last day. The Chairman still said that it was the first dispute. It was also the first time we voted. That happened on the last day.

You are creating a wrong impression.

I shall still deal with the wrong impression that hon. member created this morning.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) entitled to say the hon. member is creating a wrong impression?

Why not?

Like all our other industrial and labour legislation this legislation only deals with minimum provisions and, as I said a moment ago, the amendments affected to other labour legislation since 1948 were very effective and brought about the highest degree of satisfaction in the labour field. With the exception of persons employed on essential services, such as the provision of electricity, etc., very few people still work 46 hours per week. Those who still work 46 hours are the exceptions to the rule. The evidence given before the committee was also to that effect. As a result of this there is no agitation whatsoever amongst the workers for a reduction of the number of working hours per week. Only one trade union—and quite a number gave evidence—asked for it. I say there is no agitation amongst the workers. You never hear anybody talk about it. The only agitation I know of is that which comes from hon. members of the Opposition in this House. This is the only place where an agitation has been started.

Personally I too would say that 10 or 12 days per annum were not enough for holiday. But I say again that that is the exception. Most employers in South Africa who deserve to be called employers give their employees longer leave than 12 days. Government gives more.

I think the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has made an uncalled for and unsavoury attack on the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. Why he selected this institution is beyond my comprehension. He quoted the extracts completely out of their context. It is true that the person who gave evidence was against the legislation. He said the following, inter alia—

As far as our own firms are concerned I do not think you will find such a high percentage of undertakings of which the management is in the hands of young people anywhere in the world than here in South Africa.

He says the young people who occupy such high positions in the business world to-day owe their success to the fact that when they were still junior clerks and earned a low salary they were always prepared to put the shoulder to the wheel. That person made a plea but his plea was not as misrepresented by the hon. member for Turffontein. He said too little work was being done in this country. I too know something about trade unions; I too know something about employers and employees and I am not ashamed to admit it here. The people whom the hon. member for Turffontein attacked are people who pay their employees the highest salaries. Not only do their employees receive the highest salaries but that group of firms, on whose behalf that person gave evidence, have the best pension scheme for their employees which any private firm in this country has for its employees. But the hon. member makes that reprehensible attack by quoting something out of its context.

Did he support this Bill?

I said he did not support it and I said the hon. member for Turffontein completely misrepresented the plea made by that person. He also gave many other reasons why that was his attitude. Mr. Speaker, you will also see from the evidence that those people are not worried about these minimum provisions because they affect very few firms. They do not have people in their employ who are not given much longer annual leave than the minimum per annum; people who do not receive much more than the minimum salary; people who do not work much shorter hours than 46 hours per week. Those are firms whose employees work 39 and 40 hours per week. The plea of the witness amounted to this that it was not good for the morale of any nation just simply to reduce and reduce the number of working hours.

I want to conclude by saying that the hon. member for Turffontein has once again showed that he cannot rise above himself.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) resorted to the usual tactics of dragging the red herring across the floor of this House that the criticism voiced by this side of the House was for overseas consumption. He tried to show us how his party had fought for the cause of trade unionism. The Nationalist Party’s efforts in the labour field, however, have certainly not been to encourage trade unions in this country. Our recollection of those efforts is rather that they tried to negative a great deal of the work of trade unions and to weaken them.

In this Bill reference is made to collective bargaining. When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke he tried to draw attention to the importance of collective bargaining and he expressed appreciation for the fact that there was recognition in this Bill of collective bargaining, collective bargaining which should be one of the pillars of all labour legislation or labour negotiations. Now we suddenly find an hon. member trying to defend his party whose record is certainly not very good in this regard.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I certainly intend to return to the Bill, Sir. The other question the hon. member raised about the Handelsinstituut is not a question that was at issue in the Bill at all I think. When you refer to evidence you must always look at what the evidence says. The evidence says—

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, this is evidence given before the select committee.

Order! The Bill is under discussion.

May I just finish the sentence, Sir? In my opinion this Bill cannot succeed in practice. What I want to point out is that there is no purpose in defending anyone who has given evidence in regard to this Bill. That matter has already been dealt with. The hon. the Minister was prepared to accept the report of the select committee. He is satisfied to put this Bill into operation and that is the matter that is of moment in this debate to-day. As the hon. Minister has said this is the last Act in the quartet that it was necessary to amend and modernize. This country has always had a very good record with regard to its labour legislation and was in the forefront in the world in the field of labour legislation but over the last 10 to 12 years there has certainly been a great deal of retrogression in this field, a retrogression which has left a marked affect on labour relations. I only hope that this Bill which seems to be completely free of that form of contentious legislation to which we have been accustomed in the past will not be treated similarly to other legislation to which the hon. the Minister has referred.

Certain changes have been brought about which I think are going to be most advantageous. I want to say that the good relationship that exists in the particular field that this Bill covers had been brought about by the goodwill that has been built up over the years between employers and employees. Comparatively speaking I do not think there has been a great deal of exploitation in this country, but I do think we should lay down certain standards which should be regarded as minimum standards so that labour conditions can continue to improve. We would like to see that in respect of wages generally throughout this country, Sir. But this Bill does not deal with wages.

With regard to the 44-hour week which this side of the House pleads for I should like to say that in most offices throughout the country there is a marked tendency to work a five-day week. I think it is seldom that the hours worked in an office are more than 40 per week. In practice, the Minister will find, if he were to do a survey, that a 40-hour week is more than ample for offices, in particular. With regard to shops I think the value of a 44-hour week will lie in this fact that the employees will have more time to do their shopping. That will also give the more leisure time. One must not regard Saturday afternoons and Sundays as sufficient leisure time to warrant such a long working week of 46 hours. It is not a question of pleading for shorter hours in order to bring the position in line with the position in other countries, but I think it is to bring the position into line with what we find in practice in this country.

That is the maximum.

I admit it is the maximum. The difficulty with maximums is that maximums eventually become the minimums.

Are you in favour of collective bargaining?

Yes.

The trade unions can bargain for less.

That is right, but the question of trade unions only arise where a certain number of employees get together for the purpose of bargaining. But this applies to employees who have not as yet banded themselves together in any form of trade union. The difficulty is this, and I think the hon. the Minister of Transport knows this, that when you lay down maximum hours they become the minimum hours. The difficulty is also that employers may make use of these provisions and add these additional hours to the times which have become the practice in this country. If you work a five-day week in an ordinary office you work about 37½ hours per week. Because the Bill makes the provision the tendency may be to extend those hours.

Then they will not keep their employees.

Well, I am not so sure. All I know is that there is a tendency which has almost become practice throughout the country. I think the time has come for us to incorporate that practice in legislation and allow that to be the maximum. This will give the employees more leisure time and I believe you will get better service because of that. One of the reasons why the hours have continually been decreased is that production has improved on account of the fact that the staff has been more satisfied.

In general we support the Bill. That became clear from views expressed by both sides on the select committee. I do not think one should be over-critical of certain persons who gave evidence before the select committee. I know some reference has been made to the professions when it was suggested that professions might seek exemption and so on. I do want to say that the professions have given evidence of an effort to improve conditions of service, such as hours of service, leave pay and even sick leave. In most professional offices you will find that the employees are encouraged to join medical aid benefit societies. They are in fact, in some cases, brought in under group scheme to enjoy the benefits of medical aid societies. I think this is indicative that they have played their part and should not be accused of having taken any advantage of their employees.

We shall have an opportunity in the Committee Stage to deal with the points raised a little more extensively and, in particular, pursue this question of the hours of work.

I should like to say that in the select committee in most instances we enjoyed the wholehearted co-operation of all the members of the select committee, but we also had the benefit of the splendid services of two officers of the Department to whom I wish to pay tribute for the thorough study they made of the matter; they always were ready and able under the most trying circumstances, to give us very good advice on highly technical matters, viz. Messrs. Stead and Hechter. I should like to mention this here for the record.

Apparently there is considerable agreement on this Bill, with the exception of one matter on which there are specific arguments. I shall say a few words on this later on. But as regards employers and employees outside, we find that there is resistance to the Bill on the part of the employers, or certain employers, and concern is expressed about the Bill, concern which in my view is based mainly on ignorance or misunderstanding of the limitations and the provisions of the Bill and as to who actually falls within its purview.

I asked myself why this legislation is necessary. If it does not find favour with the employers at all, why was the legislation necessary? Now, I should like to say firstly that our legislation on this subject certainly has become somewhat out of date in view of the fact that the previous legislation was dated 1939, and no amendments worth mentioning have been made to that legislation, while in the interim our country has undergone a complete industrial development at a tremendous tempo, and there have been tremendous changes in respect of conditions of employment, of working hours, of automation and all kinds of other things which have definitely made it essential for us to adjust and modernize our legislation in some way. Secondly, we had evidence from the Department that complaints had been registered with the Department, complaints of contraventions of the existing Act, complaints as regard to all, kinds of minor things which were investigated; but there were a considerable number of complaints. The Department divided the country into nine regional offices for the purposes of labour legislation, and at two of the offices surveys were made of the number of complaints lodged against these specific provisions of the legislation. In the case of Pretoria there were 478 complaints during a period of 12 to 18 months, and in Johannesburg the number of complaints was 4,368 during the period of 12 to 18 months, in connection with contraventions of the provisions of the law. If one were to assume broadly that in the other seven districts, depending on the extent of the district, complaints were lodged in the same proportion, it would mean that one, may consider that during the period of 12 and 18 months, there were approx. 10,000 complaints from workers of exploitation by employers.

You may put it a little higher.

I am putting it at 10,000 only in order not to exaggerate. If that is so, that if there were say 10,000 complaints during a period of say 15 months, of specific exploitation under the provisions of the Act, then it definitely is necessary for us to take protective measures to protect the employees, for I feel it is a matter for this House of Assembly to protect our workers too, in the same way that we protect our employers and give them certain privileges too.

I should like to mention a third reason and in this connection I refer to the evidence, that certain employers particularly say that our workers are able to resort to agreements by negotiation which may then be approved, industrial agreements or what have you. Now I should like to quote here the specific words of Mr. Altman who appeared before the committee on behalf of the National Union of Distributive Workers. He stated the specific case very clearly. He was asked whether they could not easily achieve industrial council agreements in connection with this matter. His reply was as follows—

On a further question he gave the following reply: (paragraph 13, page 13, of; the evidence)—

This body was speaking for the employees, and as I see it this legislation is necessary for the following three reasons, namely the overhauling of the legislation, the existing complaints arid the fact that it is not always possible to reach agreement on a satisfactory basis.

What are the provisions of the Bill? It is not my task to deal with all the clauses. However, in broad outline it may be said that the Bill establishes certain minimum conditions as the standard, as the norm, and all those who have better conditions than those prescribed by the Act, will have no problems, and will not fall foul of the law, but the man who has lesser conditions than these, will of course in certain respects come into conflict with the Act and he will experience problems. Certain minimum conditions in respect of what? Clause 3 provides this in respect of ordinary working hours and overtime. A few words more on this subject later on. Clause 4 deals with payment for overtime which, inter alia, is being improved for the worker here. Whereas before it was fixed at 1¼ times the tariff, it will now be 1¼ of the tariff for normal working hours. In Clause 5 Sundays and public holidays are dealt with. Clause 7 deals with annual leave of absence.

Order! If the hon. member goes through the whole Bill now, then I do not know why we have a Committee Stage.

That is not my intention, but I am merely trying to recapitulate in broad outline …

The hon. the Minister has already done so.

I accept that. Let me then come to the question of how strictly the norm is fixed here. Now I should like to say at once that from the evidence, it became very clear to me that the norm laid down in this Bill will not in any way retard the employee in respect of his future service; on the contrary, I think that in most cases the workers have more favourable conditions under which they are working at present than the minimum requirements prescribed in the Bill. I wish to emphasize that very strongly, for the argument is constantly being used outside that this Bill is restrictive and retards development, etc. I think if there is a problem in connection with this Bill, then it is the problem of it having a nuisance value, in the sense that certain returns have to be kept, and that certain statistics have to be kept up to date and that certain forms have to be completed. There may be objections to that, but I do not think it is possible to object to the norm laid down. Furthermore I should like to say that the general conception of exemptions is stated so broadly in the Bill that one feels that in some respects it is stated too broadly. I should like to refer to one or two specifically in connection with which I think there is some confusion in the country. One of the specific cases is that where a person, e.g. is an indentured clerk or articled clerk in some firm, who during the day does his specific work for a certain number of hours, and who then in the afternoon or the evening in his own interest and in the interests of the employer, has to attend classes or lectures in order to qualify himself for his own work, then the Bill is very clear, but there is some misunderstanding in this regard. For that reason I should like to say emphatically that class attendance is excluded under Clause 2, where education as such and any further training are excluded. So these people are not affected by this, but it is one of the objections raised by a number of the professions in connection with this particular matter. A further exclusion I should like to mention specifically is that under Clause 2 (1) (q). Provision is made there that when an employer comes to an agreement with his employee in connection with the broad principles affected by this legislation and that agreement is generally and not specifically on every point, more favourable than the provisions of this Act, then the, firm or company or unit immediately be-comes eligible for exemption. In other words, the majority of these great undertakings that object so strongly to this Bill, can immediately obtain exemption by such an agreement, and so their objections as such will fall away. Then Clause 14 contains a whole series of other provisions which clearly state the matter so broadly that the restrictions of this Bill are not quite as serious as certain people think.

But I think it is essential that I should say something in connection with local authorities. I do not think this important matter has been raised here before. There was a request from the United Municipal Executive that local authorities whatever their local form of government may be, should be excluded from the provisions of this Act. Very strong representations were made, and they appeared before the select committee. The State itself and semi-state institutions are in fact exempted from the provisions of this Bill, and now it seems illogical that the local authorities are not exempted under the Act. It may appear illogical, but the position is as follows: What the United Municipal Executive really asked for was either total exemption or alternatively the possibility that if local authorities are not excluded, the agreements in regard to conditions of employment between local authorities and trade unions should receive the same treatment as industrial agreements. The Select Committee went into this matter very thoroughly. The Cape Provincial Administration pointed out that the province had made certain standard regulations which it did not enforce on local authorities, but in connection with which it had asked the local authorities to comply with them. Most of the local authorities in the Cape have already accepted them. As far as the Committee was able to ascertain, the Provincial Council in Natal has already passed an Ordinance regulating the conditions of employment of servants of local authorities. So in this province that matter is settled also. But in the two remaining provinces, there is no provision in this connection on the part of the provincial authorities, and in the light of that fact, the Select Committee felt that it could no accede to that request But I am stating, very categorically, that under this Clause 2 (1) (q) where the local authority enters into an agreement with its own employees, and the conditions of this agreement are more favourable than the Bill as a whole, such local authorities can then have exemption.

I now wish to deal specifically with the matter of the shorter working week, which is the only issue between the two parties.

This matter has been thrashed out very thoroughly. Every speaker dwelt on it.

I believe so, but I should like to show from the report that the attitude adopted by the United Party in the select committee differs from the attitude they are now adopting here. In the Select Committee we accepted the existing Act as it is at the outset, namely that 46 hours is the maximum working week. Against that background we put all the questions to the people who appeared before us. I should like to begin with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), to put the attitude of the representatives of the Opposition in the Select Committee. (He specifically raised the matter of the shortened working week and the shortening of the working hours per week, and he put it thus (paragraph 63, page 21)—

That was the specific question of the hon. member for Durban (Point) to Mr. Altman too, and Mr. Altman replied that minimum wages had been fixed. But that shows us very clearly that this member of the United Party realized the problems resulting from a shortened working week. I should also like to quote the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who specifically dealt with this to reveal his attitude in this matter. We find this in paragraph 339, page 159. He asked Mr. H. O. de Villiers of the Reserve Bank—

This was the reply—

I am pointing out that we specifically told these people that the Bill fixed a maximum working week of 46 hours, and that overtime only becomes payable when an employee has completed more than 46 hours of work. When we put it that way, their objections fell away immediately. If we were to proceed to reduce the working week to 44 hours, as proposed, these people will have the right to say that we as a select committee committed a breach of faith. If we told them specifically that the working week would be 44 hours, some of them might have objected and said that the week was becoming too short now, and that overtime would become payable too soon. They might say that they were prepared to fall in with a 46-hour week, but not with a working week of 44 hours. I feel it will amount to a breach of faith. In this connection I should like also to refer in conclusion to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who put the matter much more categorically still. He specifically put questions to the Law Society which appeared there, and Mr. Louwrens represented them. I am referring to paragraph 169 at p. 55—

The witness made a full statement and in conclusion he said this—

He specifically mentions “46 hours per week”—

Mr. Louwrens replied at once—

Eventually, the question again having been put, Mr. Louwrens came forward with complete resignation and said—

Then he is satisfied with the Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Do you feel that the reaction would have been different if it had been 44 hours instead of 46?

I have no reason to assume that they will adopt the same attitude if it were 44 hours and not 46. In some instances, the case of the distributive trade workers it was shown that some of them do work 44 and 45 hours per week, and if we were to reduce the ceiling of 46 hours, which we accepted throughout the discussions of the Select Committee, to 44 hours, the people who appeared before us and who were given the impression by us that the working week would be 46 hours, and who resigned themselves to that, will have the right to accuse us of a breach of faith.

I should like to conclude with a final thought. As we are dealing here with legislation laying down certain criteria as rules for employers and employees, I think Clause 2 (1) (q) especially will have the effect that we are now going to encourage the worker to a greater extent to organize and by so doing to enter into an agreement with his employer, for as soon as he has entered into an agreement, he is going to have the benefit that he will then be exempted, to the advantage of the employer and the employee. In the second place this legislation is not so drastic that it is going to create any problems for the employer or the employee. Additional forms may have to be completed, but generally speaking it is going to have a salutary effect in our offices, etc. Certain snags may arise, but they can be ironed out; and thirdly if this Bill is construed and applied in this spirit, I am convinced that we are entering a new era of peace in our shops and offices which will bear much fruit for us in future.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) who has just sat down started his speech by asking the rather hypothetical question as to why this legislation was necessary and then proceeded to give his reasons for it. May I say, Sir, that it is only necessary to read the arguments put forward before the Select Committee in 1962, by groups of employers to realize very vividly indeed how essential this legislation is. If you look at the list of people who gave evidence before the Select Committee—I as a newcomer to this House have only had the benefit of reading it—I have not listened to previous debates here—it seems to me quite clear that by far the majority of people, who gave evidence before that Select Committee represented the rights and the interests of the employers and not of the employees. By far the majority of those who gave evidence represented the interests of the employers, although of course the workers’ organizations in some instances were also represented. Now it seems to me that where some of the employers produced reasonable arguments, other revealed what I can only describe as a thoroughly selfish and narrow outlook over this whole business. I only wish to refer to one of them and then very briefly. I was shocked at the short-sighted approach in the attitude adopted by representatives of the Stock Exchange in their evidence before the Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, you will find it stated on page 169, where they gave Oral evidence before the Select Committee, that when their business is booming and things are humming on the Stock Exchange they expect everybody to stay there until the work is finished irrespective of the time of the day or night. And those people have no guarantee of extra pay. The representatives of the Stock Exchange went on to say in their evidence that sometimes the cheques were doubled and trebled and they were in the habit of giving bonuses, but there is no guarantee, the thing just simply rests in the hands of the employers. They then went on to say that they have to take on a lot of parttime employees as business fluctuates, but that until such new employees were engaged and trained, the existing staff was to work such overtime as was necessary to complete their business. And then you find a little bit further on in their evidence this astonishing statement: They were asked what annual sick leave facilities the staff of the Stock Exchange enjoyed. The reply was that no provision is made for sick leave as such, although no member of the staff is required to produce a medical certificate covering his absence due to illness unless there was reason to assume that a staff member was abusing this privilege. There is no specific provision made even by as reputable an organization as the Stock Exchange. A little bit further on you have the curious statement “We would be much happier of course if all our staff were completely excluded from the Bill, because the majority of people work for the stock brokers because they enjoy that kind of work”. There is no provision made for overtime. So I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Randfontein had all the answers he wanted when he asked why this legislation was necessary.

I am hot going to delay the House long, but I just want to say that the largest percentage of the workers affected by this Bill will be women, both in ships and in offices, and I want to say a word about their reaction to the provisions of this Bill. In the 1962 Report of the Select Committee it is shown that four of South Africa’s leading women’s organizations with a large and comprehensive membership gave evidence before the Select Committee, two English speaking and two Afrikaans speaking. I am not saying that their views were unanimous on every point, but in general they were unanimous. Perhaps the hon. Minister is aware of the fact that thousands of women in the country are, watching the passage of this Bill with the greatest interest and the majority of them are going to welcome this legislation very much indeed. I do not want to delay the House, but the greatest benefit to the women workers is of course, in the first place, the fact that in the distributive trades as well as in the offices for the first time they will come under statutory protection. We also welcome the fact that from their point of view it will encourage, as hon. members have said—by giving tacit approval to the principle—collective bargaining to be introduced amongst various categories of workers. It will give the women workers for the first time a degree of security in those particular trades and offices that they never had before. One of the things that we are most pleased about is the clarity of definition which must now surround any work contract entered into by the workers covered by this Bill, and the basis on which any such contract can be terminated. I cannot tell you how anxious the women workers with whom I have come into contact have been about that.

I do not want to do what the hon. member for Randfontein did, namely to refer to all the clauses of the Bill. The hon. the Minister will be pleased to know that we are very glad to see that section of Clause 3 in terms of which young women under 18 years old will not be allowed to work later than eight o’clock at night, apart from certain specified overtime periods which are set out in sub-section (2). The question of overtime and other regulations in regard to the payment of overtime work is something of which we all approve, including sick leave, and of course the question of Sunday pay and holiday pay, and also the question of public holidays not being incorporated in the normal prescribed annual leave as set down in this Bill.

Clause 9 which deals with what might be called “testimonials” or their equivalent is also something which the women’s organizations support wholeheartedly. As hon. members know that clause really means that there will be an obligation on the part of the employer to give a testimonial or at any rate a record of services rendered by a worker, before the worker leaves his employment. This provision will very much help to eliminate any possibility of victimization of employees by disgruntled employers.

Now if I may I want to come to the main point of my speech this afternoon which is in connection with Clause 13 and concerns the maternity and confinement allowance. In terms of the Bill there will be a government fund established from which certain allowances will be made to women who are pregnant four weeks before their confinement and eight weeks after the birth of the child. In other words, the allowance is made for 12 weeks, but provision is made for the payment of the allowance for an extra four weeks, that is to say, a total of 16 weeks, but only if she ceased working more than four weeks prior to her confinement for medical reasons. Now, Sir, there are a large number of factors involved here. With great respect to the members of the Select Committee—there was no woman member on the Select Committee—one can perhaps forgive them for overlooking this particular point, and that is why I would like to raise it. I would like to ask the hon. Minister to give this matter serious attention. Mr. Speaker, whereas I am in entire agreement with the provision for granting a woman four weeks allowance prior to the confinement, I would like to emphasize that the most important time for both mother and child is immediately after the confinement, and I think you will find that medical opinion is unanimous that wherever possible a mother should feed her own child for physical reasons and for psychological reasons and for that a minimum period of 12 weeks, three months should be allowed. Anything less than that is quite inadequate. It is primarily a question of stabilizing the child itself. If you want to give any infant the necessary sense of security during those early weeks, it can only be done by close and constant contact with its mother, which means that the mother must be free to look after the child for a minimum period of 12 weeks. The hon. member for Krugersdorp raised a somewhat similar point, but I want to emphasize that we are dealing here with the start of a new life and the stability and security which are engendered in the early weeks of any person’s life is something which will benefit him for the rest of his life. There will undoubtedly be some women who will take advantage of this provision, but machinery exists in the Bill for an inspector to investigate the position if this privilege is abused.

Then there is another important aspect. I am sure hon. members will be astonished at my mentioning this aspect but I think it is important. I believe that if 12 weeks are allowed after the woman’s confinement, it will materially assist in reducing the appalling death-rate among infants in this country, in that particular age-group, from gastro-enteritis. The high incidence of gastro-enteritis, especially among Coloured and Bantu children, in the first few weeks or months of their lives, has long been a source of great anxiety to the medical profession. The easiest way for a young child to contract gastro-enteritis is when it is fed unhygienically by means of unsterilized instruments and the mixing and handling of the powdered food takes place under not very hygienic conditions, when the mother is not there to feed the child herself, whereas if she were at home for the first three months this would not happen. I want to impress upon the Minister that if the mother feeds her own baby, which she can only do if she is not working, the child’s resistance to disease is built up during the first period of its life, and its resistance is thereby so much greater. Therefore I make a special plea to the Minister to consider the possible extension of this period of 12 weeks instead of eight weeks after confinement, because I think it will be of great benefit to everyone. As the hon. member for Krugersdorp said, it is in the national interest as well. I am aware that the Minister may reply to me that most of the workers who qualify in terms of this Bill will in practice receive maternity benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act and that they will, in terms of that Act, be entitled to a total of 18 weeks’ benefits, but we know that the fund the Minister intends to establish in terms of this Bill is not contributory, that it will simply be Government money which will be put at the disposal of the Minister for this purpose, and we also know that only the very lowest-paid workers will in fact receive, or even ask for, the R2.50 a day stipulated in terms of Clause 13. But what is right and fair for the higher-paid workers in a matter of this kind, where we are dealing with the care of small children, must also be fair for the lower-paid workers. There can be no discrimination, and I am specifically referring to the lower-paid workers who will qualify for the R2.50 in terms of this Bill and can only be away for eight weeks after the birth of a child. The stabilization of these young children, whatever their background or colour, seems to me to be of the greatest importance to the country, and I hope the Minister will give the matter some consideration before we get to the Committee Stage.

It is a fine characteristic of the ladies to stand up for one another’s rights. However, we cannot say it happens always. When two ladies in this House happen to have a red dress on at the same time they look askance at each other, but in this sphere they always stand together. I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). I think we have something in common in the attitude we adopt, because I too will have something to say about the ladies later on.

It is clear at this stage of the debate that only a few general remarks can be made about the Bill. The object of this Bill, as well as that of the Select Committee, is to have the working conditions of more people covered by legislation. The need for that has arisen from the great number of complaints received by the Department and these complaints have, of course, greatly increased the work of the Department. It was clear that more people asked for protection and that they were entitled to it. There is specific legislation, such as Wage Board agreements, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Factories Act and the existing Shops and Offices Act which give protection to a large group of workers but a large group is not protected by legislation. One is therefore justified to some extent to say that certain employees have been discriminated against and this Bill now does away with that discrimination.

It will be interesting to know how many ladies will come within the ambit of the present legislation and how many more will receive protection. Ladies constitute a high percentage of the labour force in South Africa. Over the years the ladies have learned how to fight for their rights in respect of conditions of employment and so forth. In actual fact they have learned to fight their own battle but even if that is the case it is a good thing that they are given protection along these lines. I believe many ladies would rather suffer an injustice than start an agitation in order to get what they are entitled to. I suppose that is simply their nature. They are now spared from taking such action and are automatically given protection by this legislation. Various concessions, which will apply to the ladies in particular, are provided for in this measure, concessions which were not provided for in other legislation.

One often wonders whether those employers who still make themselves guilty of exploitation realize that their avarice is often more to their detriment than to their benefit. Those who have made themselves guilty of not paying enough for overtime, those who wore out their employees physically by making them work unnecessarily long hours, or who curtailed or withheld the annual leave of their employees and who did not give sick leave, may have benefited temporarily but they have also sustained a loss. Where they acted like that the workers were unhappy and often did not do their work properly because they tried in that way to repay their employers for their attitude. There was tension between employer and employee and that was not conducive to high productivity. Moreover many employees, in the long run, only left the service of that employer and went to work for employers who offered much better conditions of service. If employers act within the framework of this legislation or offer greater benefits than the minimum prescribed by law, as many already do, they create an employeremployee relationship which can only be beneficial to both. I also believe this measure will have a psychological affect which will improve that relationship.

But it does not only affect the employees; it also affects the employers. The way the Department has administered the Act in the past—we can only have a high regard for the way it has done so—also assures the employer that every matter he raises with the Department will be treated on its merits. The Department has never yet closed its eyes to the particular position of the employers and the exemptions which are provided for in this measure will solve many of the problems of the employers.

I just want to say a word or two about the proposed 44-hour week, a proposal which the Opposition also made in the Select Committee. A great many reasons have already been advanced from this side why we cannot concede that but I should like to add one further little point. The following words appear on page 238 of the Select Committee’s report where it was asked why the Department itself did not want to introduce a 44-hour week—

That is a very strong point because in the case of many employers new conditions are being created to which they have to adapt themselves. If they were still confronted with this additional factor of having the working week reduced to 44 hours many of them would find it difficult to adapt themselves to the changed circumstances and the objects of this measure would be nullified.

The Bill before the House is the result of a unanimous decision by a Select Committee, after a considerable amount of work. In designing any labour legislation, even when you negotiate industrial agreements, agreement does not come about overnight and it is not unknown for it to take 18 months or two years to do so. The Minister, in his introductory speech, drew attention to the various salient features of this Bill which I wish to describe as the “Magna Charta” of those workers not covered by industrial or other agreements. It is very fortunate that in this country the workers are either covered by wage agreements or industrial agreements, but there have been numbers of workers who have not been covered by either, and this Bill will rectify that fault and will cover not only the towns but also the rural areas. There are unscrupulous employers, but I would say they are few in number. We must not fail, however, to recognize the fact that the basis of all our industrial legislation in this country has been the co-operation of the employers and their willingness to assist to put our employee-employer relations on a sound footing. We are probably very fortunate in this country in having some of the finest industrial legislation in the world. In fact, we are the envy of the world. The fact that we do not have strikes in this country proves it. Although we are not members of the I.L.O., this country has over the years followed the various agreements of the I.L.O. We have been very loyal members of the I.L.O. and it is regrettable that we have found it necessary to leave that organization. We have followed the world pattern as far as the workers are concerned, and the employer has played a large part in it.

This Bill follows the pattern of quite a number of Industrial Council agreements. One sees that pattern all the way through. I am sorry that a voluntary pension scheme and a medical aid scheme is not embodied in this Bill. It is something that is lacking. Those thousands of workers who are not covered by any pension scheme at all are being left out. I hope that when we come to amend this Bill, as I am sure we will have to do, from time to time, we will consider putting in a voluntary pension scheme and a medical aid scheme. The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about maternity grants for women, as contained in Clause 13. We hope that when the Minister of Health comes with his Medical Aid Bill he will take care of the omissions in the clause. There are very few Industrial Council agreements to-day that do not embody some form of medical aid, and I feel sure that the Minister should have given some consideration to embodying something like that in this Bill.

When we come to the overtime provisions in this Bill, employers who keep open on Sundays and employ people will be left out as far as the overtime provisions are concerned, but you find in other industrial legislation that there are no exemptions. Take the motor industry. The petrol-sellers are forced to work on Sunday and they have to pay time and a third overtime and also allow time off during the week. I cannot understand exemptions as far as nurses and other people doing clerical work are concerned, because you find that the industrial legislation and the Industrial Council agreements which take care of white-collar workers contain very strict provisions, and where any person does clerical work of any type he comes within the ambit of that industrial legislation. I think the Minister should think about this. These people, although they are nurses and receptionists, do bookkeeping and other clerical work, and I think they should be covered by this Bill.

They are.

Then I must have misunderstood the Minister. Then we find in regard to our industrial legislation that a lot of misunderstanding arises when cases come to court, and I would like to make a plea to the Minister to provide standard definitions. In industrial agreements one finds various definitions of workers of the same type.

Order! I do not think that is relevant now.

I am dealing with the definitions in this Bill. The definitions in this Bill follow other definitions in industrial legislation and I want to ask the Minister to have some standard form of definition formulated by his Department. That will save a lot of confusion. You find that when you go to court the various definitions are thrown back at the prosecutor and invariably the case breaks down because of that, because the various definitions differ to such an extent that it becomes confusing. There is no provision in this Bill for the registration of employers. I feel that if this Bill has to work properly, there should be some form of registration of employers and the necessary certificates should be exhibited by the various firms showing that they are registered. There has been a plea made here for a concise summary of the Bill to be drafted so that the workers will know how it affects them, because in nine cases out of ten the employees do not understand the laws which are published in the Gazette. When this Bill becomes law, provisions in it bring it in line with the Factories Act. We know that numbers of offices and other premises do not comply with the requirements of the Factories Act. Even this Chamber would not comply with those requirements because there is no natural light. Numbers of offices would not comply with the Factories Act because there is no natural light, even in regard to ventilation. Hundreds of offices even in new buildings will not comply, and there is no doubt that the Minister will be faced with a considerable number of applications for exemptions. When the Bill becomes law I hope the Minister will give it publicity other than in the Gazette. A plea has been made for that to-day. Industry, I feel sure, will play its part, but at the same time I think every employer should receive notice, in that I am sure that the Receiver of Revenue will be able to put the Minister in touch with all employers of labour who fall within the orbit of this Act.

In order to make this Act work, we will need additional inspectors. In this respect the Department of Labour has had the greatest difficulty in recruiting suitable inspectors. The industrial councils employ their own inspectors and they aim at a minimum of two inspections a year of the various firms they control. You can imagine that when this Bill becomes law, in order to make it work the Department of Labour will have to employ many more inspectors than they have at present, and they will have to be experienced men. They may, by agreement with the various industrial councils which exist in other industries, be able to come to some arrangement whereby their inspectors will do the two jobs. That happens in certain cases, and the Minister may get assistance there. But there is no point in passing legislation of this type if it is not going to be strictly supervised.

There is another item. We have heard about the thousands of offences that have been reported, but the great difficulty experienced when you bring these offenders to court where there is a lack of knowledge on the part of the prosecutor of industrial legislation. On the Rand there were industrial courts, but I do not think they exist anywhere else. I would like to make a plea for an extension of these industrial courts so that we will have prosecutors who understand industrial legislation. It is an impossible position to be in, to ask a prosecutor to carry out a prosecution and expect him to absorb an industrial agreement. In nine cases out of ten where you have a person contravening an industrial law, you find that he gets off quite easily because the prosecutors cannot put forward the case properly, notwithstanding the fact that the prosecutors are given every assistance by the Department of Labour. It is humanly impossible to prosecute in such a case unless you understand the labour laws and the agreements.

In the first place, I want to thank hon. members for their reception of this Bill and for the support I have received from all sides of the House. It seems to me that an unopposed Bill in this House receives much more attention than an opposed measure, and after all the support and the arguments and counter-arguments I have listened to are taken into consideration, there is precious little for me to say. I have almost had embarrassing support for the Bill. There has been such unanimity that my task is a very easy one to reply to the one or two points where there has been a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.

It seems to me that the main division of opinion was on the question of whether we should have a 46-hour or 44-hour week for the workers covered by this Bill. I think every speaker who took part in the debate added his contribution, either for or against, whether it should be 46 or 44 hours. Whilst, of course, I appreciate the views expressed by hon. members who supported the 44-hour week, I think we must bear in mind that when this Bill becomes law it will have to be applied to very many different types of offices which have hitherto not been covered by any industrial legislation. I think we can say that in many cases some substantial reorganization will be necessitated by employers who are affected by the Bill, especially where restrictions, e.g. on overtime will be imposed, where females will be prohibited from working for certain periods either before or after their confinements, and where this class of employees will for the first time be entitled to sick leave on full pay. The Factories Act to which reference has been made has always been regarded by my Department as our basic legislation in so far as hours of work are concerned, and as hon. members know, that Act prescribes a 46-hour week. The Factories Act was amended in 1960 in order to provide for better payment in respect of work performed on Sundays and on public holidays. It was not then deemed advisable to reduce the ordinary hours of work below 46 hours. We have always felt that a reduction in the hours of work, particularly the weekly hours of work, should be left either to collective bargaining between the employers and the employees or to the Wage Board. Some industrial agreements and wage determinations do in fact prescribe shorter hours per week, but I think it will be realized that in practically all those cases, that has only come about after years of experience and bargaining between the employers and the employees. Sir, I have listened very attentively to the arguments both for and against and I am still convinced that 46 hours is preferable to 44 hours. I may say that when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) was speaking and I said by way of interjection that I would give my views on the 46-hour week, what I had in mind was that this is a subject which. I think we can discuss in Committee when we come to Clause 3. We can then hear further argument on it. But after having listened to the speeches made here I am still unmoved from my point of view that 46 hours per week is preferable.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also raised the point that the Government’s policy should be to encourage more collective bargaining between employers and employees. He made the point that it was, of course, in the interests of the country that the trade union movement should be strengthened. Well, I do not think anyone finds any fault with that; I think we can all agree with that It is an ideal which one should aim at. That is why I was personally glad to see that the Select Committee had incorporated an entirely new provision to give some encouragement to collective bargaining between employers and employees. The hon. member also complained that there had been interference with certain trade union officials by the Minister of Justice. Well, let me tell the hon. member and the House that any interference which has come from the Department of Justice has been fully and completely justified. In many cases, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has discussed with me certain aspects of the activities of certain trade union officials, and I can assure the House that it is only after the very fullest investigation and consideration that any limit is placed upon the activities of certain trade union officials.

I think the hon. member also made the point that there was some difficulty in organizing workers of the classes covered by this Bill, and he suggested that was why we had had to introduce this legislation. I think I should point out that unlike employees in industry and commerce generally, office workers are employed in a large number of establishments which are scattered right throughout the country. They are not concentrated in areas such as one gets in industries, for instance. I think it was for this very reason that the National Union of Distributive Workers themselves have been; unable in all areas to attain the degree of representativeness which is envisaged by? the Industrial Conciliation Act; they have failed to do that, and I think it is for this reason also that we have had to take this special measure to protect the workers in offices and shops.

The hon. member also referred to the many employees who are entitled to sick leave under industrial council agreements and who are also subject to the confinement provisions of the Factories Act. Difficulties of the kind to which the hon. member referred have been encountered. From the prohibited period of employment, that is to say, in confinement cases, the employee is no longer in the employ of the employer and is therefore not entitled to any sick leave; that is to say, when the employee goes off for this compulsory period. If the services of an employee in this category should be terminated prior to the commencement of the prohibited period on account of confinement she should be entitled to the prescribed sick leave.

The hon. member referred to Clause 17 (1) (ii) where provision is made for a medical certificate to be furnished in the case of casual sick leave. I think the hon. member pointed out, quite rightly, that in terms of this subparagraph, if a period of more than three days which includes one or more work days has elapsed between the day on which the employee concerned last worked and the day on which he resumes work, an employer may demand a medical certificate. Sir, I think that the existing provision is fair and will cover the case. It is not compulsory, it is not mandatory, it is permissible, and I think hon. members will agree with me the employer is in the best position to decide whether a Worker is a malingerer or not. He has the first-hand knowledge from his contact with his workers and he is in a position to decide whether that worker is malingering or not. I think that is why this provision has been made permissible. If the employer thinks the worker is swinging the lead, then he has the option to call for a medical certificate. I quite see the point of view that if a worker is off for a day or two and has to produce a medical certificate, the cost of obtaining such a medical certificate will be more than the day’s wages which he may lose or retain as the case may be; I quite see that point of view.

With regard to the other point which the hon. member raised about the Minister determining what the conditions shall be and prescribing them in Clause 13 (2) (a), I would be prepared, as I have indicated, to accept an amendment from the hon. member deleting the word “determine” and substituting “prescribed”. I think that would put the matter beyond any doubt.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), the chairman of the Select Committee, made a valuable contribution to the debate, and I think his “speech reflected the careful work put in by the Select Committee. He covered most aspects of the Bill and therefore relieved me of the duty of doing so. I must say that I was impressed by the argument that he advanced against a 44-hour week. I do not want to go into this matter in detail now; we can do so in the Committee Stage, but may I just say in passing that his quotation from the records of I.L.O. was very relevant to the issue. The quotation dealt with the reasons that could be advanced for a shorter week as against a longer week. I think that was the purpose of his quotation.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) urged upon me that exemptions should not be lightly granted under Clause 14. Well, in my second-reading speech I think I emphasized the point that I will not be prepared to grant exemptions at random. Applications for exemption will have to be properly motivated; every case will be decided on its merits. In fact the Department has facilities for deciding whether an exemption should be granted or not. We have regional representatives all over the country and when an application is made for exemption we have facilities to investigate that application immediately without any delay or waste of time, and after full report it will then be decided whether exemption should be granted or not.

Then the hon. member asked whether it was not possible for the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes law, to be brought more pertinently to the notice of the workers so that they will know what their rights are. He suggested that that could be done by issuing a pamphlet. I think the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) also supported that point of view and produced a pamphlet issued in terms of the Workmen’s Unemployment Insurance Act. Sir, there is some difficulty about issuing pamphlets. If we issue pamphlets in this particular case then I feel that we would also have to issue pamphlets in relation to wage-regulating instruments and any other determinations which are made. We may even have to issue pamphlets with regard to agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and I think that would be a formidable task.

Surely when it comes to the question of industrial agreements, the trade union itself takes care of its members. In this case the workers are not organized.

Yes, I think that may be so, but I think it would be a most formidable task for the Department to issue pamphlets. It is a matter which I can go into with the Department but at the moment I can foresee great difficulties. I think in any case that it is in the interests of the workers themselves not to rely on any abridged version of the Act. In other words, I would prefer the whole Act to be brought to their attention and not to rely upon an abridged version of the Act.

They would not understand it.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) concentrated some of his remarks on the question of these confinement allowances. I know the hon. member for Krugersdorp has for years been interested in obtaining greater benefits for women in industry and in commerce, who have to be confined, because he says it is in the national interest. Well, one understands and appreciates that, and I think we have gone some way in this legislation to meet the case for confinement allowances. In this legislation we have for the first time accepted the principle that the State shall be responsible for paying something towards the expenses of a woman who is to be confined.

Can we go further in years to come?

Well, this is a start and I am glad that I have been able to make a start.

The hon. member for Turffontein also stated that he did not think that the ceiling of R1,920 per annum was high enough. I notice that he also raised that question with several of the witnesses in the Select Committee. He suggested R2,000 or R2,500 per annum. Well, my reply is that I have an open mind on the question. This is also a start. There is a ceiling provided for and there is also the provision that that ceiling can be altered from time to time by proclamation, so I can assure the hon. member and the House that I will watch this question very closely. If I find that there is any necessity to raise this ceiling so as to bring more workers under the provisions of the Bill I will not hesitate to do so. I think those are the main points raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umbilo, apart from the support he gave to members who advocated a 44-hour week, also supported the hon. member for Turffontein in regard to the ceiling of R1,920. The remarks which I have just made will also reply to the representations made by him. The hon. member also made the point that this Bill, as soon as it becomes law, should be brought into force as soon as possible. As I stated in my second-reading speech there will be a great deal of reorganization required by employers, and my intention is that it should become effective from 1 January 1965. I think that will give employers every opportunity to make the necessary provision.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) emphasized the necessity of collective bargaining, and there we agree with him, but the hon. member than went on to make a most astounding statement which I cannot allow to pass without some comment. He said that in the last seven to ten years there had been a great retrogression in labour legislation in South Africa. Sir, is there any hon. member in this House who can support that statement? It is absolutely irresponsible and untrue, and as a matter of fact it is a dangerous insinuation to make. Let me give the House a list of the industrial measures passed by this Government during those years. First of all, there was the Apprenticeship Amendment Act of 1951; there was the Training of Artisans Act of 1952; there was the Native (Building Workers) Act of 1952; there was the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953; there was the new Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956, which is regarded to-day in international circles as one of the best pieces of industrial legislation on any Statute Book right throughout the world. Then there is the new Wage Act of 1956; there were amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act for improved benefits; there were amendments to the Electrical Wireman’s Act and so on. How the hon. member can make a wild statement such as this passes my comprehension. Let me tell the House that South Africa is one of the few countries in the world, if not the only country, where we have had industrial peace in the last seven to ten years. We are the envy of the world in that respect. I found on my travels overseas a year or two ago as Minister of Immigration that Ministers of Labour whom I met in European countries and in Britain were amazed to hear that we had had industrial peace for such a long time. Sir, do you know what the reason for that is? One of the most important reasons is that we have some of the best industrial legislation in the world, and yet the hon. member for Florida makes the irresponsible, puerile statement that there has been a retrogression in labour legislation in South Africa. I leave it at that.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) dealt with two matters. She dealt in the first place with the representations made by the Stock Exchange and the objections raised by the Stock Exchange. Well, I agree with the observations made by the hon. member. If hon. members cared to read the report of the Select Committee they will see on page 176 that at the end of the evidence given by the representatives of the Stock Exchange, the following question was put, by, I think, the hon. member for Turffontein: “If there is a ceiling fixed on wages or salaries of, say, R2,000 a year, what would your attitude be; would that meet your objections?” They said, “Yes, that would certainly ease the position and a large number of our objections would fall away”. That was the answer they gave to the hon. member. I do not think I need say more in that regard.

In regard to the other question raised by the hon. member for Wynberg, that the period during which a mother will remain on the pay-sheet after her confinement should be increased from eight to twelve weeks, I want to say this: I think the hon. member anticipated my reply to some extent by saying that under the Unemployment Insurance Act the period is actually 18 weeks. She also said—and I think we all agree with that even though we are fathers —that the first three months or the first two months of a baby’s life are very important, and it should be fed by the mother.

With the father’s assistance.

I think I can speak from my own experience. I have 11 grandchildren, and I can say that the modern tendency is for mothers not to feed their babies.

They are bad parents then.

Most babies to-day become bottle-babies shortly after birth. That may be so because of economic circumstances; there may be all sorts of reasons for it.

It is because the Government forces married women to work.

No, the Government does not force them to work.

They have to do so to maintain a decent standard of living.

Whilst I have every sympathy for the mothers and the babies, and I suppose there is a little sympathy too for the fathers sometimes—I am sorry that I cannot extend this period from eight to 12 weeks, however sorry I may be.

I just want to deal for a minute or two with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). The hon. member submitted that pension funds and medical aid schemes should have been brought under this Bill. He said the Minister should have considered bringing them within the ambit of this Bill. But, of course, that falls completely outside the scope of the long title of this Bill and I am not even permitted to discuss it. The long title of the Bill is “To consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of hours and conditions of work in shops and offices and for matters incidental thereto”, so I am afraid the question of medical aid schemes and pension funds does not fall within the scope of this Bill.

May I point out to the hon. the Minister that under Clause 13 provision is made for medical aid as far as confinements are concerned.

Yes, but that is not a medical aid scheme such as that envisaged by the hon. member. He referred, for instance, to medical aid schemes which are incorporated in some industrial agreement where there is a comprehensive scheme. In this Bill provisions is simply made to give medical aid in certain circumstances.

Then the hon. member also made quite a good point, I think, when he drew the attention of the House to the fact that in many cases industrial legislation is most complicated and that prosecutors are at a disadvantage in prosecuting in the ordinary courts for any contravention or breach of the law or of agreements. But industrial courts were abandoned some years ago at the instance of the Department of Justice. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, must have had good reason for abandoning those courts. I remember years ago when we had two big industrial courts in Johannesburg. One of them was a circuit court which used to travel up and down the Reef and hear cases, but I understand there was a lot of dissatisfaction and eventually they were abandoned. All I can say is that as far as my Department is concerned, where a charge is laid my Department gives every aid and assistance to the prosecutor. Officials of my Department actually go to the court and help the prosecutors as far as possible to conduct the case.

Sir, I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised here. If there are any other questions, as there will be, I think we can consider them more appropriately when we come to the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) made certain allegations to motivate his proposal that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced by R5,000. Amongst others he complained and said the present salary structure of the post office officials was too low. I want to remind the hon. member that in the good old days of 1946-7, as they call them, post office officials had to work for a starvation wage.

Those were the years after the war.

Those were the years when there was more capital in the country than ever before, as they themselves maintained. Those were the golden days just after the war. Here I have the salary scales which applied in 1946, two years before they handed over the Government. At that time the present Prime Minister, as editor of the Transvaler, wrote the following on 16 February 1946: “The Post Office Scandal”. He pointed out that 3,595 officials had resigned from the post office because they were dissatisfied with the low salary structure. An official wrote as follows in the January 1946 edition of a Post and Telegraph Journal—

And then the hon. member for Orange Grove takes the right unto himself in 1964 when salary increases have just been announced which the hon. the Minister personally will probably deal with in his reply and which I do not want to go into, when the salaries of the post office officials are at a level never yet reached in history, when they perform a service unparalleled in the history of the post office, to throw up this smoke screen. But that is not really his object, Sir, because he knows he will not gain a single vote or acquire more political support through this action. That is not the point. In 1946-7 the initial salary was R120 per annum—the good old days! A male clerk received £130; £12 10s. rise per annum for a female; £15 increase for a male; after 14 years’ service a male received £400 at the most. Those people will not forget that. The hon. member therefore, wasted his time yesterday. He tried to make political capital yesterday which cannot yield him any dividends. We know the United Party and the Post Office know the United Party.

Mr. Chairman, the real point is this: Those hon. members are inextricably tied to the sins they have committed during this Session. The sin they have committed is this: They have associated themselves with a front. When you think back to what has happened during this Session you clearly see how that strategy of theirs took shape. They have irrevocably committed themselves to a common front whose object it is to sow suspicion and to create distrust in the Government. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) started it. He alleged that the Prime Minister was not sure of the support of his party in connection with South West Africa. That was an attack on the Verwoerd/National Party. And that attack was consistently made again and again by the United Party during this Session. But the Verwoerd/National Party national axle was too strong. They then launched a side-attack. That started early in the Session. That attack was aimed at the mightiest propaganda weapon the National Party had taken into its hands in order to state the case of our country and our people, namely, the S.A.B.C. When they could not break the Verwoerd/ National Party national axle they turned to the Hertzog/Meyer/Botes axle. The Hertzog/ Meyer/Botes combination is one too many for these members. What happened? We have a mighty weapon in the South African Broadcasting Corporation. This weapon which is being attacked by these members counteracts the influence which has sustained them and the lever which they have used, namely, the hostile, malevolent, mischief-making, irresponsible Press in South Africa.

A second front has now been established to oppose that front and that is what these hon. members cannot swallow. This Hertzog/ Meyer/Botes alliance is responsible for the fact that the overall image of South Africa in the world is being put right. This alliance is in the process of breaking down what has been built up over a period of years—a false distorted image of our fatherland. They cannot withdraw from the common front they have manned to create this false over-all image of our fatherland. The complaint of the hon. member for Orange Grove is not so much against the S.A.B.C.; it is not so much against the propaganda and the fact that the S.A.B.C. states the facts correctly, but he is annoyed about the powerless position to which he is tied down. The hon. member is no longer master of himself. Hon. members opposite are no longer master of themselves. It is tragic to see it. Sir. Mr. Chairman, you know I am a quiet member and that I do hot talk often but I am a very astute observer. I find it tragic to observe what is happening here.

They are being taken in tow by the leader of the Progressive Party. From Monday to Friday they live on what the English Press told them on Sunday and during the week they thrive on what they get from overseas. Last week a certain Professor van Semmens wrote in the Sunday Times that he wished he had “ten angry men” possessed of a “revolutionary spirit”. They tried to copy that recipe faithfully. Yesterday I sat here and looked at the hon. gentleman and I thought to myself; “There sits one of the ten angry men possessed of a revolutionary spirit.”

Mr. Chairman, to sum up: The attack they are continually making on the Minister is an attempt to annihilate him. They will direct their attack at him because the Minister is doing the very thing they do not want him to do…[Time limit.]

I listened with interest to the hon. member who has just sat down. He will forgive me if I do not follow him except to say that he seems to read the Sunday Times most meticulously. I can tell him that he is not the only person who reads it most meticulously, Sir. When he talks about the “ten angry young men” I can tell him that he is the only gentleman in this House who tries to simulate them.. The hon. member for Ventersdorp went back to the year 1946 and he quoted the salaries that were paid in those days. He told us how satisfied the staff was to-day. I shall not refer to the three people he banded together, namely Dr. Meyer, the Minister and Mr. Botes. I do not think it is correct to drag their names into this debate. They are people who cannot defend them selves here. I do not want to be associated with the kind of remarks we have just had from the hon. member. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Ventersdorp says there is an alliance between those three persons—a politician and two members of the Public Service. I think it is totally incorrect to band them together and to associate two of them with the policies which the hon. the Minister sometimes bandies about in this House, policies with which I am certain they do not associate themselves with.

The hon. member spoke about the position of the people working in the post office. He said they were very satisfied with their salaries. But I have the Post and Telegraphs Herald of February 1964 here and this is what those people think—

What is the hon. member talking about, Sir? He must remember that in 1946 the £ was still a £. Since it has become a R it is just about worthless.

Sir, I do not want to spend my full ten minutes on this hon. member; he is not worth it. I want to say that the Post Office as such is a big and a growing organization.

We know that.

Before I go any further I want to point out that the profit of the Post Office has consistently gone up so much so that it amounts to R13,323,945 this year. That is a huge sum. When you find that an organization shows such a huge surplus you naturally expect the employees in that organization to be satisfied with the salaries they get. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest admiration for the people working in the post office, because as I have just read out they work under very difficult conditions. It is because I see no signs of those conditions being improved that I am speaking to-day. I shall deal with that in a moment.

I want to speak about the service they render such as the telephone service. Sir, it is a major achievement to get a telephone at all. You struggle for months and years. [Interjections.] That hon. member is not a good representative of his constituency. He cannot tell me that he has not had requests for telephones …

Of course.

Oh! You have had people coming to you for help. If it were easy to get a telephone they would not run to their Members of Parliament to help them to get a telephone. We all get requests from our constituents to assist them to get telephones. Once you get the telephone your real trouble starts. The utility numbers are always engaged. You try to get “information”, you try to get “trunk calls”, you try to get “complaints” and the telephone rings and rings; you get the dialling tone; you get the brrr/brrr; it keeps on for minutes on end until you do not know what to do. When you are tired of listening to the dialling tone you phone the telephone break-down service only to find that that is also out of order. You then walk out of your house and you look for the nearest telephone booth. The first telephone booth you come across is out of order but there is no sign to say it is out of order. Then you walk a couple of blocks further to the next one and you find that one smashed to bits or the telephone directory is missing and you cannot get the number. Eventually when you do find a telephone booth where you get the dialling tone you find that the coin will not go in because the slot is bent. If you do manage to get it in it goes into that hungry stomach that takes one coin after the other but you do not get your call through.

I have time and time again lost three or four tickeys at the local airport without being able to get through. I told them that the telephone was out of order and they said they would see to it, but when I got there a fortnight later I had the same old story. Where are the inspectors who are supposed to be going about? If a telephone is out of order surely there should be a notice to that effect. Mr. Chairman, you just try to get a long-distance call through from a telephone booth. I can tell you that you will not get through.

Sannie, you must report that to the Broederbond.

If you put a trunk-call through you have to wait a very long time before anybody comes on to the line at the other side. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) said at the beginning of her speech: “The hon. member for Ventersdorp has no right to drag in the names of people who cannot defend themselves.” In saying that she was referring to Dr. Meyer the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. and Mr. Botes, the Postmaster-General. Ever since I have been sitting in this House the Opposition has never yet launched an attack under this Vote other than against outsiders.

That is not true.

That is how we know them, Mr. Chairman.

In fairness towards the public servant concerned I do not think the hon. member should drag in his name here.

Mr. Chairman, I am defending him. Hon. members opposite were the people who made the attack. I shall not drag in his name here nor that of the other person whom they are continually attacking.

I want to return to the little story the hon. member told us about the public telephones which are always out of order. Sir, I honestly cannot see how the Minister can be held responsible for that. Surely it is not the work of the Minister to see to it that public telephones are not out of order. Had I not known the hon. member for Drakensberg as well as I did I would honestly have thought she was under the influence of liquor.

On a point of order …

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Chairman, I said had I not known the hon. member for Drakensberg as well as I did I would have sworn she was under the influence of liquor.

The hon. member must withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw it, Sir. In any case I leave the hon. member at that. I want to return to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). The hon. member for Orange Grove attacked the hon. the Minister about the name of the post office in Johannesburg. He objects to it being called the Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office. It is a new post office which has been built in Joubert Street. I do not think he knows where that is. This post office will handle the overseas post. It is a special post office and I see nothing wrong with a post office that will become internationally known having an internationally-known name. Sir, I am not allowed to say how he carried office. The hon. member for Bethlehem told us how it came about that this post office was given that name. I agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem that the societies in Johannesburg who requested the Minister to give the post office that name, are societies of which one can take note. I am sure that if those societies were asked to give the hon. member for Orange Grove a name, it would be a name which you would not be permitted to use in this House.

I also wish to refer to the attack made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) on the telephone system in Durban. He said, inter alia, that he tried to put through a call from Durban to Lourenco Marques. The Durban telephone exchange falls under the Municipality of Durban; they control it. He said there was a delay of a few days. Mr. Chairman that must have been an exceptional instance. I do not see how the hon. the Minister can be held responsible for an exceptional case. All the instances hon. members opposite have complained about are exceptional instances. The hon. members for Drakensberg, Orange Grove and Durban Point did not mention specific cases and then they have the temerity to ask that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced by R5,000. It is a pity the Rules do not allow us to move that the Minister’s salary be increased and that that of the hon. member for Orange Grove be reduced. Unfortunately the Rules do not allow anything like that. But I would very much have liked to do so because the kind of attacks which the hon. member has lately been making are a discredit to the whole House.

I hope I shall get an opportunity later on of saying something more; I do not want to say anything further about these matters at the moment.

I shall not reply to the last hon. member; I do not think he is worth it. I think he put up a shocking exhibition.

I was saying that there is a shortage of telephones in South Africa and I explained how difficult it was to put trunk calls through. I want to quote what was said at a meeting of the Durban Chamber of Commerce. They said the following—

You get that complaint all over. I have mentioned the great surplus in this Department because I feel it should be used in the service of the people and in the service of the country. As I have said people sometimes have to wait for 2½ hours to get a call through. It happened to me in Johannesburg that I put through a trunk call but I did not get it before the next morning. That meant that I had to wait 24 hours to get it.

But when the telephone accounts finally arrive you often find that they are faulty. The reply is invariably that the meters are new and that the equipment is infalliable. This complaint about faulty accounts is general and I think some notice should be taken of it.

Here I have a letter from a person who write as follows—

They had to go a mile far to make their telephone calls. Then this person goes on—

They have not got a telephone, Sir, but they have received an account for 33 telephone calls! It has happened to a member of this House, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), that he was told that there was no delay in his telephone being installed, and Mr. Chairman, he has no telephone here in Cape Town, and the telephone which he uses in Durban is his nearest telephone. So that is how correct some of these replies are. Of course I was speaking about delays in trunk calls, about difficulties, and I understand that all these things are perhaps due to the available equipment being over-loaded or loaded to capacity. I know there is an acute shortage of staff. I know that operators are forced to work many hours overtime. As I have quoted before, I know that some seniors have had increases in salaries and that some juniors have not. And here I want to draw attention to the fact that there has been a complaint in the Post Office Department because the Postmaster-General as such is not treated on an equal basis with the heads of other Departments, and this salary of the head of the Department to whom they look up and for whom they have a great regard is not the same as that of the heads of many lesser Departments. I could quote many cases, but I have not the time. I could for instance quote the Department of Lands, whose head, dealing with a comparatively small Department, is in receipt of a greater salary than the Postmaster-General. And of course I have quoted that there is a difference in salaries in this Department as compared with other Government Departments, the Railways for instance. Another thing that makes it very difficult for the Post Office staff is that there are not sufficient houses, and I specially allude to the places far away in the districts, where people experience difficulty in getting accommodation. And then you find that the junior employee in the Post Office often, because of shortage of staff has to handle all sorts of things. He has to handle responsible jobs which he should not have to handle, he sometimes has to serve at the counter, sometimes has to handle registered parcels, he has got to handle bank parcels, he has got to talk to people at the counter, sometimes has to make snap decisions, even occasionally has to handle a parcel of diamonds, and of course much more often he has to handle a parcel of biltong, and of course the great temptation is there rather to eat the biltong, because by that time he is very tired indeed. But the fact is that these junior officials are asked to do jobs which they should not do because they do not receive the remuneration and because they have not got the experience, have not got the maturity, and all this is due to the lack of stability in the personnel. The salaries and conditions of service do not compare with those offered elsewhere, with the result that people leave the service.

Last year the hon. Minister announced here that there was now going to be a Post Office Staff Board, but now I find in the Post Office Herald of March 5 that this is said by the chairman of the Staff Association in the presidential address to the congress—

I think that is very clear and that shows that there is very little value in that. But just before my time expires, in this report from the Postmaster-General, dated 6 February, he states that the requests for telephones have decreased, but in the reply given this morning the picture is a totally different one. According to the reply given this morning there were outstanding applications on 31 March 1963; 10,956 and in March 1964, there was an increase to 11,970. More than 1,000 more. And as far as farm lines are concerned, in 1963 the position was that there were 1,659 applications outstanding and the position is now 1,897. If they say that things are improving and that they will improve in the immediate future, then this is not borne out by the facts, and I lay the fault fairly and squarely at the foot of this Minister, because the inspiration should come from him. He should be the person to act as a leading light to his whole Department, and he should give them the right of way to expand and to give better service to the people, first of all by bettering the conditions of the people working in the Post Office department, and secondly, by providing enough capital for capital works so that better buildings can be erected, and working conditions can be improved. [Time limit.]

It is really a great pity that every year when we discuss the Vote of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs we get these most unsavoury personal attacks on the Minister and his senior officials …

Not his officials.

Yes, the name of Dr. Meyer has time and again been dragged across this floor.

Is he an official?

Time and again he is their target. What must the world outside think of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) when he writes the following in connection with hon. members of this House? He wrote the following in the Weekblad of Friday 15 May—

I take it that refers to us—

What can one expect of the hon. member for Orange Grove if that is the language he uses? It is the most scandalous language I have yet known an hon. member to use in print about a fellow hon. member. What must one think of a member who uses such abusive language about his fellow hon. members in this House. Does the fact that he uses such language about us no cry out to high heavens? What must we and the public think when he makes these scandalous attacks on the hon. the Minister year after year? The hon. member knows that the Post Office is one of the largest business departments in the Public Service. He knows the Post Office has to operate according to rules and regulations. He has been in this House for a long time and he knows that but time and again he tries to put the blame on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. In spite of the rules they have to observe we can pay tribute to the wonderful work the Post Office does under very difficult circumstances. We want to pay tribute to the Post Office officials, from the highest to the lowest. The Post Office is one of the largest undertakings in the country and they are rendering an excellent service to the public under difficult circumstances. At the same time I wish to plead with the hon. the Minister to amend the rules and regulations applicable to the Post Office officials. We know there has been a relaxation and that certain matters will now be rectified so that they themselves will now be able to exercise the control. But if we as a Parliament expect the Post Office to render a service to the business world on a competitive basis, we have to give them a certain amount of freedom to compete in that business world as they are expected to do to-day. It is ridiculous of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) to give us such petty examples as, for example, the telephone call that she could not get through from the Airport and to attack the hon. the Minister because of it. I wonder whether the hon. member inserted the right coin or whether she knew how much she had to pay for the call. The hon. member referred to one case where a person was unhappy because there was a mistake in his telephone account. She does not take into account the fact that there are 950,924 telephone points over the length and breadth of the Republic. She raises a trivial matter like that rubs it under the nose of the Minister and says: “Look at the poor service you render”. Can anything be more ridiculous! However, I also want to make a plea in connection with a few matters. One of the first matters I want to raise is to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for express letters to be delivered more expeditiously by the Post Office. The system followed is obsolete.

Oh goodness!

I am putting something concrete to the hon. the Minister. In view of the air service we have throughout the country I do not think the express service is satisfactory or that it complies with the requirements. When you think of it that it takes four days to deliver express mail from Heidelberg, Transvaal, in Cape Town, I think the time has arrived for a change to be effected. Then I also wish to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived to disallow these circulars and cheap propaganda we receive from various leftists at a cheap postal rate. Does the Minister not think he should increase the rate? The cheap rate allowed to those persons and those institutions should be abolished. Let them pay a proper tariff and the Post Office will no longer suffer from a shortage of staff. The final point I wish to raise is in connection with the broadcast “Yesterday in Parliament”. We know this programme is handled by the South African Broadcasting Corporation and its representatives here in Parliament. I wish to complain about the partiality of those broadcasts; too much prominence is given to the nonsense we get from the Opposition. It makes no difference what a member of the Opposition Says but it is faithfully broadcast every morning but you can get the best possible speech from this side of the House but it does not get broadcast. I wish to accuse the Broadcasting Corporation of being partial and of giving preference to the Opposition. They should broadcast more what we say because we on this side at least contribute something of value to the development of the country whereas the Opposition only comes forward with destructive criticism and finds nothing good in the country or in anybody.

The Broederbond.

The hon. member has the Broederbond on his brain. [Time limit.]

I do not want to take notice of the arguments of the last speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) but I do want to put him right on one point before I come back to Posts and Telegraphs and that is the reason why there is a differentiation in attacking the one person, while the other person’s name is not mentioned. The one gentleman is a political appointment and we all know the position he holds in the secret society, and the hon. Minister states that that particular man is not responsible to this House for his actions in the position which he holds. The other gentleman who was mentioned by an hon. member opposite—I do not want to mention his name—is an honourable man who is in the Civil Service, with a long record of service, who has got to his position ’ by good service, and he should not be dragged into political debates without good cause. That is why I do not intend to enter into a discussion on that, and the hon. member when he has been a little longer in this House may perhaps learn to use a little more discretion in relation to such persons.

I want to get back to Posts and Telegraphs and I want to deal in particular with country exchanges. Other hon. members on this side of the House dealt with the shortcomings of the telephone system and difficulties experienced in the bigger centres of the Republic. I want to deal more particularly with the country exchanges. I have had complaints throughout the country areas of Natal. I have had complaints from farmers’ associations, women’s organizations, as well as many individual farmers that they have the greatest difficulty in obtaining trunk calls and in carrying out their business activities. I have submitted to the Department many complaints and find that many of the exchanges are well out of date, and here I put the blame, as do other members on this side, on the hon. Minister, because this Department is one where huge profits are made, and the Minister is not seeing to it that sufficient of these profits are ploughed back into his Department to keep his Department up to date. It would be a good investment if all exchanges and the whole telephone system was operating to the full. On top of that we have these difficulties of the manning of the country exchanges. You have the difficulty during daylight hours of getting sufficient women to run these exchanges, but the main trouble is that you cannot have women on duty at the country exchanges at night because there are no public transport services to get them home, and where their husbands work they are also too tired to fetch them late at night. So these exchanges have to be manned by men and men are not prepared to go on continuous night service without special compensation, and this Minister does not see to it that these people are properly recompensed for their services when they are on ’continuous; night service over the years, and until he does that and until these people are upgraded or receive a special allowance, for the night service, we are not going to get satisfactory; service from the point of view of the manning of these exchanges, and it is time that these exchanges were turned over at the earliest possible moment to automatic exchanges. With the huge profits which are made I cannot see why this Minister cannot obtain from the Cabinet a sufficient portion of the profits made to see that the service is properly developed instead of hamstringing his own Department.

On top of that we have this increase in rentals of post boxes in the country areas, a quite unnecessary increase. But before I come to that. I want to put another suggestion to the hon. the Minister. Why does the Minister not appoint a supervisor, a travelling supervisor who would take a whole district under his wing, so that he would be available to look into complaints and to see to it that things are put right. If we in the larger areas have a complaint, we can then get on to a supervisor and we will at least feel that somebody is investigating our complaints, and often one will get satisfaction. In the larger centres you go to a divisional controller and he calls in a supervisor and you can hear that instructions are given to him to get on with the job and look into it. But in the country areas there seems to be nobody responsible. Why cannot we have a travelling supervisor, somebody in charge of a certain number of exchanges, who would go from centre to centre to take up those complaints and be responsible to the divisional controller continuously for the supervision of those particular exchanges?

Then I come to the rentals for private boxes. With all these huge profits that are being made by the Post Office and by the Telegraph Department, something surely can be done. These profits, however, go into general revenue. But during the last 12 months the rental for private boxes has been raised at the country post offices, quite unnecessarily. There are no rates paid on the buildings, no expensive buildings are being erected that I know of in the country areas which cost a lot of money so that they have to raise the fees. You have the same old buildings in the small towns, there are no extra deliveries of post into their post boxes, and yet in many instances the rental has been about doubled. That was certainly not necessary. The general farming community has been hit enough by uneconomic prices placed on them by this Government. Most of their prices are controlled. They have been through a very bad period of drought, but the Government comes along and says: We will help you with loans through the Land Bank, taking all your assets and farms in bond, but we will double your charges on the railway loading banks, and we double your charges on post boxes, we put up all the charges we possibly can. It is not commonsense, and it is not reasonable to treat the people that way. It would be a good investment if this Minister would only run his Department well and if he would make the necessary capital available to the Department under his control.

I am sure the Department of Posts and Telegraphs would welcome constructive criticism and that the Department would welcome suggestions to improve the service it renders wherever possible. But I did not get to my feet to make suggestions or to criticize. I got to my feet on behalf of the right-thinking inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the staff which assists him for the great and important service they are rendering South Africa. Particularly in these days in which we are living we know we can safely leave the communication system of our country in the capable hands of our Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, our Postmaster-General and in the hands of those people who are responsible for controlling the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I say that with the utmost sincerity and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say it. I wish to draw attention to this that 11 years ago one of the greatest difficulties which confronted a member of the House of Assembly was to get telephones for the voters of his constituency. That was our experience. But that burden gradually dropped from the shoulders of hon. members of this House. Our country is telephone-conscious today and wherever you go telephone services have been made available even in the furthest corner of the Republic. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) told us about his experience. He said he was not satisfied but I wish to say thank you for the excellent telephone service we have in my constituency. There was a time when you had to wait hours and hours and sometimes days and days to put a call through from a town to Johannesburg or Pretoria. To-day you can dial direct and the service is outstanding. I wish to express a word of thanks to the thousands of young men and women, particularly the women, who operate our telephone exchanges. I know one is not always immediately attended to due to certain circumstances and one gets irritable but I want to ask hon. members and the public occasionally to go and see what happens at such an exchange and see the work they do there. I wish to express a word of thanks to the ladies in particular for the outstanding work they do on the telephone exchanges and I again want to appeal to the public to be patient with those people and to be more courteous and sympathetic towards them because they perform a very important service.

In the same spirit, I wish to say a sincere word of thanks to the Board of Control of the S.A.B.C. and the officials responsible for that control. We should be reasonable in our criticisms particularly members of the Opposition. It is the privilege of the Opposition to criticize but be reasonable in your criticism. How the S.A.B.C. manages to render this brilliant service with the low licence fees we pay is beyond my comprehension.

It is the highest in the world.

The hon. member must please not interrupt. Other members may perhaps still do so. I want to tell that hon. member that it is obvious from the attitude he adopts here that he is filled with hatred of everything which is Afrikaans and that is why I do not hold the things he says against him. He is filled with hatred of and anger with the S.A.B.C. in particular. I want to say this! He is not only bilingual he also knows a third language. I said it would be unfair on my part if I did not avail myself of the opportunity to express my gratitude and that of all the right-thinking inhabitants of the Republic for the excellent service rendered by the staff of the post offices, particularly the S.A.B.C., particularly for that fair news service, which is absolutely objective and impartial. We know that is the reason why the Opposition is so furiously annoyed and that is why the hon. member for Green Point is laughing. He laughs from anger because the S.A.B.C. gives the correct news. Thank heaven the Republic of South Africa is not exclusively dependent on the newspapers for its news, particularly from the English language newspapers, because in that case the English-speaking section of this country would never have been able to judge any matter objectively. We are very grateful for the fact that we have an institution like the S.A.B.C., an institution which gives us absolutely impartial, unslanted and objective news.

I think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) is making the greatest under-statement of all time, when he says the S.A.B.C. is unbiased. You know, Sir, a lot of controversy is going on about this subject, and we have the English Press back in the ring. I think it is time that this matter was looked at quite objectively, and I think the remarks of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad about the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) are quite unwarranted.

What I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister is the employment of Coloured persons in his Department. The figures showing the employment of Coloured personnel in the Post Office look quite imposing and I concede, right away, that there are numbers of Coloured persons employed in various capacities in the Post Office. I feel, however, that the time has come that we should consider the position of those people who go to the post office every day, not as Coloured persons or as Bantu in Bantu or Coloured townships, but in the course of business. The facilities at the post offices throughout the country for non-Whites are extremely limited, and many of the persons who go there are Coloured or Bantu messengers who have business to transact for the firms by whom they are employed. They have to stand about and wait while the White counters are free. I think the proportion of counter space allocated to these people who go there on business, either for themselves or for their employers, should be drastically altered. I put the proposition to the Minister, that if there are to be sufficient Coloured persons trained to work in the Coloured villages and towns, the time is overdue when we should have enough of these people behind the counter learning the work in the post offices which are predominantly White. There is no question at all that this is a matter to which the Minister should devote attention. It will be to the benefit of the Post Office also. I should like to ask the Minister what his policy is in regard to Coloured persons applying for telephones on party lines. It has come to my notice that such people applied for telephones, and, because they are Coloured people, they are not put on the party line. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not it is his policy to prohibit Coloured persons from sharing a party line with White subscribers. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs because I think the Minister himself will agree that we cannot carry apartheid into voices; that would be going a bit far. I do not know how you distinguish a Coloured voice from a White voice. I think this matter should be investigated, and if that is the policy, I submit it should be changed very quickly. I think it is commonly known that when persons apply for a telephone on a party line, they are asked whether or not the person at the other end is going to be one of their shepherds, because if so they should not use that line. Such cases have come to my notice. It is true that there are not many such cases, but nevertheless there are some. This is the type of thing which annoys people intensely and creates a very bad impression on the persons concerned.

The number of men employed in the postal service in the lower brackets is quite large, but I think it could be expanded, because there are only 1,486 Coloured persons employed, as against 1,700 Whites, in the General B and General Employees’ Division. I believe that with the education, which many Coloured persons have acquired through hard study, they are quite capable of doing work of a much higher category than is presently allotted to them. I ask the Minister to consider this matter, and see whether he can make some changes for the benefit of these people. I go further and say, that in regard to the inability of the Department to get sufficient women to run the manual exchanges in the country districts, and other centres, he could with advantage employ Coloured girls. They will do a good job for him. I think he will find that absenteeism will be low, and because they have a good job they will not want to leave too quickly. I trust that this particular aspect of my plea will bear some fruit, because there is no question whatsoever, that there are many Coloured operators, men and women, in business exchanges, who give first-class service and who are a credit to the organization. They are extremely courteous and their diction is correct in either language. In regard to the people who have to work at night, here again, I think, that jobs should be found for Coloured men on the country exchanges, which will give them an opportunity to earn more money and to have a more secure job. My plea to this Minister is the same as my plea to every other Minister. The Coloured man is with us. He wants to be with us, and he knows how to behave himself when he gets a reasonable job. I think the time has come when we should accept the position that he is part and parcel of the White population of this country. His future and his prosperity lie with us, and his ability and his skill should be shared with us.

I wish to bring a few matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister but before doing so I wish to raise a few matters with members of the Opposition.

It has become customary in this House every year when the Vote of the Minister comes up for discussion to make attacks of this nature. These attacks are usually led by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who does so in an extremely insulting way; he uses the most unbridled language. I think civilized people, as we are supposed to be, certainly have the right to feel disgusted about it. I must say that I am surprised at a young member like the hon. member for Orange Grove losing control of himself the way he does. I do not think he does himself or his party any service nor do I think it raises the prestige of this House. [Interjections.] I know perfectly well what the hon. member has said and I take the strongest exception to it. Hence the recriminatory replies from this side of the House to the hon. member.

Give examples of what I said and do not be so vague.

It does not enhance the prestige of this House and the public does not think more of us when we do those things. It is easy to say I do not know what I am saying but I am not stupid. I have never yet insulted the Opposition the way the hon. member has insulted this side of the House and he does so deliberately.

The facts speak for themselves.

No, there are no facts which hurt and the allegations made by the hon. member are unfounded.

But I want to deal briefly with what the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has said. Supposing there are 20 applications in a constituency for a telephone. Can the Post Office reasonably be expected to arrange for the 20 telephones to be installed immediately? Or where a block of flats are being erected, as is happening all over the country, can we expect the cables to be laid immediately and every flat to be provided with a telephone immediately. Surely those things have to be planned and attended to in due course. When I came to this House in 1953 there was only a small little post office in the little town of Bronkhorstspruit and there were no telephones in the district. Today there is a network of telephones in that constituency and over the whole country. My experience has been exactly opposite to that of hon. members opposite and I find that peculiar. When I telephone Johannesburg from my farm I am immediately told “hold the line” and within two or three minutes I am talking to Johannesburg or Pretoria or Cape Town. Why is that my experience and not that of hon. members opposite? Why have I no complaints but only praise for the service I get? Is my post office so isolated in the platteland that it is purely by chance that the position is different there from the position of the constituencies of hon. members opposite? Let me give an example. I had occasion to telephone the airport on Tuesday evening and I was put through immediately. My son-in-law came from Johannesburg to see me. He telephones me the same day from Johannesburg and within ten minutes he was talking to me in Cape Town. How is it possible that one member can testify to the most courteous and wonderful service whereas hon. members only have complaints? I want to tell hon. members what I find pays good dividends: When I speak to an official in an inferior position I do so in the most courteous manner. He is a person who, like me, is entitled to certain rights and I wonder whether that is the reason why I get better service than members opposite who have to wait for hours and days? Is that perhaps the reason? I shall not go into that.

Mr. ‘ Chairman, I am afraid my time will expire before I come to the actual matter I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I wish to make a plea and I think I have a very strong case. There are many post offices in distant parts of the country. I think, for instance, of the officials in the post offices in the Transkei and the officials in the post offices in the border areas. I think the time has arrived, and the finances of the Post Office justify it that a special allowance be paid to those officials. I have to do with similar institutions, apart from my work as Member of Parliament, and this has been my experience in connection with our corporations, for example. We have depots situated far away from other places and it is difficult to keep our staff there. In the first place you have a bigger housing problem there as well as other problems and it is difficult to retain the services of your staff in such places. There are many places like that as far as the post office service is concerned: We know the Post Office finds it difficult to get officials to go there and to stay there. My pleas to the hon. the Minister is that he and his Department should meet those people by paying them an extra allowance whether you call it a climate allowance, a house allowance or a transport allowance or anything else. I am sure the hon. the Minister will give the most sympathetic consideration to this request. It is not a question of giving preferential treatment to some officials; it is a question of giving preferential treatment to officials who render a service in distant places. I think I can already thank the Minister heartily for his kindness in this regard because I feel it is such a strong case that the hon. the Minister will definitely accede to my request.

I now wish to return to the Opposition. I wish to quote something which I would otherwise not have quoted in this House: There is an old Dutch adage which says: “Vuil is die voël wat sy eie nes bevuil.” (It is a dirty bird which fouls its own nest.) If attacks are continually made on this side of the House, as hon. members on that side have been doing since yesterday, against whom are those attacks really directed? A short while ago a few members on that side—I think it was the hon. members for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and Florida (Mr. Miller)—thought attacks were being made on them because they were Jews. There are many other Jews in this House. No attack was made on them and as far as I knew none of them took offence but those hon. members immediately jumped to their feet to defend their race. Let me say this immediately: If any English-speaking member in this House were attacked by this side as the hon. member for Orange Grove attacked us and he did not get up to defend the English-speaking section as such, I would have held it against him; I would have thought he was not worth his salt. That is how I and other members on this side feel. That type of attack is extremely reprehensible and not worthy of that hon. member. I repeat what I emphasized a moment ago that it lowers the prestige of this House as such, and if you will allow me, Sir, I wish to make an appeal to hon. members to confine themselves to the facts. It is going too far for an ordinary member, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, to tell a Minister of the Republic of South Africa that he is talking nonsense. Facts and figures speak louder than words. Let us state our case and leave it at that. To make attacks of that nature serves no purpose; it only harms us. I am afraid I have to accuse the Afrikaans-speaking members on that side of the House of doing that. [Time limit.]

You will not get me to keep silent about the Broederbond.

I have not much time at my disposal, and such a wide field was covered in this debate that I will be able to reply only partly to the attacks made here. It is peculiar to me that the main speaker of the United Party, before launching this attack here, announced by means of articles in the Press that he was going to launch a serious attack on the Post Office, because in his opinion so many things were wrong with the Post Office. I found it peculiar that even after he had asked for the half-hour he was unable to speak for a full half-hour.

That is not true.

That proved to me that in fact there is not so much wrong with the Post Office When the main speaker of the United Party went out of his way to ask for the half-hour, after announcing beforehand that he would launch a great attack on the Post Office, and then was quite unable to speak for a full half-hour, surely that proves that there cannot be so much criticism of the Post Office.

But that is untrue.

The hon. member made three points and I want to deal with them one by one. His first point was in connection with the officials. Thereafter he raised the matter of the Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office, and eventually the question of lotteries. It is very peculiar to me that the United Party now wants to pose as the spokesman for the workers. The United Party has always treated the worker and the middle man as if they were nothing. During the whole of their history they have done only injustice to the worker, and then the United Party wants to pose here as the champion of the worker against the Nationalist Party, which has a long history of co-operation with and service and assistance to the worker. That has been proved to such an extent in practice that we have this peculiar position, that whereas in other countries of the world the workers’ parties are growing, the workers’ party has completely disappeared in our Parliament, because the National Party is in fact the party of the little man and the worker. He is a member of this party, and this party has always carefully looked after his interests. Every clerk and every worker can be assured that where it is within the power of this party and this Government to do so, it will always stretch out its hand to assist the clerk and the little man in South Africa. From the very nature of the matter, the trouble is that our hands are bound when we want to increase the salaries of Post Office clerks. We want to do so as far as possible, but we dare not forget that such an increase costs money and must be covered by telephone calls and the sale of stamps, for which the public pays. We dare not incur expenditure greater than our revenue, otherwise we will simply be forced again to increase tariffs. We should like to increase the salaries of our staff as far as possible.

What about the surplus of R13,000,000?

I am coming to that; the hon. member should not be in such a hurry. If we are to comply with the request of hon. members opposite, they must also be prepared to propose that we increase all the Post Office tariffs.

Nonsense!

I can understand why the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) does so; he has simply learnt a lesson from the man who sits in front of him. He asks what about the R13,000,000 Surplus of the Post Office? I just want to point out that we have a surplus of R13,000,000 on a total capital investment of more than R281,000,000. The capital already invested in the Post Office amounts to R281,000,000, and if we just take that R13,000,000, without even deducting the other expenditure which has to be deducted, it represents a return of 4.7 per cent on the capital invested in the Post Office. That capital is borrowed capital; it is capital which the public of South Africa must find. This return of 4.7 per cent does not even cover the interest which we paid this year. In other words, this R13,000,000 is really only the interest on our capital.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) advanced another argument this afternoon. He asked why we are not ploughing back this R13,000,000 into the Post Office. But, Sir, we are doing much better. We are not ploughing R13,000,000 back into the Post Office; we are getting from the Government R23,000,000 this year which is being ploughed back into the Post Office. Is that not infinitely better? Is it not infinitely better rather to pay this R13,000,000 into the Exchequer to cover the arrear interest owed, and then to get R23,000,000 from the State with which to develop the Post Office further? Surely the proposal of the United Party has no foundation. We obviously prefer taking the R23,000,000 which we can invest in development works this year to having a surplus of R13,000,000 to retain for the Post Office.

That is a fantastic argument.

I am sorry that this argument has not yet penetrated the mind of the hon. member, but perhaps he will grasp it over the week-end. May I just remind hon. members of what we have done in recent years for the officials in the Post Office. I commence with 1963. In 1963 the salaries of all our officials right throughout the Post Office were increased. In April 1963, shortly thereafter, we increased the salary scales of the senior Post Office officials, and in addition we provided that when senior Post Office clerks had been on the top notch for longer than two years they could receive a long-service increment. At the same time we improved the scales of all the administrative officials and equal ranks. We upgraded a large number of posts, as the result of which large numbers of Post Office officials received increased salaries. But that was not all. Thereafter we had the Rive Inquiry. We appointed one of our senior officials to investigate the position of the technical and technological staff. Their problems were carefully analysed and scrutinized. We discussed the matter with the Staff Association and increased the salaries; we improved the grades to such an extent that everybody was satisfied. As often happens in any large organization, there was a branch in Pretoria which did not understand the position clearly. They were dissatisfied and held a meeting of protest. But the moment the matter was explained to them by their leaders, they were not only satisfied but apologized for having protested without any reason for doing so. Not only that, but the leaders of the movement specially came to see me to tell me how sorry they were that anything of this nature had ever taken place.

We know the Post Office officials are proud people. We know them as high-standing people. They are proud of their calling. They are proud of their Post Office. They are proud of the service they render to the public. They all realize that the Post Office is a big business organization, but we are still part of the Public Service. The Post Office has, however, increased to such an extent that to-day it constitutes almost a quarter of the whole of the Public Service with a staff, including the temporary personnel, of over 46,000. This organization which continuously has to satisfy the public, and do so speedily, finds that there were all sorts of hindrances in the past as the result of the fact that it formed part of the Public Service itself. There were obstacles because they had to get all their transport facilities from the Department of Transport, facilities which did not always satisfy their needs or which could not always comply with their particular requirements; the finance they needed always had to be obtained from the Treasury in a cumbersome manner; the buildings they required always had to be obtained from Public Works. Therefore the Post Office staff constantly asked that the Post Office should become more independent so that it could make available the buildings when its apparatus came to hand; so that it could improve its buildings when necessary; so that it could transact its financial affairs more speedily, and so that it could have the most suitable transport when required. We know that was a great problem.

In 1959, when I got up in this House for the first time, it was the United Party which attacked me because I advocated a larger measure of independence for the Post Office. But yesterday, and again to-day, they were the people who complained that the Post Office was not independent enough. Was it not the hon. member for Drakensberg who complained that the Staff Association was still too closely linked with the Public Service Commission? I want to remind hon. members of the fact that since 1963 we have succeeded in obtaining a greater measure of independence for the Post Office, thereby achieving great satisfaction among the Post Office staff. I do not think there is any Government which has done so much for the Post Office staff in such a short while as this Government.

There is just one other point I should like to mention, and that is the position in the Transkei. The hon. member for Orange Grove attacked us in that regard. The grounds advanced by the hon. member were that the officials of certain Departments receive an allowance in the Transkei. He says that the Post Office staff should receive the same allowance. Just let me remind you of the principle, Sir. There are a large number of officials in the Transkei who belong to our Public Service, but who have now been seconded to the Transkei Government. They now work for a different Government, and not for the Government of their own country. In order to compensate them for the fact that they are serving under a different Government, they were granted an allowance. That position does not obtain in the case of the Post Office and other officials there. For this specific reason the Post Office officials are not entitled to such an allowance. If there are other reasons why the Post Office officials in the Transkei feel that they are entitled to an increase, reasons such as, for example, the high cost of living or housing scarcity—reasons which will apply in the case of all public servants—then it is open to those Post Office officials, together with the other officials, to make application and to plead their case before the Public Service Commission and the Government. Then the matter will be considered, but on totally different grounds.

Hon. members of the House feel that this is a suitable time to adjourn and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

The hon. the Minister of Finance is unfortunately not well and will probably still be absent for the rest of this week. As hon. members know if we do not pass some of his Bills now there will be a congestion towards the end of the Session. With the full co-operation of the House I shall try to take this stage of the Bill.

Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments made by the Select Committee.

We all regret the absence of the responsible Minister and the consequent burden which is placed on the shoulders of the hon. Minister of Transport. But when the Government proposes an alteration in duties we do expect to have a statement from the Minister responsible both as to what exactly these duties are, why they are being proposed and what their effect is going to be. One realizes that the hon. the Minister of Transport cannot be expected suddenly to emerge as an expert on the subject but when he tells us that these Schedules incorporate proposals which were approved in Committee of Supply, he is being a little ingenuous, because we were careful to say that because the responsible Minister was ill we were prepared to accept them in Committee in the belief that we would be able to discuss them in full when the Bill came forward when the hon. the Minister of Finance would be present. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that one cannot place too much emphasis on the fact that we passed them in Committee and purposely did not discuss them out of consideration for the Minister.

As the hon. the Minister has said the first part of the Bill is largely to regularize proclamations that have been issued during the recess, proclamations which are more or less routine. But there are one or two here which I think should be explained to people. That is what I mean when I say that when duties are being introduced or altered, we should be given the reasons for those alterations. There is for instance the alteration in the duties on imported motor-cars. Now I would have thought that that is an important alteration. For a very long time the importation of motor-cars was covered by import control, and the Government was in a position to regulate the importation of different types of cars, expensive ones, less expensive ones, and so on. Then import control was removed, and now the proposal is that the new duties which are being imposed should be on a sliding scale, and as far as we can see they are going to put a completely prohibitive duty on what you might call the top-rated cars. I think the House is entitled to know why. Is it because too many expensive cars are being imported and are constituting a drain on the currency? Or is it that the Government wishes to impose a measure of economy? If that is the case, one would hope that the Cabinet itself would set an example and perhaps reduce the size of the cars that they drive. The third possibility would be if they could show that it is part of the policy which we all have approved, of endeavouring to build up a motor industry in our own country. But when it comes to the expensive cars I do not see how you can link that up with the development of the motor industry in this country. Whilst it may be conceded, I think, that when you are buying cars which can be classed as luxury cars you should be prepared to pay for them, if the information which I have is correct, I do think that the increase proposed in respect of the higher bracketed cars is quite excessive and goes up to I believe very nearly 100 per cent. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that unless the Government wishes to put a complete ban on the importation of these cars which are largely used by people in official positions, like mayors and so on, it seems to me that the scale of duties which is being imposed in respect of this class of cars is excessive. I would like the hon. Minister to let the House have some kind of account of just exactly what these duties amount to on the more expensive class of cars, because I do not think people as a whole have realized what the position is and they are entitled to have that information.

The other question is the duty on tobacco. One understands that that is rather an alteration than an increase in duty, not intended to produce extra revenue, but that is an alteration in the method of collection, or the method of assessing. But it is an alteration and it may mean an increase in some classes of tobacco and a decrease perhaps in other classes of tobacco. And when you are considering a thing like duty on tobacco, I think one is entitled to ask how it is going to affect the producer. Is the tobacco producer going to benefit by a reduction of the duty on certain classes of tobacco and is the consumer going to pay any more in those classes of tobacco where the duty perhaps is going to be more? In other words, what is the effect of this redistribution of the duty going to be? Is the producer going to benefit by it and is the consumer either going to benefit by it or is he going to have to pay more for it? These are the points which I feel should be dealt with by the Minister when introducing a Bill of this sort so that the House is fully informed as to what they are being called upon to do.

I can give the hon. member the information he has asked for.

In regard to motor-cars: The present duties on motor-cars are most unscientific and cause many hardships particularly in the case of heavy used motor cars brought into the country by road.

The present duties are based on value as well as weight. The duties on value are in three blocks, namely, 20 per cent up to R1,200 25 per cent from R1,200 to R1,600 and 50 per cent above R1,600. The effect is that on a car of a value of R1,601 the ad valorem duty is double the duty on a car of R1,600.

The duties based on weight have the same effect. Up to 3,700 lb. the duty is 11c per lb. and above 3,700 lb. the duty is 17c per lb. The specific duty on a car weighing 3,700 lb. is R407 and on a car weighing 3,701 lb. the duty is R629.

In the case of used vehicles the present duty formula has the effect of rendering cars liable to a duty equivalent to 250 per cent ad valorem and more in some cases. To quote an example, a car with a f.o.b. value of R200 and a weight of 4,000 lb. would at present be liable to a duty of R520, i.e. equal to 250 per cent ad valorem. Under the new formula the duty would be R100, that is 50 per cent ad valorem.

The new formula is based on the average medium car, that is a car of a f.o.b. value of R1,000 and a weight of 2,500 lb. on which the basic duty is 35 per cent ad valorem. For every R100 in excess of R1,000 2 per cent ad valorem is added to the basic duty of 35 per cent and for every 100 lb. in excess of 2,500 lb. One per cent ad valorem is added to the basic duty of 35 per cent. Thus in the case of a car of a value of R1,200 and a weight of 2,700 lb. the rate of duty is 35 per cent basic duty plus 4 per cent for the R200 value excess plus 2 per cent for the 200 lb. weight excess, a total of 41 per cent ad valorem.

The new duty formula establishes a duty in a straight progressive line and eliminates the jumps in duty from one block to another. In some cases there is a reduction in duty and in other cases an increase in duty, but in most cases the increases or reductions are slight.

In the case of very heavy super-luxury cars the increase is substantial and it was decided to refer the proposed formula to the Board of Trade and Industries who published the formula in Tariff List No. 349 on 20 September 1963. No serious objection was received by the board and it has accordingly been decided to apply the new formula.

When it was decided last year to abandon import control on luxury cars (cars over R1,600 f.o.b. value), the ad valorem duty on this class of car was increased as an interim measure from 30 per cent to 50 per cent while the specific duty on the weight was left at 11c per lb. for cars up to 3,700 lb. and 17c over 3,700 lb. This increase affected the cheaper luxury cars adversely and favoured the superluxury cars. The new formula which provides for progressively higher duties as value and weight increase, will reverse this position. The formula represents a decrease in duty in respect of the cheaper luxury cars in relation to the duties imposed in 1963, but in respect of super-luxury cars the duty is increased.

Since it is not the intention to encourage the manufacture of luxury cars in South Africa at this stage, the excise duty formula published by the Board of Trade and Industries for information and comments has also been adopted. No motor-cars of a weight in excess of 3,700 lb. are manufactured here at present and as this weight is the base weight of the formula it does not affect any motor-cars at present.

I can give hon. members some examples of the effect of the formula on luxury cars. For instance a car with an f.o.b. value of R635 and a weight of 1,980 lb., carried a duty before 30.5.’63 of R246, after 30.5.’63 it was the same and the duty under the new formula will be R222, in other words, there is a reduction of R24. To give another example, a car of an f.o.b. value of R733 and a weight of 1,540 lb., carried a duty before 30.5.’63 of R239, it remained the same after 30.5.’63 and under the new formula the duty will be R257. From there there are increases and some of the increases are fairly substantial. For instance a car with an f.o.b. value of R4,400, and a weight of 3,200 lb., the duty before 30.5.’63 was R1,672, after 30.5.’63 it was R2,552 and under the new formula it will be R4,400. Then I take the most expensive car with an f.o.b. value of R6,400 and a weight of 4,300 lb., the duty before 30.5.’63 was R2,651, after 30.5.’63, it was R3,931 and under the new formula it will be R6,400, in other words, just about 100 per cent increase, double the value of the car.

I now come to pipe tobacco. The effect of the new formula will be that there will be a reduction of revenue to the amount of R500,000. I am informed that the present excise duties on pipe tobacco have become incapable of administration. There is a basic excise duty of 41½c per lb. with two rebates in respect of “grades” which were sold before 1944 at prescribed retail prices. These two rebates are to the extent of 17c and 23c per lb. of the basic duty so that the effective duties on pipe tobacco are 41½c, 24½c and 18½ per lb.

Retail prices are quite unsuitable as a basis for classification and the department has for many years been trying to find a new basis. Neither the Department nor the manufacturers have any control over retail prices.

It will be appreciated that every rise in prices affects the grades on which the rebates are based with consequent applications by the manufacturers for adjustment of the grade prices in order to maintain the position. This position is very unsatisfactory because the Department is not in a position to control the retail prices or to verify that increases in prices cannot be avoided.

The differences between the effective duties (particularly between the middle and the higher groups) are so big that it is considered that they militate against the introduction of lines of a better quality.

In 1963 a formula for an excise value was incorporated in the Excise Act and in order to overcome the difficulties in connection with the use of retail prices as a basis for the rebates, it has been decided to use the excise value formula, which is calculated according to the manufacturers’ wholesale prices and can be readily controlled by the Department as the basis for differentiation.

By using the excise value formula the difficulties in connection with the use of retail prices as a basis for differentiation will be avoided, quality will not be restricted and the reasons for the continual applications for adjustment of the rebate price margin will disappear.

In order not to disturb selling prices unduly it has been decided to impose an ad valorem excise duty of 55 per cent on all pipe tobacco excluding only tobacco sold only in containers of 10 lb. or more. Such tobacco is normally sold loose to the poorer classes by retailers and is generally known by class names rather than brand names. This type of tobacco will be dutiable at 50 per cent which does not represent an increase in duty.

The customs duty has also been adjusted to read 60 per cent with a minimum of 91½c per lb. in order to afford local manufacturers a minimum protective margin of 5 per cent ad valorem. The present customs duty is 91½c per lb.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Like my colleague who has just resumed his seat, I always rely on the co-operation of the Opposition in order to pass a Bill. I move the amendment standing in my name—

The object of the amendment is to include a certain bank which has just commenced operating as a bank, and which would otherwise have been excluded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This is the first of three clauses which deal with the qualifications in relation to overseas universities. As I pointed out at the second reading, the position of the Attorneys Act at the moment is that if you have a degree, whether it is a B.Sc. degree or a B.Com. degree, unrelated to law, from a South African university, you may be excused two years of your articles. That being the case, it seems to me that the only reason for that exemption at all is that you are not just a matriculant, but you are an educated man and you are the sort of person who could do his articles in three years and could pass jour professional examinations three years thereafter. It is also provided that the Minister may recognize certain other degrees taken elsewhere than in South Africa for the same purpose and indeed it would seem that there is no difference at all between a South African degree and a degree of another university which is recognized to be equivalent in education to the South African degree.

The point is that it must be recognized.

Yes, it is up to the hon. Minister to recognize it. That is the power he has at the moment. He can by regulation specify which university degrees will count towards this end. Whether it has been done by Ministers in the past, I do not know, but the hon. Minister could easily consult with the universities and decide which universities overseas have a degree which is of equivalent educational value (not legal education value) to a South African degree. The question of reciprocity which was raised at the second-reading debate does not arise. It is a question of whether a man is in fact educated to the degree that he can be exempted two years of his articles, so that he serves three years instead of five years.

This is not merely a question of foreign people who are coming to South Africa and who wish to do their articles. It deals also with South African citizens who, for example, are lucky enough to get a scholarship to an oversea university. There are many such cases. The Rhodes Scholarship comes to mind immediately. Someone may win a Rhodes Scholarship, go to Oxford, do a degree perhaps in the moral sciences, and he then returns. Surely he is of equivalent educational standard to a person who has done a bachelor’s degree at say the Cape Town University, also in the moral sciences. It will therefore affect the South African citizen as well who has the opportunity to take an oversea degree, to get himself educated. I hope the hon. Minister will reconsider this whole question. This is the first of three clauses dealing with this problem, and I hope the hon. Minister will indicate whether he will reconsider it and if he is determined that this must remain as it is, could he indicate just what the basis is for his decision.

The whole standpoint and basis of this Bill and the standpoint of the law societies (because, as I said, this is really the Bill as they want it) is that we should at all times try to increase the standard as far as that can be done. What are the facts? If a man has the B.A., LL.B. degree, he still has to serve his articles for two years, in spite of the fact that he has studied law for five years already. For another period of two years he must work in an attorney’s office. In other words, for seven years he must concentrate purely on legal subjects; it takes him seven years to become a qualified attorney. Now is that fair, quite apart from whether it is a foreign or a South African degree? I am arguing now in regard to the type of degree. Is it fair that a man who has a B.Sc. degree should be given two years off and be compelled to serve his articles for only three years, so that he can become a qualified attorney within six years, whereas it takes the man who has B.A., LL.B., and has concentrated on legal subjects all these years, seven years before he becomes an attorney? I do not think that is fair.

I am on your side.

Well, if the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is on my side, I think the whole House will be on my side, and then I need not really explain the matter further. But the hon. member argued the matter from the angle of the foreign universities. I have adopted the standpoint, and I think most hon. members agree with me, that our own universities are well equipped to train our own people, and if a man wants to receive training oversea we welcome it, but it should not be at the cost of the legal knowledge he would otherwise have acquired. That is not the attitude we alone adopt. All civilized countries adopt that attitude, and it is really a concession which existed only in the old Commonwealth, and not one which was valid in respect of other countries. Now that we have left the Commonwealth, that concession has been taken away from us, and we do not blame Britain for having done so; nor would they blame us for depriving them of it. But be the matter as it may, my Department informs me that the position is that our universities can recognize degrees for those purposes, and if our universities can do so, and in practice do recognize these degrees, then I have not the least objection, because then it is neither my decision nor my responsibility. Then I have not the least objection to those degrees being recognized for those purposes. The note I have in that regard reads as follows—

A further note says that they can either admit or refuse to admit those degrees—

We, therefore, do not want to exclude these people, but I do not think they should try to receive recognition through me. It is really outside the scope of the Minister to say that the university in one country complies with the requirements, but not the university in another country. A man arrives here with a degree. One does not know whether he has perhaps bought it. I am told that there are institutions oversea where one can in fact buy a degree. I will have difficulty in deciding what the value of a diploma is if a man bring it to me, a diploma which shows that he has acquired some degree or other. I think the educationist must determine what the value of that degree is, and our universities are able to do so. That being the position, I cannot honestly concede that the hon. member has a difficulty in this regard. I think the law societies are correct in putting it on this basis.

Sir, it is true that the universities are in a better position to judge which universities are the ones to be recognized. What happens is this. If you want to proceed to a higher degree, they will say that a degree from X University overseas is sufficient to admit you to the status of a Bachelor of Arts so that you can proceed to acquire a Master’s degree.

If the man has that status I will recognize it.

Yes, but before he gets that status he must register for a Master’s degree. He has to go to university in order to get a Master’s degree before he gets status. So far as accepting the subjects is concerned, there is no swopping of degrees. You do not go to a South African university with an overseas degree and say: I have this degree, but I want you to give me your degree. But what they do is to say: We will give you credit for those subjects which you passed at the other university, but you have to register as a student and it will take you at least one year. If the purpose of this was to qualify you as an attorney, there would be some sense in it, but that is not the case. The Minister, in defence of this clause, says that if you have a B.A., LL.B., you still have to do two years’ articles, and altogether it will take you seven years. That is so. Now, in Natal, particularly in Durban, the articled clerks are allowed to go to the university and take their LL.B, during the time they serve their articles, so that they can do it in five years, but if a man does not take his articles until he has his LL.B., it takes him seven years. The Minister said that a man who has a B.Sc. degree, to qualify as an attorney, can do so in six years, but that does not seem to be quite right. That is the position to-day.

I know.

But the Minister is not altering that position. It is still the position that if you have a B.Sc. from Rhodes or Stellenbosch, you can serve three years’ articles and become an attorney within six years. If the Minister objects to that, and if that part of our law is to be changed, so that that situation cannot arise again, my point would fall away altogether. Then clearly if we do not have it for South African universities we will not have it for overseas universities either. But my point is that we do have it for South African universities. There are universities overseas which give a B.Sc. or B.A. degree overseas which is at least equivalent to a South African degree. Therefore if the principle is going to remain, it should remain in regard to the other universities as well. I hope the Minister will consider it in that light, and I hope he will give some indication as to whether he will reconsider it. If he does. I would be quite happy to leave the matter as it is. If the Minister will give an undertaking to go into it, I will be happy to drop the matter, because I think it is most undesirable to argue this matter over the floor of the House.

I confirm what the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has said. I have taken the trouble to get into touch with one of our major universities and I am assured that the position is as stated by the hon. member. The Registrar informs me that if a person at an acceptable university overseas has passed all of the subjects required, e.g. in our B.A., LL.B., they cannot recognize it except for the purpose of further study. If by any chance he is short of one subject to complete his South African B.A., LL.B., they could recognize his status in respect of the examinations he has passed and give him an LL.B. on completion of the necessary course of study in the one subject which remains. There would therefore be a grave anomaly unless the position can be met, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to go into this matter further and seek to nut it right in the Other Place if he finds, as I am sure he will, that the information given to him is correct.

We have fully considered this matter. I am quite prepared to consider it further. I even want to extend an invitation to the hon. member to take up the matter with the law advisers and to discuss it with them, and if they can find another formulation I am quite prepared to accept it. I must, however, point out to the hon. member that the question of reciprocity cannot lightly be pushed aside. We enjoyed that privilege in Britain, and they enjoyed it here, and as far as I know these are the only countries which had it. They abolished it as far as we were concerned, and now the hon. member must ask himself for what reasons they did so. They did not do so because they were annoyed about our leaving the Commonwealth, or because they were not friendly towards us. I take it that they abolished it for a very good reason, viz. that they want to train their prospective attorneys at their own universities, that they want them to grow up within the milieu of their own society. If that is the position as far as they are concerned, then the same applies to us. And that was the main reason. I am aware, in the other case to which the hon. member referred, that it is an anomaly, and that is why I raised it here, and that the time may come for us to make a change in that regard in so far as the different degrees are concerned. But in any case we are not doing it in this Bill. I am quite prepared, however, to consider it further and to give the hon. member an opportunity to discuss it further with the law advisers.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

The object of this amendment is to give protection to accountants and auditors who have been doing this work for many years. It has been recognized that they are specially qualified for this work. It is not just a simple bookkeeping certificate, as taken by the attorneys. They write a paper set on the administration of estates after five years’ training. Frequently an accountant has to apply his special knowledge of business. You may have cases where the deceased has appointed his widow as executrix and she may require an accountant’s services to run the business, in addition to drawing up the estate accounts. As I said in my second-reading speech, frequently an accountant is called upon to frame the accounts in an estate of which the attorney is the administrator. In a complicated estate the attorney calls in the accountant to do this work. The administration of estates is a function which has been carried out by accountants ever since the Administration of Estates Act was passed in 1913, over 50 years ago. The whole object of this amendment is to safeguard that position, so that the accountants can continue to carry out that work. For those reasons I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I should like to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I should like to point out to the Minister that in my opinion accountants study far more exhaustively all the laws relating to the administration of estates, liquidations, insolvencies and deceased estates. I must admit, of course, that there are a large number of lawyers who specialize in these subjects. As far as I can remember, when I was still studying, they took special lectures with us on these subjects. I have the greatest respect for the legal profession, but I do not think it is fair that the legal profession should be put into the position of depriving the accountants of their rights to do this type of work. All members of this House and of the Other Place have received a letter from the Society of Chartered Accountants of South Africa objecting to this clause as printed, and I hope that the Minister will find the proposed amendment acceptable.

Let me inform the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) immediately that I have no quarrel with the accountants. I think they are honourable people who belong to a very honourable profession. Let me say, further, that if there is a class of person, next to the attorneys, whom I should like to do this work, it is the accountants, but from the very nature of the matter the attorneys come first with me in that regard. I have much sympathy with the hon. member for Pinetown, and I dare not lose sight of the fact that in this connection people have acquired vested rights. I gave the hon. member the undertaking during the second reading, and I repeat it, that there will be very thorough consultations and negotiations between the accountants and the attorneys in this regard; and I am convinced that because both these two professions consist of very reasonable people, they will come to an agreement in regard to what is the terrain of the one as well as the terrain of the other. If I had known that at this stage, I would have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown immediately, but I cannot accept it now for the simple reason that his amendment provides: “Provided that no regulations made under this sub-section shall prohibit any registered accountant and auditor from performing work normally undertaken by a registered accountant and auditor”. I honestly do not know what work is normally done by an accountant and auditor. Therefore if I accept the amendment, I will be accepting something which hangs in the air, because it is not properly defined, and consequently I do not think that it will be of any value. Then from time to time, when problems arise between the legal profession and the accountants’ profession as to what work is normally done by an accountant, an interpretation will have to be obtained from the court, because this Act will not define it. The court will have to be asked whether a certain thing is normally done by an accountant or not? Does an accountant normally draw up a will or not? Does he normally draw up a certain kind of document or not? Therefore hon. members can appreciate my difficulty when I say that sub-section (h) is inelegant, because this is not the sort of thing one can define in an Act even if one wants to. After lengthy negotiations, one will need a very detailed definition in order to pass regulations, otherwise this Act will not be able to work, and that will be an impossible task. I wonder whether the hon. member will not rather leave the matter there? I know I am asking a lot now. I am now asking the hon. member and the accountants to leave the matter to the attorneys on the one hand, and themselves on the other; get together and see whether you can come to an agreement. I know it is asking much of the hon. member to say: Place yourselves in the hands of the attorneys. But I think the hon. member will agree that the gentlemen at the head of the attorneys’ profession are not only civilized people but very eminent people, and what is more, they are fair people who do not want to do injustice to others, and I am convinced they would not want to do an injustice to the accountants either. I now want to tell the hon. member that seeing that these regulations will lie for inspection for a very long time, not only the attorneys will be consulted, but the hon. member can make representations to me in that regard. The Association of Accountants, if they cannot come to an agreement with the law societies, which I do not believe for a moment, can make representations to me, and in this way I think we will find a modus operandi to arrive at a solution which will satisfy everybody. But if I were to accept the amendment as it stands, I would be satisfying the hon. member for the moment, but those words would be meaningless. Unless we tabulate in this Bill what the work of an accountant is, it will be of no use, and that is really what the hon. member wants because he speaks about “normally”. That of course does not mean that it is an impossible task to define the work of the attorneys; it is very difficult, but not impossible. In the same way it will also be difficult, but not impossible, to define the work of accountants. But that definition can only be arrived at after we have had consultations. To give hon. members an idea, there are many people whom we never even dreamt had vested interests in this regard, but I received a telegram this morning from the Municipal Association saying that they have certain vested interests in this regard. I never realized that. I shall have to go into the matter to see whether they have vested rights or not. That only shows that we shall have to give wide publicity to the matter and that we shall need to have long consultations about it, so lengthy that I very much doubt whether we will conclude those consultations this year, because we shall have to do a very thorough bit of work. Now for the first time in our history we are making an attempt to eliminate the friction between the banks and the trust companies and the attorneys, and I wonder whether hon. members should take the matter further now. We have progressed as far as we have as the result of goodwill. We have got much further than I ever thought we would. I wonder whether we should not leave it there. We realize all the problems, but I wonder whether we cannot iron out all those things if we consult with one another. Now hon. members may ask me: Why do you not abandon the Bill and let these people consult? But I have already said that in the past that brought us no further. Without this Bill it will be an impossible task, because some people will back out, but by means of this Bill I want—and I am quite honest about it—to force all these groups simply to get together and to discuss their problems with one another. That is the only solution.

I want to go further, before the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) moves his amendment, and tell him and other hon. members that I am prepared to go much further in this regard. I did my best, and so did the Law Society, to find a formula other than the one contained in (h), but we could not do so. I now want to extend an invitation to the lawyers on both sides of the House: Get together, and if you as lawyers can find a better formulation and come to an agreement, and you can convince me that you understand each other, then I will be prepared to accept your formulation in the Other Place. I cannot take it further than that. I admit that it is inelegant, but that was the only way the Law Society and I could find in which to solve the problem.

I appreciate the plea the hon. the Minister has made in regard to this particular clause, but it leaves the position in a rather unsatisfactory state, because unless the matter is argued further at this stage it is difficult to know how he is going to handle the matter when it comes to the Other Place. In the circumstances, therefore, I think the correct thing here is to continue with the views that have been formulated already and to pursue them. If the Minister had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown and had expanded it to include other vested interests, it would have solved the problem immediately, but in the circumstances outlined by the Minister himself, the amendment I intend moving will meet many of the problems that he has referred to. I accordingly move the amendment standing in my name on page 520—

It speaks for itself. As I outlined during the second reading, this amendment is essentially aimed at safeguarding the prerogatives of Parliament without detracting in any way from the responsibility of the Minister to administer the law as is contemplated in this Bill. In other words, the Minister will have all the opportunity of making all the investigations he thinks are necessary, and then to submit the matter to Parliament as a concrete consideration. The Minister has admitted to-day that paragraph (h) is a novel one and places extraordinary powers in his hands. I think he went even further and indicated that it was an inelegant provision which had been wished upon him by the Side-Bar, and was not one of his own seeking.

No, I absolutely agree with it.

But you said you had not formulated it that way.

I said we would try to get another formula. But I subscribe to it fully. I do not wish to shield behind them.

The Minister knows that we on this side of the House also have doubts and reservations about it as it stands, and having listened to the debate this afternoon it rather reminds me of the comment which was made that a pretty good statutory provision is very much like a pretty good egg; neither is good enough for any useful purpose. That is the best I can say of this clause as it stands to-day. It might look pretty good for the lawyer, but it certainly is not good enough for Parliament. But the Minister has given us the assurance that as long as he is in a position to administer it, he will do so with caution and after wide consultation. I think that, in itself, makes out a strong case for the acceptance of my amendment, in the event of the Minister not being able to find a better formula. The very fact that the Minister recognizes that care will have to be taken, should make him welcome the opportunity which this amendment provides. Having sorted out the position and having formulated a set of regulations, he should then deal with it in terms of the Bill and come to Parliament with it to confirm his good intentions and to get parliamentary approval for the action he has taken. The Minister repeated to-day that the provision will strengthen his hand in negotiating with vested interests. He said, in effect, that he could then negotiate from strength. If that is so, I think it is again justification for the Minister to accept this amendment, firstly, because he will then have an opportunity to come and justify what he has done and to get the approval of Parliament. In those circumstances it is quite obvious to me that the Minister should not fear getting the approval of Parliament if he goes about the matter in the way he says he intends doing. Whatever form the paragraph may take, as long as arbitrary powers are left in the hands of anyone to deal with a matter outside the House itself, we are left with the position that there is a delegation of power from Parliament to a subordinate authority, and I can do no better than again to quote the words of Sir Cecil Carr, who is an eminent authority on parliamentary government, where he said “In so far as delegated legislation contains a germ of arbitrary administration, every possible safeguard should be devised”. I suggest to the Minister that the diversity of interests is so great that I am very doubtful whether agreement can be arrived at on any other type of formula. The Minister admits now that the vested interests go even further than he contemplated, and if he looks at the memoranda submitted to the Select Committee in 1959 on the Administration of Estates Act, he will realize that this is an exceedingly controversial problem. Therefore I put forward my amendment in the hope that it will be acceptable, if not here than in the Other Place, because it seems to me that it is the only workable way in which a controversial and unformulated problem such as this can be handled and can be finally resolved.

Sir, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member’s argument, but apart from the arguments which I have already advanced I want to point out to the hon. member how difficult this matter is and how untenable his argument is. Even if I agree with the hon. member I could not possibly accept his amendment, because what is the essence of it? The essence of his argument is that I must bring these regulations into operation, apply them in practice and thereafter table them, and if Parliament does not approve of them they will then cease to be of force and effect. In other words, if Parliament does not approve of the regulations once they have been in operation for some time, the result will be complete chaos. If one wants to give effect to this idea—and I do not think we should give effect to it at this stage—then we must say that the regulations will not be valid until such time as the Cabinet has approved of them; that I could understand, but that is not what the hon. member says in his amendment. The hon. member has devoted a great deal of thought to this matter, and in spite of that he comes forward with an amendment such as this. It we introduce a further amendment, we will only be creating further problems. That is why my invitation to hon. members still stands, that is to say, that this matter should be ironed out by the Justice Group. The Justice Group may come forward with such a suggestion, and in that case we can talk about it again. But my honest opinion is that we would be tackling an impossible task in trying to define this in the legislation until such time as the interested groups have come together to discuss this matter and have tried to solve their problems. It is not up to an individual, in this case the Minister, to frame regulations; it is up to these various honourable professions—the law societies on the one hand and the accountants, the banks and the trust companies on the other—to get together in an attempt to resolve their difficulties. I honestly do not think there is a better way to achieve that result than along the lines which I am suggesting here and which were suggested by the law societies which, after all, have the greatest interest in this matter because to a very large extent it is their livelihood which is at stake. This is what they suggest; they are honourable people, and negotiations can take place between them and the other interested parties. I think we will be able to find a solution along those lines.

I would like to say immediately that I appreciate the efforts of the hon. the Minister to find a solution to this problem. Sir, like the hon. the Minister I would be very sorry to see that we in this House deal with certain aspects of this matter. I agree with the hon. the Minister as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) is concerned; it leaves open one vital aspect as to what work is normally done by attorneys, accountants, etc. Sir, there is obviously also a problem in relation to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). For my own part I believe that some provision should be made in this clause, if we can devise something satisfactory. I can see no better way in which that can be achieved than along the lines which the hon. the Minister has suggested. I do not think at this stage of the Session we can contemplate the possibility of referring this matter to a select committee. There might be another way of dealing with the matter. I believe that with common sense on both sides it should be possible to find some solution to this problem; I agree that there is a problem; there are unquestionably interests which have to be protected and I believe that in the interests of the legal profession itself there should be some sort of check in regard to this matter. My own belief is that if this matter is dealt with on the lines suggested by the hon. the Minister—I have had an opportunity of mentioning it to my Leader and he agrees—it would be a sensible way of approaching the matter. It is a question as to whether it is possible to adjourn this Committee Stage so that this discussion can first take place, or whether in view of the stage we have reached, the measure should be passed here on the understanding that the Minister will see what he can do in the Other Place. The Minister has given us an undertaking that he will deal with this matter in the light of whatever may arise out of the discussions which take place in the Other Place and if, of course, there are still differences of opinion they can be recorded then. I believe that this is the only way in which we can arrive at a solution of this matter, a solution which will not result in a division in this House. I believe that in dealing with professions, if one can get legislation on the basis of agreement within this House, it is very much better to proceed along those lines. We have the promise of the hon. the Minister and in those circumstances I hope that my colleague will agree to the proposition that we explore the matter on that basis. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is, of course, a member of our Justice Group. I take it that there will be no objection on the part of the hon. the Minister if we wished to invite other members such as the hon. member for Pinetown, who has great experience in this matter, to join in the discussion.

And the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl); I have no objection.

I think that will be a sensible way, and I hope the hon. member for Pinetown would be prepared to agree to attend such discussions if they take place.

In view of the hon. the Minister’s offer to give further consideration to this matter, I will withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee. As I understand the position the Minister is prepared to leave this matter to discussion between members representing both sides of the House, and I take it that he would be prepared to hear further representations from the Joint Council of the Societies of Chartered Accountants?

Yes.

With leave the amendment proposed by Mr. Hopewell was withdrawn.

Sir, in moving the amendment that I did, I adopted a formula which has been accepted in this House on previous occasions and which as far as I know has worked admirably. I think the hon. the Minister rather over-stresses one aspect which I do not think will come about in practice, namely that having formulated regulations they might not be approved by this House. This safeguard is designed to ensure that what the Minister does will meet with the approval of the House, just as in the case of legislation which he formulates and brings before this House.

Then I must make it a party issue and I am not prepared to make it a party issue.

Well, it might become a party issue. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister’s assurance, the sincerity of which I do not doubt at all, might be a short-lived one, beyond the control of the hon. the Minister himself, and that is the way in which one must view it as far as Parliament itself is concerned. But I really rise to say that I readily accept the suggestion made by the hon. the Minister to change the amendment to read that the regulations shall only take effect after they have been approved by resolution of Parliament rather than that they shall cease to have effect unless approved by resolution. The views I have put forward accord with that change, and I am quite prepared to amend the amendment to read in those terms.

If I were to accept the hon. member’s proposal, it would not be necessary for us to hold discussions; I could then simply go and draw up regulations, bring them to this House and say to members on my side of the House, “I have drawn up these regulations and I ask you to approve of them”, and it is almost unthinkable, knowing the political set-up in South Africa as we do, that members on this side, whether they are satisfied or not, would refuse to approve of those regulations. But I do not want to make this a party political issue; I should like to make it an agreed measure that meets with the approval of the various professions. But the moment such a regulation is tabled here as a Government regulation, it becomes a party political issue and the regulation will then be supported by this side and opposed by the other side, and we will then be back where we started. I do not want to make use of any influence I have in that connection; I do not want to use coercion. I should like the regulations to come into being on a voluntary basis after discussion between the various professions. I am quite prepared, if they are unable to agree, to take the responsibility upon my shoulders, but I should not like to do so unless the various groups are unable to arrive at an agreement. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is by far the best in the circumstances. I take it that the hon. member for Germiston (District) as the senior member of the Justice Group on that side will take the lead and that he will convene the meeting to discuss this matter and that the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) as well as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and other hon. members who are interested in this matter will be invited to attend these discussions. We can then try to find some method to solve this difficult problem, and I am convinced that we will be able to do so.

I think this debate has been a useful one and in view of the suggestion made by the hon. the Minister, which has been accepted by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) I should like at this stage with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment as well.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman withdrawn, with the leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

May I draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this clause as it stands. I would like to refer again to the position of Rhodes Scholars. This clause provides that the provisions of the principal Act, i.e. the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act, 1934, will continue to apply in respect of any person referred to in this Bill on page 1, that is to say, under Clause 2, who had before the commencement of this Act enrolled at a university as a student. While this savings clause, Clause 20, safeguards students perhaps who are already committed to training at an overseas univesity, may I ask the hon. the Minister what will happen after this clause has been promulgated? What will then be the position of Rhodes Scholars, because they will continue to be elected to go as Rhodes Scholars to Oxford University long after the promulgation of this measure. Many of them go overseas to study law on the understanding that they will return to practice law in South Africa. Under this clause they will be penalized when they return; they will be forced to re-apply to the South African university for admission to qualify in Roman-Dutch Law and Statute Law and to bargain for the recognition of their Oxford degree. I appreciate that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has covered this point in regard to overseas degrees under Clause 9, but as yet I have heard no reassurance from the hon. the Minister with regard to the position of Rhodes Scholars. I feel that this is not so much a matter of reciprocity as one of giving special consideration to the acceptance of degrees conferred on Rhodes Scholars, once they have successfully passed examinations in South Africa in Roman-Dutch Law and Statute Law. Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister to give some reassurance on this point because present holders of Rhodes Scholarships and prospective holders of Rhodes Scholarships are very perturbed and anxious regarding their position. I would ask the hon. the Minister therefore to give some assurance that their position will be safeguarded.

Clause 20 has been specially inserted in the Bill to protect students who are already studying overseas. This clause will not come into operation until such time as a date is promulgated for its coming into operation by the Minister and the Minister will only promulgate a date—that is the whole basis of the Bill—after he has been advised by the law society in that connection. Because I do not know what the advice of the law society will be in this regard I cannot tell the hon. member when this clause will come into operation. But I do not think the hon. member can expect to make a special exception of the Rhodes students in this connection. If you make an exception in the case of one type of student, irrespective of the bursary on which he is studying overseas, you have to do so in the case of all students studying overseas. For the rest I am afraid I cannot take the argument any further than I have already done except to give the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) the assurance that I take it that many children of members of the law society will themselves be hit by this provision and that they will suggest a date when this clause has to be put into operation after due consideration of what is in the interests of the profession. I think the hon. member can safely leave it in the hands of the law society to suggest the correct date when this clause has to come into operation. In passing I also wish to point out that to the best of my knowledge it is not a question of going to study overseas immediately, on a Rhodes bursary after matriculation. As far as I know most students already have a degree when they go to Oxford on a Rhodes bursary. In many cases they already have the LL.B. degree or at least some other legal degree which places them in precisely the same position in which they would otherwise have been. I wonder therefore whether those problems will arise in practice. I doubt it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

; and to add the following proposed new sub-section at the end of paragraph (i):

I just want to read the note I have in this connection, because it gives the reason for this amendment much more clearly than I would have been able to give it.

The Snyman Commission which inquired into the high costs of medicines subscribed in their report to a general recommendation of the Rheinach Commission which inquired into medical assistance, aid and assurance schemes, namely, that every recognized medical scheme ought to make provision for the care of its own pensioners and their dependants as well as the widows and dependants of deceased members or pensioners on the same basis which applied during the period of service of members. As hon. members know the moment a policeman leaves the service he ceases to enjoy medical benefits. That gives rise to many problems which hon. members themselves have already come up against. The note goes on to say—

As a result of that there were negotiations between the services on the one hand and the Treasury on the other hand and if this clause is passed the State President will issue regulations whereby retired members of the Police Force will enjoy these services.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

During the second reading stage I raised with the hon. the Minister the inclusion of this sub-section (4) which deals with the summary dismissal of persons in Public Service, and I pointed out at the time that the provision was really contrary to the whole of the tradition of Public Service. The hon. the Minister justified the position by saying that these men were very frequently in casual employment. All I can say is that casual employment does not seem to me to require a clause of this nature and that in any case if it does require it, some change should be made. The word “dismiss” carries with it a certain sting of ignomy. I have no intention myself of moving an amendment or suggesting an improvement to the clause but I hope the hon. the Minister will do so. I think he can very profitably drop this sub-section; I do not think it could do any harm. Casual employment of that nature is casual, and I think the position can be handled administratively and not by means of legislation.

The fundamental difficulty of the hon. member arises from the fact that he does not like the word “dismiss” but that is the word which has been used throughout the years in connection with the services. Every person who leaves the service is “dismissed”; he is either honourably dismissed or dishonourably dismissed. That is the word used. This word is even used when a parade is dismissed; they get “dismissed”.

“Discharged” is a better word.

The Afrikaans words is “ontslaan”; that is the recognized word used in that connection. I am not an authority in this field but if the hon. members think I should use the word “discharged” in the English text I can make the alteration in the Other Place. I have no objection to that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

During the second-reading debate I referred the hon. the Minister to certain practices of insurance companies in relation to these reservists. Despite the appeal which the hon. the Minister made to the insurance companies in relation to this matter it would appear that various tariff insurance companies have decided that if a man is a police reservist and uses his car for police reserve work, they will load his premium; in other words, he has to pay a 10 per cent higher premium than anybody else. Sir, it is a great pity that this is the attitude because police reservists are voluntary helpers and they have to use their motor-cars. If they did not use their motor-cars then of course there would be no mobility.

Are you sure of your facts? I have in the mean time asked certain insurance companies and they say that they know nothing about it.

Well, I am reasonably sure of my facts. I spoke to two or three brokers about it; to them the name Michael Mitchell from the House of Assembly meant nothing at all; they thought I was a police reservist and they told me that that was the position. This is the information which has been given to me by brokers and furthermore, this is the information which has been given to me by a lot of young people. They have been told that in relation to the premium on the motor-cars they will now be loaded another 10 per cent. As far as life policies are concerned this is not the position as yet, but one of the other factors to which I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister is that most life policies contain a riot or civil commotion clause. In other words, you are not covered if you are killed in a riot or as the result of a civil commotion. Most of us here can buy our way out of that by paying an additional premium, but it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult for a police reservist to pay the additional premium which the hon. the Minister and I could afford to pay. In other words, having regard to the circumstances in which a police reservist participates in putting down a civil commotion, his premium is likely to be higher. I know that the hon. the Minister will have regard to this when the time comes, but as far as motor-car premiums are concerned, I am satisfied from speaking to the brokers and I am even more satisfied after having spoken to a couple of young men who have in fact been affected by this that the premiums are increased in the case of police reservists.

When the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) raised this matter a few days ago I expressed the hope that if his information were correct the insurance companies would stop this practice. I subsequently instructed the Department to get in touch with insurance companies here in Cape Town. The insurance companies, or at least those we did get in touch with, said they had no knowledge of this. I shall again go into the matter and I shall do so in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance. In the meantime the Department has also drawn my attention to the fact that police reservists are not expected to use their own vehicles when doing police duty. There may have been circumstances which made it necessary for police reservists to use their own vehicles, circumstances of which the hon. member may perhaps be aware, but we are unaware of such circumstances. The police reservists are not expected to use their private vehicles in the execution of their duties. We provide transport and it is not necessary for them to provide their own transport in any circumstances; that is the responsibility of the State.

Naturally they use their own transport to get to the place when they have to report for duty.

Yes, of course they use their own vehicles to get to the police station or to the place where they have to report for duty, just as the ordinary policeman may perhaps use his own transport to get to his work. Members of the Police Force who use their own vehicles are in exactly the same position as police reservists and we are informed that the premium has not been loaded in the case of anyone. The premium payable by an ordinary policeman is not loaded and I cannot see why the premium of a reservist should be loaded. The insurance companies in Cape Town with whom my departmental officials have spoken have assured us that that is not the case, but I shall in any case again go into the matter.

I hope the hon. the Minister’s information will be confirmed, but I would like to say immediately that if police reservists who are acting in the interests of the public are to be mulcted in this way, I think the public will take a very dim view of the attitude of the insurance company concerned. It seems to me that it would be utterly wrong, where people are doing their duty to the country, that their premiums should be loaded.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

When the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the three main points of criticism voiced by the main Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), I have already disposed of the first point, namely his criticism on the staff position in the Post Office.

The second point he raised was the naming of the new post office in Joubert Street, Johannesburg, viz. the H. F. Verwoerd Post Office. The hon. member for Bethlehem dealt very thoroughly with the hon. member for Orange Grove. There are, however, a few points which I think I should emphasize. One of the attacks made by the hon. member for Orange Grove on the title of the post office was because Johannesburg is not an Afrikaans-speaking city—because there are not a majority of Afrikaans-speaking people there, as he put it. In other words, because the Afrikaners in Johannesburg are not in the majority he does not want them to have a post office with an Afrikaans name. Sir, if you analyse the population of Johannesburg you will find that one-third are Afrikaners, one-third English-speaking people, and one-third belong to other language groups. In other words, there is no majority group. But to the hon. member that means that nothing in Johannesburg may have an Afrikaans name. He demands that the post office should only be given a name which suits the English community. I thought that we had long since outgrown this bitterness towards one or other racial group, whether English or Afrikaans speaking. We on this side of the House have always tried to treat the English and the Afrikaans-speaking sections equally. Here we now have the main speaker of the United Party launching an attack which is nothing else but an attack on the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. Does that now mean that because the Afrikaans-speaking people in Johannesburg are in the minority they are entitled to nothing? Is that the hon. member’s standpoint? I think it is high time that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should give us his views in regard to this matter. The name H. F. Verwoerd is not only an Afrikaans name. This name has to-day become a symbol for the Afrikaners. H. F. Verwoerd is not merely a person; it is a name which stands for certain qualities. It is the name of someone who fights the battle of the Afrikaner, but someone who also fights for every White man in this country. The name H. F. Verwoerd is no longer merely a symbol to the Afrikaner; it has become the symbol of the struggle of the White man in this country. He is the hero of thousands of English-speaking and other people, because he is the champion of the White man. The fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove not only objected, but made an attack on this side because we dared to call this post office the H. F. Verwoerd Post Office, is in fact an attack on the pride and honour of the White man in this country.

I find it sad that at this stage of the development of the White man in South Africa the main speaker of the United Party has the temerity under this Vote to attack our action because this is an Afrikaans name and because Johannesburg is not an Afrikaans-speaking city. The Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber now, but I expect him to take the first opportunity to tell us whether he approves of the attack made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Is this now the new policy of the United Party, or has it always been their policy? Does he want the Afrikaans-speaking people to be attacked in this belittling manner? I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give us clarity on this matter. In its time the United Party did not hesitate to name an airport the Jan Smuts Airport and to name a dock the Duncan Dock.

We had the peculiar argument from the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that we could give names to tunnels and dams and airports, but not to buildings. Sir, I cannot appreciate the difference. Why may one give an airport the name of a leader at a certain time, but not a building? The National Party has never yet adopted this narrow and insulting standpoint. It was the National Party which named the airport at Durban the Louis Botha Airport. Nobody asked for it. It was simply done to show recognition of the work a leader had done for his people, even though we may differ as to the result of his actions. Recently Minister Schoeman named a building in Port Elizabeth the Sturrock Building, after one of the leaders of the United Party in the past. Port Elizabeth did not ask for that building to be given that name. Port Elizabeth is not an English-speaking city. The majority of the inhabitants are Afrikaans speaking. In spite of that Minister Schoeman did so. That is how this side of the House acts in comparison with the actions of that side, which does not even want a post office to be named after the greatest leader of South Africa.

The hon. member then made a third attack on this side of the House, namely that the Government and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs are withholding the lottery money and are not returning it to the people who despatched the lottery tickets. May I just remind the hon. member that we have laws against lotteries in South Africa. Whether we are in favour of lotteries or not, they are prohibited by the laws of the land. There are laws in the Transvaal which specifically prohibit lotteries. The Cape Province has similar laws, and there are similar laws in the Free State and Natal, and even in South West Africa. Whether we like it or not, lotteries are illegal in every part of South Africa. In terms of the Postal Act, the Post Office has the express duty of intercepting all lottery tickets and other matter relating to lotteries. The Postal Act gives the Minister the option of either keeping that material or returning it to the persons who despatched it. But that is a discretion which has to be exercised within the spirit of the laws of South Africa, and the laws of South Africa say that lotteries are illegal and should be stopped. In other words, the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Posts have a duty to stop lotteries. As long as the laws remain as they are, it is the duty of the Minister of Posts and of the Postmaster-General to assist in putting a stop to lotteries. We regard this discretion as follows: When people continue to despatch money for lottery tickets, the Postmaster-General and the Minister may, to begin with, as a warning, confiscate the money and return it later. But the Minister and the Postmaster-General may not follow that procedure for ever, because if they do so it will just be ridiculing the law. Surely it is clear that it is the duty of the Postmaster-General and the Minister to repay the money for a start, as a warning, but that they cannot continue returning it. The time will arrive when it will become the duty of the Minister and of the Postmaster-General simply to confiscate that money. I have already stated in this House previously that a decision in this regard has not yet been arrived at. I cannot say at the moment that all the money will be returned, but if it is repaid I can only say that this will not be done for much longer.

Let me now deal with certain other points. All the Opposition speakers allege—particularly the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that the Post Office is making no progress, but that at best it is marking time. Hon. members who make that allegation close their eyes to the facts. Let me just point out a few of the big developments undertaken by the Post Office in South Africa. During the past six years no less than R19,000,000 has been spent on capital works every year for the expansion of the telephone services, telegraph services and radio services. This year provision is made in the Estimates for R23,000,0000. It is the duty of every Department not to deal lavishly with the money granted to it, but to spend it in the most economical manner. The most economical manner of spending it is carefully to plan the requirements in advance and then to act in accordance with those plans. It is the duty of the Post Office to plan and to spend the money carefully according to those plans. And that is precisely what has happened. That is the reason why the tariffs in this country are still among the lowest in the English-speaking world. I say the English-speaking world deliberately, because I do not want to say in the Commonwealth. If our tariffs are compared with those of England, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, it will be found that our tariffs are cheaper than those in any of those countries, in spite of the tremendous development which has taken place consistently every year in the Post Office.

We should not forget that during the past few years South Africa has had tremendous economic development, so big that it was not possible for the planners to determine it in advance. As the result of its development, the planning in some instances lagged behind. Let me mention the case of trunk calls from Cape Town. Until last year a trunk call to Johannesburg could be put through almost immediately. To-day there is an hour’s delay. That is as the result of the tremendous development on the Rand and in Cape Town. I hope, however, that this backlog will soon be eliminated.

Let me mention a second development in this regard, something which will perhaps make our long-distance telephone services some of the best in the world, viz. the microwave system. That is a system by means of which one sends electric waves from place to place. The telephonic conversation is then transmitted along those electric waves. To explain it further, it is practically like an invisible wire from the one reflector to the other, which is the speaking channel along which the telephone conversation is sent. We have already made much progress in regard to replacing all our busy lines by the microwave system. This system is already in operation between Johannesburg and Klerksdorp and between Margate and Durban, and next year it will be in operation between the Rand and Durban. This year it will also be instituted between Johannesburg, Welkom and Bloemfontein. Surveys for this purpose are already being made between Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein. Within two or three years all our long-distance conversations will be by means of the micro-wave system, and not by means of telephone wires or cables. Let me give hon. members an example of the improvement it will bring about, e.g. in Cape Town. To-day there are 45 direct lines between Cape Town and Johannesburg. Then there are 20 lines between Cape Town and Johannesburg, via Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth, which supply speaking channels. In other words, altogether 65 speaking channels are available between Cape Town and Johannesburg. But when the micro-wave system is completed within two or three years, approximately 600 channels will be available. And with a small improvement in the equipment, it will be able to carry approximately 6,000 channels. It is one of the most modern systems in the whole world. I am sure that within two or three years it will be possible to get through to any major city practically immediately.

Let me refer to a further development. The telephone is a handy instrument in business life, but it has this shortcoming that it does not automatically convert the message or conversation into print. Therefore if one places an order over the telephone, one has no proof that one has placed it. The system which is now increasingly being applied right throughout the whole of the Western business world is the automatic telex system. Large businesses are connected to the telex exchange in the country. That means that when one enters into a contract with someone over the telephone, or places an order with him, one does not do so telephonically, but telegraphically, although it looks precisely like the telephone system. One dials a number, comes into contact with the person, gives the message or places the order, and both parties have proof of it. This is one of the newest developments in the business world, and in the sphere of big business it has practically become a necessity to-day. This system has already been introduced in Johannesburg and in Cape Town and is systematically being applied in all the large centres. When our speaking channels are replaced by the micro-wave system, practically all our large businesses will be able to make use of the telex system.

Let me give another example. Our engineers in South Africa are certainly as good as those to be found anywhere else in the world. They are people who have a very high reputation in the international sphere. These engineers have developed an automatic farm telephone system whereby one can speak to one’s neighbour in private, just as they do in the city. As far as I know, this system is the only one of its type in the word. I do not know of any other country where this system is in operation. It was evolved by our own engineers and put into operation by them. [Interjections.] The hon. member has not listened attentively. This applies only where they have automatic exchanges.

Let me deal with another aspect of the activities of the Post Office. Did you know, Sir, that the broadcasting service of a country is dependent on the Post Office? If it were not for the telephone and telegraph system of South Africa, a large, comprehensive broadcasting service would not be possible. Those lines make it possible for programmes in Johannesburg to be broadcast, e.g. to Port Elizabeth or Cape Town, and vice versa. It is not many years ago that we had only medium wave stations. That supplied the country with a very poor service, and it is something we inherited from the United Party. The whole of the platteland received a poor service; large areas had no broadcasting service at all. The whole of the eastern Highveld and Lowveld, the Northern Transvaal, the northern part of Natal, the Karoo and the southern area of the Cape Province were all without a broadcasting service. It only became possible to provide all these areas with a broadcasting service because the Department of Posts and the S.A.B.C. decided to introduce a new F.M. system. That is the system which made it possible for the first time to serve every section of the population in South Africa in its own language, a broadcasting service which is creating goodwill among the different racial groups.

This system is being systematically expanded every year, with the result that eventually a capital of R34,000,000 will have been invested in it. Now I ask hon. members opposite whether they can really say that the Post Office has not done much for the country in recent years?

I just want to reply briefly to the criticism voiced by other hon. members opposite. We on this side always welcome criticism. We are never opposed to it. From the very nature of the matter, particularly when one is dealing with a large undertaking like the Post Office, there will be difficulties and bottlenecks everywhere. One can only solve those difficulties if one knows what the problems are. But we expect constructive and fair criticism. Nor is it necessary always to wait until the Vote of the Minister is debated in this House. If there is a problem, the Post Office will appreciate it if it is immediately brought to the notice of the local postmaster or the local divisional controller, or else the Postmaster-General or even the Minister. It will always be welcomed. We will always react immediately and try to remedy matte s.

The hon. member for Drakensberg said that it was so difficult to obtain telephones to-day. I think that allegation is a little unfair, because it is not difficult to obtain a telephone. The hon. member will recollect that about a week ago the millionth telephone was installed in South Africa. Telephones are available, but the installation of a telephone does not depend only on the availability of telephones. It depends on the existence of the necessary lines, the necessary cables, the size of the exchanges and whether they are automatic or not; it also depends on the availability of staff. It is sometimes difficult immediately to provide telephone services. In time, however, all this will be remedied. The hon. member should not forget that the Post Office has a staff of 46,000, nor should hon. members forget that they are all human beings. No one in the Post Office service is infallible; they can also make mistakes, just like anybody else. One must expect mistakes to be made in such a large organization. Therefore I will welcome it if hon. members will be so good as to bring these things to our notice so that steps may immediately be taken to remedy the mistakes.

The Post Office has a planning section which consists of specialists who are constantly busy collecting statistics in regard to the development in South Africa and the existing facilities. Those statistics serve as the basis for future planning. But now one finds the sort of problem which I have experienced in my own constituency. Escom suddenly decides to erect a large power station, or a mining company decides to develop the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere there. Immediately a large number of houses are built, and a large number of workers are brought there. Facilities are required. Telephone facilities have to be provided and postal facilities are required. But that development could not be foreseen. Nobody knew beforehand that a power station would be built at that place in the Ermelo district, and that a large coal mine would be developed there. The Post Office could not make provision for that in advance. The result is that the Post Office found itself in a quandary, but nevertheless the backlog will soon be eliminated and all the necessary facilities provided in that area. That is what happens right throughout South Africa.

Who is the member for Ermelo?

I just mention it as an example. One finds those unexpected developments everywhere in South Africa. Mines are being developed everywhere and new towns are established everywhere, and small existing towns expand.

The hon. member for Drakensberg raised the problem that of having put a tickey in the slot when she was at the airport and finding that she could not get through to Cape Town. I presume the hon. member made a mistake. She forgot that she had to put in two tickeys and not just one. That is possibly the explanation. If the position was, as she alleged, that the telephone was out of order, then I want to tell her that all the telephones at such strategic places are not checked every day only, but several times a day. But in South Africa, as elsewhere, one unfortunately has the experience that certain persons deliberately damage the apparatus. It is a type of vandalism which is difficult to explain, but it is certain that this vandalism exists. One often finds, on entering a telephone booth, that the mouthpiece has been cut off. In order to prevent that, the Post Office has now taken the step of reinforcing the wire of the telephone with steel cable. Also, the receptacle for coins has been improved by our own engineers. We hope that this will prevent the vandalism to a certain extent.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzbug (District) (Capt. Henwood) suggested the appointment of itinerant inspectors. But that is precisely what we already have, and we have even more than the number suggested by the hon. member. South Africa has been divided into various control districts with a divisional controller or manager, and every such divisional officer is assisted by inspectors, and particularly by telephone inspectors who are specially appointed to exercise control over matters concerning the telephone service and to ensure that the telephone service in their areas is satisfactory. In addition, he has on his staff a telephone exchange superintendent, who travels around the whole area to ascertain whether the telephone service complies with the requirements.

The hon. member for Drakensberg criticized the new Staff Association of the Post Office and said that it did not always function as it ought to. Her argument was that on this Staff Association there was a representative of the Public Service Commission without whose consent no decision could be taken. Now she says that it sometimes happens that the chairman is absent. That may happen. But let us now admit that this new arrangement is a tremendous concession to the Post Office. It is a great forward step. Now one must expect that in the initial stages difficulties will still arise and that problems will still crop up. I am convinced that as we are dealing with the very sensible people who give guidance in the Public Service Commission, this problem will also be eliminated very soon.

The hon. member for Drakensberg also attacked the Minister because she alleged that the salary of the Postmaster-General was lower than, for example, that of the Secretary for Lands. I am afraid the hon. member has heard something, but has not quite understood the meaning of what she heard. The salaries of all the heads in the Public Service are the same, except in four exceptional cases. There are two head officials who are in control posts, the Controller and Auditor-General, whose salary is slightly higher, and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Then there is the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, who is at the same time the coordinator of Agricultural Technical Service and of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and then there is the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development, who is at the same time the co-ordinator of the Department of Bantu Education. In view of these specific functions, those four officials receive a higher salary. For the rest, the salaries of all the heads of Departments are precisely the same.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) criticized the policy of the Department in regard to the Coloureds and asked what the policy actually was. May I tell him that the policy is still what it has always been, viz. that the Post Office will employ as many Coloureds as possible to serve the Coloured population, and that it will train them as far as possible to enable them to serve their own people in all the necessary ranks. In regard to telephone lines, the hon. member asked whether there was any policy in regard to including Coloureds on party lines which serve mostly Whites. May I say that every one of these cases is dealt with on its merits. When there are no problems which prevent it, they are put on to such a party line. Everything depends on the circumstances, and all the cases are dealt with on their merits. I think I have now dealt with all the objections raised up to now.

The hon. the Minister did not like the question of the name of the new Post Office in Johannesburg bandied about the House. I think he has himself to blame, because when we asked him questions as to how come the new Post Office was going to be named the “Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office,” if he had then told us that it was his decision, or the decision of the Cabinet, perhaps the matter might simply have rested there. But he tried to tell us that it had been a demand from the citizens of Johannesburg, and one question after the other had to appear on the Question Paper until eventually we got the matter clarified. I hope too the hon. Minister next time will tell us speedily what the position is and then we can perhaps avoid discussions of this nature.

I am sorry to have to bring the House down to earth again after the address by the hon. Minister where he painted this glowing picture for us of things to come. We are very grateful for the promises of things to come, but unfortunately we are living in the present and we have a few problems that require to be solved now. I do hope however that these facilities the hon. Minister is promising to the telephone users in South Africa will not arrive before the people who are asking for telephones have them, because at the present rate of catching up with the back-log—we are 37 better off this year than the year before—it is going to take 296 years before everybody in South Africa who wants a telephone has one. I am rather amazed that the hon. the Minister took the position in Ermelo as the example of how one cannot plan for unexpected developments, because the development at Ermelo has been known to me for five or six years. They wanted lights, they wanted water, they wanted roads and all the other facilities and they got them. Apparently the only thing they have not got are telephones. And that is the position in many cases in the country.

There are one or two specific matters that I want to deal with. First of all I want to commend the hon. the Minister and the Department on the quality of the telephone communication between Johannesburg and Cape Town to-day. It is practically perfect. But having said that, I would like the hon. Minister and his staff to take a look at the telephone service in Johannesburg proper which is getting worse and worse every day. Telephones are practically inaudible at the moment, and as between Johannesburg and Pretoria the service is equally as bad. In Johannesburg you can hardly have a telephone conversation which you can hear with ease in the business areas, and I hope some attention will be given to that. Another question is: Why this 50 per cent surcharge on Sundays and religious public holidays. It is something contrary to what is happening in the rest of the world. In England for example, as the hon. Minister well knows, the maximum charge for a normal trunk call is 4s., but from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and all day Sundays and holidays, this is reduced to 2s. 3d. In the same way during the week personal service costs 1s. 6d. and in the evening and on Sundays 9d. and extra time is allowed. In the United States there is a standard rate after 9 o’clock at night of one dollar per phone-call anywhere within the United States of America. I want the hon. Minister to tell us why we cannot have these things here, because it seems to me that we are cluttering up our lines during ordinary business hours by not making not only the normal rate available on Sundays and public holidays, but having a surcharge on those days. So what happens? If I have a private call that I want to put through on a Sunday, I do not do so. Why should I pay 50 per cent surcharge. I will wait for the Monday. And if I have a private call to put through on the Friday or the Saturday morning I put it through, whereas if there were a decrease in the charge on Sundays, I would wait. In that way you would provide better facilities for the public and you would take some of the load off the commercial channels during normal business hours.

The next item I should like to deal with is the question of postal deliveries. The people of Cape Town seem to be singled out for postal deliveries which we in Johannesburg cannot even dream of. Firstly, there are two postal deliveries in most of the areas of Cape Town. Where I live during the Parliamentary session, for example, I can go to my box every morning at 9.30 and know that my letters will be there. There is a further delivery in the afternoons. What happens to the poor people of Johannesburg? I shall tell you what happens to them. I live in Illovo. The normal delivery to my house there is between one and three o’clock in the afternoon and there is one delivery per day. In Orange Grove, where the hon. member for Orange Grove lives, delivery takes place once a day, usually not earlier than 12 o’clock. In Parkview, in my constituency, the position is even worse. There the normal delivery is between 7 and 9 p.m. and there is only one delivery per day. I shall quote from a letter which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail in which a certain gentleman wrote:

There are two facets to this question. One is that the ordinary person is entitled to a service and secondly it is grossly unfair that the postmen should be wandering around at 8 to 9 o’clock at night delivering mail. As the hon. member for Orange Grove rightly said, postmen are in the lowest grades. They render valuable service to the community and they should be given special consideration.

Another aspect I want to deal with is the question of facilities available to the public on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. In very few places in South Africa can one send or receive a telegram on a Sunday or a Saturday afternoon. In every country in the world which has a highly developed postal system these facilities for sending telegrams are made available. One may have a very urgent message that one may have to send to someone else in the country and one cannot do so if that person does not have a telephone. I understand that in the big cities, namely Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London facilities for the delivery of telegrams during certain hours over the week-end do exist. In the smaller places, however, there are no facilities whatsoever either for sending or receiving telegrams over the week-end. There are no facilities for registered letters. If you want to send a registered letter in Johannesburg between Saturday noon and Monday morning, there are no facilities available for that. In most places in the country there are no facilities for buying stamps over the week-end. What is the public supposed to do? If one wants to send a letter, whether it is urgent or not, and one does not happen to have a stamp, there are no places to buy them, except in one or two of the main post offices where there are automatic vending machines, but which in most cases are out of order. [Time limit.]

The hon the Minister has replied to certain attacks but in regard to the attack made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) I wish to point out that the telephone service in the Republic of South Africa has been extended to such a degree in this country that there are approximately 100,000,000 main line calls annually. Apart from that approximately 1,000,000,000 local calls are metered every year over and above the more or less 250,000,000 calls that go through locally hand-operated exchanges. I really think the hon. member for Durban (Point) has raised a matter which he had no reason to raise. I think he and the hon. member for Orange Grove have jointly decided to develop a grievance against the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Post Office so that they could justify the motion that the Minister’s salary be reduced by R5,000.

However, I really got to my feet to express my sincere gratitude on behalf of the public of Bethlehem, particularly the farmers to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department. Bethlehem was the first place in the Republic and in the world to receive an automatic farm-line exchange. That exchange was opened on 26 October last year. I want to assure the Minister that the system operates wonderfully. It is wonderful to think one can put through a farm call, that your conversation is private and that you need not be afraid that your neighbours who also use the farm line will listen in. What is even more remarkable is that the day is not too distant when I shall be able to dial any number in Cape Town direct from my farm. If that cannot be regarded as a wonderful development in this country and if the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot at least express his appreciation of that, it is scandalous. It is scandalous to accuse the Minister of still living in the days of the ox wagon. I think it is scandalous for an hon. member—an honourable person who sits in this House—to say things for which he has no ground whatsoever.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that this automatic farm line system also has its problems. On behalf of the farm line telephone subscribers of Bethlehem I wish to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister. The fact that the person who uses the party line has to pay 2½ cent for every call he makes through the exchange has had this result that where he normally spoke for three or four or five minutes perhaps, the conversations are now unnecessarily long. They do so because they think they are paying 2½ cent for the call and when ten subscribers share such a farm line these long conversations cause a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction. I have already brought this to the notice of the Postmaster-General. He assured me that they were investigating the matter and that suggestions would be made to the Minister and also to him in order to see what could be done. I personally think ten subscribers to a farm line are too many. I think that if there were fewer than ten subscribers to such a farm line there would be fewer problems and less difficulty. I wish to congratulate the engineers this afternoon on their wonderful achievement. People have asked why Bethlehem was the first to get this. I know that question has been asked over the whole country. I shall tell you why Bethlehem was the first to get it. Bethlehem got it because the Siemens Factory manufactured the equipment. Because the first Siemens automatic exchange was installed at Bethlehem this automatic farm line system which was also designed by the Siemens factory was adapted to the Siemens automatic exchange of Bethlehem. Because it would have been the first automatic farm line exchange in the country, the Siemens manufacturers preferred to have it installed there. I really do not think it will be long before you will find automatic farm line exchanges throughout the country. It has been a huge success and it saves a tremendous amount of manpower particularly in the days in which we are living.

Mr. Chairman, members who represent the Coloured people in this House receive many requests in regard to postal services—telephones, etc. I should like to pay tribute here to-day to the Postmaster-General and his staff for the way that he has at all times been willing to assist us in trying to arrange satisfactory settlement of these matters.

Why do you not thank the Minister?

I thank the Postmaster-General because he is the gentleman with whom I dealt. I do believe that in thanking the Postmaster-General, I am at the same time thanking the Minister, because as far as I know he is still the head of the Department. I should like to deal with the answer the hon. the Minister gave this afternoon in regard to the Coloured people. Quite frankly, Sir, I was rather amazed. He said something about the future of the Coloured people and that they were doing everything to promote their interests and that they want to encourage them in the Department. I interjected: “I shall believe it when I see it”. The Minister must not talk to us as if we do not understand the position between the Coloured people and his Department. If the Minister is so anxious to help the Coloured people in his Department and to see that they are engaged in his Department—that they flourish in his Department—why are attempts being made to get postmen from overseas for South Africa? The Minister will remember that I put certain questions to him. I shall remind the hon. the Minister of these questions. I asked him:

1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to an article in a postal journal suggesting that postmen should be obtained overseas to meet the manpower scarcity in the postal services;
2. (2) whether there is a manpower scarcity in the postal service; and, if so,
3. (3) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.

The hon. the Minister answered that his attention had been drawn to that article. He said that there was a manpower scarcity. In reply to the third part of my question he replied:

I then asked the hon. the Minister whether, arising out of his reply, he could not consider engaging Coloured people to meet the scarcity. He said: “The possibility is being investigated.” I do not believe in that sort of investigation. I do not think any of us will be here when this investigation has been completed. We have too many investigations of this kind. It is a red herring drawn across the trail. It is like the little card you sometimes get saying: “We are in receipt of your letter and the matter is being attended to,” but you never hear any more about it. The Government is paying lip service only to the Coloured people. They can and they must employ the Coloured people in the postal services because particularly in the Cape the Coloured people are in fact the pioneers in regard to postal services. I am reading from a letter I received—

If the Minister tells me that he wants Coloured people to be employed in the Western Cape, let him say so, but then I will ask him why they cannot be employed in any other areas, and even in Johannesburg. I do not think hon. members realize that there are no White postmen in Stellenbosch, the Strand, Somerset West, Paarl, Worcester or Wellington, but only Coloured people. But they are not encouraged because their pay is so awful. I dealt with the question of the pay of Coloured persons before and I do not want to keep on repeating it, but I had a letter as recently as 5 May asking me once more to make an appeal to the Minister in regard to the pay of Coloured persons, and particularly am I asked to deal with the young men who started as telegram boys and who have now reached the ages of 24 to 28 years where they want to get married. This is what they write to me—

R40 a month for a postman who has served the country for many years, for 12 to 14 years, while White postmen are taken from the streets and are remunerated for service they render in private firms. After 12 or 14 years’ service they get R40 a month, while we put R20,000,000 in cold storage and we boast that we have a lot of money. Why cannot the money reach the people? When it reaches the people, we will have something to be proud of. I have consistently fought for an increase in Coloured wages and pay. I know there is something brewing. The Minister did not tell me; I know. Maybe I am just guessing, but I am hoping that I will have some good news for the Coloured people of South Africa, but I do not know whether it will include the postmen. Certain postmen in certain grades have been promised increases and it was referred to the Public Service Commission. I cannot find the date of this telex, but I have a telex here which says that in regard to the improvement of the salary scales of non-White postmen the investigations have not vet been completed, but that it was hoped to reach finality before the end of last year. Does the Minister know anything about this? Will he tell us whether there is any hope for the Coloured people referred to in this telex? They tell me they were promised a Christmas present last year already, and it has not arrived.

There is just one more matter I want to deal with, and that is the position in which some Coloured radio repair men find themselves. I have a case here which I may say the official in charge indicated he would deal with sympathetically, but I want to raise it with the Minister in this House in case there are other people in a similar position, who might then also bring their case to the notice of the Department. In 1941 a Coloured man received a radio repairer’s licence and started a little business, but we recently passed an Act saying that anyone who repairs a radio must now have a certain licence; he must pass certain examinations. Well, these Coloured people just cannot pass those examinations; it is impossible. [Time limit.]

I wish to plead with the hon. the Minister for a better radio service in South West Africa. The reception is very unsatisfactory in the distant places. Due to the fast economic development in the country we find that more and more people can afford to buy a radio, particularly the Natives. But because of the poor reception we find that the Natives have to tune in to the propaganda from the north. I consequently think it is of strategic importance to this country that transmitters be erected which can provide the Native listeners with the necessary information instead of their having to listen to the propaganda from the north.

We also find that there is a transmitter in every province in this country but that there are none in South West to broadcast news of local interest. I want to plead that consideration be given to the erection of a semi-commercial transmitter. I do so because we have already been told in this House that the reason why a transmitter cannot be erected there is that the costs will be too high but I think if it is combined with a commercial transmitter any losses will be wiped out. I can also practically assure the Minister that the Administration of South West will subsidize such a service so that any losses will be wiped out. A few years ago application was made by private concerns which were prepared to erect transmitters. They think they can make a profit if it is a semi-commercial transmitter. I think that where private concerns are prepared to erect such a transmitter this Government could at least also see its way clear to do so. Let me put it this way to the Minister that if the Government does not see its way clear to erect such a transmitter it should leave the matter in the hands of the South West Administration. They at any rate see their way clear to do it. I actually think the Government is adopting an unreasonable attitude when it says: We are not prepared to erect a transmitter there but we shall not allow you to do so either. I am convinced that the Administration will make good any losses. A local transmitter at Windhoek will be very convenient and will also be of strategic value. In view of the rapid economic development, particularly in view of the plans to be carried out and the development envisaged as a result of the Odendaal plan, I think the development will be so rapid that I am justified in again raising this matter seeing that it has now become one of urgent importance.

I just want to deal with the question which I raised when my time expired, in regard to this unfortunate Coloured man who felt that he would not be able to pass an examination required to obtain a radio repairer’s licence. I hope that the Minister will overlook the necessity for his passing an examination, and that he will deal kindly with people who started in business 20 years ago but who now find that they are unable to pass an examination. I believe it is a written examination. He came to see me and told me that he did not know what some of the questions he had to answer meant. His livelihood is in jeopardy, and I make an appeal for him and others who find themselves in that position. I want to repeat that the official with whom I dealt indicated that he would deal leniently with this man, and I have no doubt that he will be able to continue with his work, but there may be others, and I feel that where people have been engaged in this work for many years they should not be required to pass an examination now.

I want to say, further, that due to the Government’s policy of group areas there has been a tremendous shift of population, particularly around Tiervlei, Bellville South and other places. I was hoping that when that takes place the Department will not wait to build a post office, but will make temporary arrangements for postal services for the people who have been moved away, particularly those who have to draw their old-age pensions at the post office. I have had several letters saying how impossible it is for them to go so far away, and I feel that the Minister should consult with his colleague, the Minister of Housing and Community Development, to see that where this tremendous shift of population takes place postal services will follow, even if in the beginning the building is merely of a temporary nature. In Bellville South I believe there are now about 11,000 Coloured people, and in Tiervlei something like 17,000, and at the moment they have to go quite a distance to get to a post office. I have already had an indication from the Postmaster-General that the matter is being attended to, but I believe it should not be necessary for Members of Parliament to raise these matters by way of letters, but that there should be automatic liaison between this Department and the Department of Coloured Affairs in regard to the shifting of population.

Finally, I just want to make a further appeal to the Minister in regard to the employment of Coloured people. I hope he will not import people from overseas. No person from overseas will come to this country to work in the postal services at the salary at present being paid to the Coloured people. In other words, immediately you import White people from overseas to come and work in the postal service, they automatically will have to receive a very much higher salary, and I cannot see why people should be imported from overseas when you have such a large number of Coloured people here. I hope that hon. members who represent the Transvaal and the Free State will encourage the Government to employ Coloured postmen, because that is one of the few avenues left to them where there can be a mass engagement of labour. I appeal not only to the Minister but also to those hon. members that there should be no prejudice against the employment of Coloured postmen. They have done their work honourably in the Cape for over a century and there is no reason to suppose that they will not do so in those areas also, unless of course there is colour prejudice, which I hope will vanish as soon as possible. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister on Friday, replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), dealt with the White officials in the Post Office in the Transkei and said that they would not be paid the additional allowance paid to the members of the Bantu Affairs Department who have been seconded to the Transkeian Government, because their application had been made merely on the ground that other public servants were receiving house and other allowances; and he said that had the application been based on other considerations, such as the shortage of housing, it might have received consideration. I want to point out to the Minister that there is great dissatisfaction in the postal service in the Transkei. The Minister will not deny it, because he has received the reports of the meetings held and he knows what representations were made to his Department. Earlier in the year, when I asked the Minister whether there had been any resignations from the postal service there, I was told that one had resigned. I find that difficult to believe. I think the Minister’s information must be incorrect, because there was a letter written by the Postmaster-General to the Chamber of Commerce in Umtata in which he said that the whole matter of the unsatisfactory telephone service had been discussed and had received his close attention, and then he said—

Now, that is quite correct. There were a number of resignations, and we know that the Department had difficulty in getting replacements. Has the Minister gone into the question as to why it is difficult to get replacements in the Transkei? I will tell him why it is. To begin with, in the beginning of the year there was a shortage of accommodation. When the Department of Bantu Administration started buying up houses in Umtata for their officials, other Government officials who were renting houses found themselves put out of those houses because they were required by the Department of Bantu Administration, and they could not get accommodation. I know of a lot of young people working in the exchange at Umtata who found themselves without accommodation. They had been hiring rooms, and the hotels were full, and the position is still the same in Umtata. It is most difficult to get accommodation because of the influx of public servants from Pretoria. The Minister says that his postal officials are still officials in the Government of the Republic, whereas the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration have been transferred to another Government. The Government now treats them as Republican officials working for a foreign Government, but I should like to point out that those officials, in addition to having almost free houses given to them—I think the maximum rental they pay is about R10 a month, and if they are not living in a Government house they get a rental allowance of from R33.50 to R45 a month, depending on whether they are married and how many children they have, and in addition they get other allowances as well, which I have already told the House about, which vary from R20 to R40 a month. But the Minister must realize that all other Government officials are dissatisfied. After all, they are living in the same area, and those who have been seconded to the Transkei Government are not losing their promotion or taking any risk in regard to their pensions, because the Republican Government guarantees that and therefore they are in no worse position than officials who have not been seconded but who are rendering important services in the Transkei; and the service of communications is one of the most important. You cannot do without the Post Office. The Transkei Government could not do without the Post Office and the telephone service. Therefore I make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. He knows that further representations have been made and I ask him to reconsider his decision in regard to the postal officials in the Transkei, and especially do I ask him to give consideration in regard to housing. He sent an inspector down to Umtata earlier this year to inquire into the problem as to why these officials were resigning, but I should like to know what he intends doing in regard to houses for his officials there. The police are building houses because they cannot get houses. There are houses provided for railwaymen, and I do not know whether the Railways will build more houses but this Department is supplying no houses. The Minister will know that with the influx of officials into the Transkei on the granting of self-government there, there is a greater need for telephone services. You cannot have this big influx of people into Umtata and a new capital established without a demand for telephone lines. With the difficulty of getting young people in the Transkei now to work in the exchange, I ask him to give Umtata priority in considering the next town to be provided with automatic telephones. If he did that, the Minister would find that many of his troubles would be eliminated there, and it would also give a lot of satisfaction to the people in the area. The Postmaster-General suggested that we would get an automatic exchange, but he could not say when. I want to know from the Minister, whether in view of the development in Umtata, he will give special consideration to supplying automatic telephones and to providing houses for his officials there, in line with the arrangements made by the other Departments.

I too want to raise a matter in connection with the radio service in South West Africa. I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that the existing radio service, the short wave service, has repeatedly been improved but that it nevertheless does not provide South West with the service to which it is entitled. The position is that South West Africa is not thickly populated and our radio service stretches over long distances. We have to rely on our radio service to a great extent as far as our communication is concerned. Because of the long distances there are parts such as parts of the Grootfontein district and parts of my own constituency in distant Gobabis, where newspapers only arrive two or three weeks later. The newspapers which appear in Windhoek only reach the people in those particular areas two or three weeks later. The result is that the radio service in South West has become a very important part of the social life there. The Odendaal Commission has considered this aspect of the radio service and they make certain recommendations on page 488 of their report. They suggest that the S.A.B.C. should conduct a thorough investigation into the improvement and extension of the radio service in South West Africa. Last year already when I spoke about this I suggested that where a network of VHF was being introduced in the Republic consideration should also be given to the possibility of extending that network to South West Africa. Naturally the distances are long and the population is scattered about thinly, particularly in the southern parts of the territory, but I really think that when such a VHF system is introduced in Windhoek with a beam of, say, 60 or 70 miles it will reach a large section of the population of South West, because the population of South West Africa is more or less concentrated in the middlelands, i.e. Windhoek itself and the areas around Windhoek. That will to a great extent do away with the dissatisfaction which exists at the moment. I suggested last year that a land line should be laid from the nearest FM station in the Republic to Windhoek and a tower built there. The Minister said in his reply that where such a land line was laid many factors came into play with the result that such a line would not give the desired results in Windhoek. But I nevertheless want to suggest that this matter be properly investigated because if they can be joined to the existing system in the Republic it would mean a very great improvement to Windhoek and the central parts of South West. Where the Odendaal Commission drew attention to the great defects in the radio services in South West I really think this is a matter which must receive attention. It is true that we get a better reception in Souh West Africa from the rest of Africa than from the Transvaal or the Cape Province and where the beams are specifically directed on South West from the Northern areas we have to deal with a whole series of programmes which are specifically intended for the Bantu people there. As a matter of fact there are radio stations in the northern states which broadcast specifically in the Ovambo language with the express purpose of influencing those people. And where there are no newspapers in Ovamboland and no other ways of making contact with that part of the population in order to correct the picture I think it is essential that the radio service be improved in such a way that that part of the country will also enjoy the benefits of our radio services here. It is a fact that the broadcasting services which are to-day directed at South West from the northern states concentrate mainly on propaganda. That is indeed the case and I can tell you, Sir, that when you compare an ordinary station like Lourenço Marques in South West Africa with any one in the Republic there is hardly any comparison. When you switch on your radio and try to find a station you get L.M. as clearly as medium wave stations here in Cape Town but you can hardly hear the programmes of the S.A.B.C. Good reception is limited to fairly early in the morning and again fairly late at night; for the rest it is totally unsatisfactory. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this as well, particularly in view of the recommendations made by the Odendaal Commission. Then I also want to ask him to tell us what steps he intends taking to give effect to those recommendations.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) need not be so concerned. I know that the S.A.B.C. has already decided—I do not know whether the Minister knows it—to do something about services in South West Africa. Sir, I believe that the replies given by the hon. the Minister on two of the issues which I raised in the House were utterly disgraceful. I regard it as a disgrace that he has refused to tell the country that he will be prepared to return the more than R100,000 that he confiscated from good, honest South Africans. I regard his refusal to do so as a disgrace and I also view it as a sign of utter weakness that he has not yet decided what he is going to do.

Equally deplorable, Sir, is his reply to our remarks with regard to the naming of the Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office. My objection is not to the name “Hendrik Verwoerd”. We do not object to a Hendrik Verwoerd bridge, a Hendrik Verwoerd tunnel, but what we do object to is the fact that a name was given to a post office without consulting the people of Johannesburg, and that the hon. the Minister gave us incorrect information when he said that the people had been consulted because the real people who represent Johannesburg are the people who elect the city council, and the city council was opposed to that move. Sir, mine is not an attack on the Afrikaner; it is an attack on the Borederbond, and anybody who attacks the Broederbond is defending the Afrikaner.

I intended, Sir, to start by saying something about a remarkable work of fiction I have in my hand and that is this paperback, bound in green, which is called “The Report of the South African Broadcasting Corporation”. I intend doing so, if I get the opportunity, at a later stage, because there are many, many remarkable statements in this report which the Minister has tabled. However, to use a phrase of the S.A.B.C., I have to interrupt the programme by making what I regard as an important announcement, and this is an announcement that has to do with television in South Africa. The announcement is this: I have proof here that the Government, despite what they say, despite their vacillations, intend introducing television in South Africa, Sir, what I am going to say now, I say against a background of certain facts, mainly against the background of the fact that the Government has always said that it had no intention of introducing television. Even the hon. the Prime Minister this year repeated that. I also say it against the background of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has been so violently against television that, should it be introduced, he as a man of honour should resign as Minister. I say, thirdly, that it is well known that the S.A.B.C. has been doing technical research work with regard to television. I say, fourthly, that the decision in regard to television, as we have been told, is to be a Government one, and we want to know the facts here this afternoon.

I now challenge the hon. the Minister to deny the following facts; I also challenge any hon. member on the other side to deny that six months ago the S.A.B.C. entered into contract for the buying from abroad and the showing in South Africa over a television network in South Africa of nearly a dozen television films. Is there any hon. member on that side who would deny that? I repeat that an agreement was made to show those films over a television network in South Africa. Furthermore, this agreement was entered into by the S.A.B.C. with certain overseas firms, amongst them certain firms in France. The agreement was made in Paris about six months ago by a certain Mr. J. J. Kruger, ex-editor of the Transvaler, who now occupies a very shadowy post in the S.A.B.C. I believe we have now discovered what the nature of his post has been; he had been going abroad to enter into his contracts to show television films in South Africa.

Furthermore, in the agreement the S.A.B.C. has been granted exclusive television rights in regard to the films; it has been agreed that the S.A.B.C. may dubb those films; that they may translate them and use them in both languages in South Africa. I wish to make it perfectly clear that these are not films which were bought for the Department of Information. Those films were bought, and it is stated expressly in the agreement, for showing over a television network in South Africa. In case the hon. the Minister still doubts my word, let me mention the names of some of these films which have been bought by the S.A.B.C.: L’eau qui Dort, bought for £40, Visons, bought for £60, and then a packet, including the following, for £792: Danseuses de la Mer, Le Pélrein Perdu, Fario et les Pécheurs, Des Souris et pas d’Hommes, Il Pleut, Berger. Can the hon. the Minister deny that these films have been bought? [Interjection.]

The hon. the Minister denies it. Sir, certain very serious deductions flow from what I have said. The first is that the facts which I have mentioned, that an agreement was entered into six months ago by Mr. Kruger for the buying of these television films, are indisputable. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to deny that. As I say, this agreement was entered into about six months ago, and either the Government knew about it or the Government did not know about it. If the Government did not know about this contract, about the buying of these television films, then I say that the domination of the Broederbond over the S.A.B.C. and over this Government has grown to even worse proportions than I feared. Secondly, I say that the utter failure of the hon. the Minister to get any type of reply to any type of information from the S.A.B.C., is even much worse than I thought in the past.

If, on the other hand, the Prime Minister and the Government and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did know about these contracts, then we demand a full and detailed statement this afternoon from the Minister himself. Why was the impression created in the past in Parliament and in this country that the Government had no plan whatsoever of introducing television? Why were the people outside South Africa misled by statements to the effect that television could and would not be introduced? Why have we been hoodwinked in this manner when actual contracts have been entered into by the S.A.B.C.? The amounts are mentioned in the contract; I do not know whether they have yet been paid but, Sir, this is public money and we want to have further particulars as to why it is being spent. If, however, it is a matter which only the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knew about, we should like to know why he had not informed his colleagues and the rest of his party in Parliament?

I doubt whether any issue has ever been handled in such a muddled, unsatisfactory, frustrating way as this issue of the introduction of television. I say that both the Prime Minister and the Minister did not know their own minds; I am not sure that they know their own minds even now, but the fact of the matter is that television films have been bought by the S.A.B.C.; they are to be paid for, and part of the agreement is that they shall be shown as television films in South Africa over a South African network. I think the agreement even mentions South African television masts. Sir, I have no objection to the introduction of television. I know that when it does come it will come as a result of the fight put up on behalf of television by the United Party. This fantastic way in which the Government is handling this matter, in the face of the demand of the people of South Africa and in the face of the demand by the United Party, does it no credit whatsoever. It is clear to me that there must be a terrific division in the ranks of the party on the benches opposite, a division which goes as far as the ranks of the Cabinet. Why, Sir, we have even heard about Ventersdorp democracy during the past week …

That was a blunt lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I say that was a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I was referring to a report of his speech which appeared in the Burger. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) so frequently grabs the cat by the tail. He has again gripped a cat by the tail, and he must be careful, for that cat has a tendency to scratch and bite. Let me put the matter clearly once again, for the information of the hon. member. The story that the S.A.B.C. has bought films for exhibition in South Africa over a television network is childish. The poor member for Orange Grove always wishes to cause sensation, and then he merely causes a sensation by making himself appear ridiculous. Many members of this House know what the true position is. About seven or eight months ago a team of television film experts from Belgium visited South Africa. They taught some of our staff at the S.A.B.C. how to make recordings, because the S.A.B.C. had entered into agreements with Agence France Presse and other organizations. They are transmitting not only news, but films also for exhibition overseas. That has been the position for some time. These films that were purchased by the S.A.B.C. were purchased without the knowledge of the Government; the Government knows nothing about it, but I can tell hon. members what I was told: A small number of films were purchased for the purpose of training their own staff.

Why?

For the reason I have just mentioned. The S.A.B.C. has contracts with Agence France Presse and other news agencies. They do not send news only, but news films too. They sent out their own teams to show the S.A.B.C. how to make these films and to send them overseas. These are news films and a news film may be exhibited in a cinema or on television; a film is a film. It seems to me the hon. member does not know how television operates. The British system, as well as the American system, largely operates with films. The British system at the present time already operates mainly with videotape, but the S.A.B.C., as I understand the position, is only making films and not videotape; I may be wrong. In other words, the S.A.B.C. is making only ordinary news films and these are now being sent overseas. One can understand that photographic equipment is required for that. The hon. member says there are 12; I do not know whether it is 12, but let us assume for the moment that it is 12. The hon. member must remember that there are always a few that are out of order. There may be six or seven which can be used from time to time. When one takes a news film one does not take it from only one angle; the same subject is photographed from various angles. Does that now justify the allegation that the State and the Government are misleading the country; that the Government really wants to introduce television in South Africa? It is so typical of the irresponsibilities one can expect from only one person in this House, namely the hon. member for Orange Grove.

It is quite clear to me that either the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give this House the facts or else he is quite unaware of what has been happening. Let me say first of all that these films which were bought were not news films; they were television films and are expressly mentioned as such in the agreement. If you look at some of the titles you can be quite sure that they are not news films. Look at these: “Dancers of the Sea”, is that a news film? Is “It Rains, Shepherd” a news film? [Interjection.] Now the hon. member says that no one said that they were news films. The hon. the Minister said so five minutes ago. He said that they could be used for news purposes. The hon. the Minister tried to tell us that these films were bought for the purpose which has nothing at all to do with television. Did he say that? He admits it.

I now ask him to go into the particulars of the agreement and find out whether the following facts are not true, and if they are I ask him to come and apologize in the House. Sir, this is a challenge. In the first place, this agreement was entered into by Mr. J. J. Kruger of the S.A.B.C.; secondly, the agreement was entered into in Paris about six months ago; thirdly, the agreement expressly mentions that television films will be made available by the French company, and it is stated in the agreement that those films are intended for television showing in South Africa over the television network in South Africa. If these facts are not true I challenge the hon. the Minister to say in this House that they are not true.

We have the fantastic state of affairs that the Minister does not know that these things have been happening. It seems to me that he is entirely unaware of the contents of the agreement which has been entered into. After all, Sir, we have often been told that the decision to introduce television will be a decision of the Government itself and that no one else will decide. Here the decision is being made by the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation under the leadership of the Chairman of the Broederbond without, it seems to me, the knowledge of even the hon. the Minister. Again I challenge him to try to find out the particulars of that agreement and to come here and deny what I have said here this evening.

Sir, while I give the hon. the Minister a chance to find out what has happened in regard to television because apparently he does not know what the S.A.B.C. is doing, I should like to go on to the S.A.B.C. and its general news services. I have already mentioned that what we have here in the S.A.B.C. Report is nothing less than a work of fiction. In this work of fiction we have some statements which are really appalling. May I read out what is said by the chairman of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation in regard to the news services; he said—

Sir, this is the most fantastic fiction that I have ever come across; it is a fairy tale, it is a fable. Sir, earlier this year the mask was torn from the S.A.B.C. when we had statements made by the hon. the Minister and by the Prime Minister in which they attacked the English language Press and said that the S.A.B.C. talks and news reports were necessary as a counter to the propaganda of the English language Press. The Prime Minister himself said—and I quote his exact words—

In other words, why may it not make Nationalist propaganda, to put it quite bluntly? These were the words of the hon. the Prime Minister this year. Never before has the admission been made so brazenly and so blatantly of the political influence of the S.A.B.C. in South Africa and the fact that it is an instrument of Nationalist Party propaganda. Sir, I shall tell the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister why the S.A.B.C. has no right to make Nationalist Party propaganda: Firstly, it is a public trust; it is supposed to serve all sections of the public; its licence fees come from all parts of South Africa and all people in South Africa, not only Nationalist supporters. I doubt very much whether even the majority of them are Nationalist supporters. Secondly, the S.A.B.C. is a monopoly and it has no right to mis-use its monopolistic powers in this way. It has no competition in South Africa; the listener cannot listen to other local programmes; he wants South African programmes, not programmes from abroad, but he wants them uncoloured by political propaganda. Amongst the worst of these programmes is the Monday Review of Parliament, the News at Nine, and the broadcasts by Mr. Ivor Benson. As far as Mr. Ivor Benson is concerned I need only quote part of what was said by a journalist in the Volksblad a month ago when he wrote—

That was the opinion expressed by a Nationalist sub-editor in the Volksblad. He added—

Sir, these talks are defended by a statement in the S.A.B.C. Reports—another piece of fiction—that 5,000 letters commending the S.A.B.C. arrived at the headquarters of the S.A.B.C. during the year, thereby giving the impression that 5,000 people expressed their satisfaction with the policy of the S.A.B.C. Sir, I am quite sure that amongst those letters there is a letter that I wrote in which I thanked the S.A.B.C. for having sent me an invitation to an excellent musical concert. I was glad to do so but, Sir, that does not indicate my approval of the policy of the S.A.B.C.

Sir, when the people of South Africa express their attitude towards the S.A.B.C. they do not write letters to the S.A.B.C. They have a weapon which is unique; they switch off their radios. I am quite sure that for every 5,000 letters received by the S.A.B.C. commending them, there are not hundreds or thousands but millions of instances where exasperated listeners have simply turned off their sets. Sir, if the sound of all these radios being switched off were to be collected in one place, it would sound like a bunch of crickets on a hot Karoo summer’s day in a grove of acacia trees. The people of South Africa do express their dissatisfaction with the S.A.B.C. but they express it in their own way.

Sir, I call this document a work of fiction. It is a work of fiction as far as finances are concerned. I have asked the hon. the Minister over and over again where the reserve funds of the S.A.B.C. are invested. The hon. the Minister gave me two utterly contradictory replies. The first is that those funds are invested in approved securities; the other one is that no investments have been made by the S.A.B.C. in securities. [Time limit.]

I should like to correct one small point, just for the record. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) came along with the story that the S.A.B.C. had entered into contracts and that in those contracts it also took television rights. That is true …

Oh!

The hon. member should not be so impatient. I shall try to bring a little wisdom home to him. The position is that when one purchases a film, it is customary to purchase television rights also. That is all the S.A.B.C. did. It desires to use that film for the training of its own personnel.

Training for what?

That hon. member should rather confine himself to medical matters. Everybody cannot make a film which is attractive; it is an art. It is almost as much of an art as to paint. You have to take the film from certain angles; you have to take certain parts. In the latest techniques, people are inclined to take the so-called “close-ups” to an increasing extent, such as the movement of one’s cheek or a slight movement of the eyelids, because these convey much more than many other things. So the technique in the photography of television, and of the very latest kinds of films, is quite different from what it was formerly. When you wish to train your personnel, you show them the best pictures in that respect.

Are they being trained in television?

I have explained it already, but the hon. member simply will not understand it. The S.A.B.C. is transmitting certain news to certain institutions overseas, and it is under contract also to send them films. Most of the films should be capable of being used at the same time on television, that is to say, in the cinemas and on television. For that reason the films have to made in the best possible manner. Some of the best films are imported from time to time in order to train them. The staff are shown which technique is best. When you enter into a contract to purchase the films, you buy the television rights at the same time. It does happen sometimes that the television rights for a certain area have already been sold to somebody else. That is customary, and all the S.A.B.C. has done, was to take the customary wise steps.

I can see that despite all the evidence put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) the hon. the Minister still needs to be convinced that television must be established immediately in South Africa. I would like to have the answers to the excuses we have had over these last years from the hon. the Minister. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the S.A.B.C.’s Annual Report. The whole of South Africa was looking to this report. But they found a grave omission this year. There is no mention in it of television; television is not going to be established. Over the last years the hon. the Minister has always given a negative reply in this House as to when or if television is going to be established. In April this year the hon. the Prime Minister himself said that television was a luxury and that South Africa could not afford it at the present time Sir, and that with a budget surplus of R128,000,000. Considering that 81 other countries can afford television Sir, I do not see how we cannot. Take our neighbour, Rhodesia, who, instead of a White population of 3,250,000, has a population of 345,000 and 6,000,000 Bantu.

Yet they have a full television service in Rhodesia. It took them a short time to establish that service, it is commercially financed and is already showing a profit. If they can have it then surely South Africa can.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in April he said—

I wish to point out that it is for this very industrial development that South Africa should have television to-day, now. Is this hon. Minister not aware of the giant strides that are being made in adult education for industrial development through the aid of television? In Sweden, the U.S.S.R., in the U.S.A., in the U.K. and in France they are using television to turn unskilled workers into skilled workers. Eight hundred thousand labourers in Spain are being re-educated through television at the cost of £17,000, R34,000. The principal of the Manchester College of Science and Technology has said that “to keep pace with automation in this modern world it will be found necessary and indeed essential to use television as a means of instruction in science and technology”. If the hon. the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister are really sincere in their desire to promote technical training and in their desire to retrain unskilled workers into skilled workers and provide more workers for industry to combat the shortage of manpower which is admitted by both sides of this House they would immediately introduce television; they would introduce a bilingual television service as advocated by this side of the House. Sir, television is a technological development that has come to the world and no part of this modern world can afford to be without it. Like the radio it can be abused, and we on this side of the House have no illusions as to how it could be abused. When I advocate the use of television for adult education I advocate education, no slanting, no double talk, but education put over by means of television through a properly constituted S.A.B.C. A television and radio service are not rivals—they are complementary and the introduction of television is no threat to newspapers. The newspapers and television work together in over 81 countries in the world. To-day advertisers who advertise on television also advertise equally in newspapers. We are told that television is still in its infancy; that they are only starting with colour television. Does the Government think that when television was first introduced in Britain that they were hesitant to do so because there were difficulties and that they thought they could introduce it later? Does the Government think that 81 countries have waited for colour television? Three of them have colour television, namely, the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. and Japan and in the latter country they are producing a television set at a price of R50. Even in Nome in the northern part of Alaska, 40 miles across from Siberia, where the population consists of 120 people, television is provided. One feels that this refusal to go ahead and to install television is yet another move to isolate South Africa still further from the rest of the world. We are told that within the next 10 years the Americans or the Russians will have landed on the moon. Eighty-one countries will be viewing this on television but not South Africa unless the hon. the Minister is going to install it.

Over the years we have had the story from the hon. the Minister that television will affect the morals of the nation, that it will bring about the moral collapse of this country. What about the U.S.A. and Britain and those European countries where they have had television showing day and night for 16 years? Do they show more signs of moral collapse than we do? In spite of television, or perhaps because of it, the Americans and the Russians fly into space; France has developed first-class fighter planes; Britain has produced and is still producing the world’s best atomic scientists and physicists, perhaps with the help of television. I think the Government’s fears stem perhaps from overseas importations because we have suffered unremittingly from these importations over the years—the telephone, the telegraph, railways, the motor-car, the aeroplane, films, the radio and even Springbok Radio. The effect of these importations has been cumulative and where has it landed us? Are we any the worse because of these importations? Have our morals declined because of them? Were they considered too much of a luxury? No, Sir. I feel that while the hon. the Minister’s mind is set against television this out-moded decision is making South Africa, not only look eccentric, but also ridiculous in to-day’s world. That is another reason why this side of the House is going to vote against the Minister’s Vote.

It is really tragic that the discussion of this Vote should every year degenerate into a smear campaign by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) against the Minister personally. It is even more tragic in view of the fact that this Minister sets himself high moral and ethic standards in respect of his diligence, his conscientiousness, his loyalty and his devotion to his duty. It is a tragedy that he should yearly be exposed to the uncalled for, uncontrolled, reprehensible hate-inspired attacks by a frustrated and embittered member like the hon. member for Orange Grove. I really think we as Members of Parliament should tell that hon. member that we deprecate his action; we are sick and tired of his pettiness in this regard. When the hon. member says the hon. Minister still has an ox-wagon mentality—I listened to his mean remarks—I can only tell him that he also belongs to a certain wagon the name of which I do not want to mention in this House. The hon. member always presents himself as the watchdog of the interests of the public. He puts questions to the Ministers. He asks how many appointments have been made; how many Members of Parliament have been promoted, etc. He gets negative replies throughout. After these speeches of his I do not think he is a watchdog; he acts like a stray dog which sniffs around on ash heaps for something smelly that he can dig up. [Interjections.] I know I am using strong language, Mr. Chairman, but I want to repeat that we are sick and tired of his attacks. His attacks are not based on arguments; every time it is a ventilation of his own anger at his own inability to come forward with anything positive.

What are the true facts in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation? Let us look at a few of the facts. I want to start with the technical standard of the service. Locally tremendous progress has been made with the F.M. system. Within one year that service has already been made available to 70 per cent of the Whites, to 48 per cent of the Coloureds, to 92 per cent of the Asiatics and to 41 per cent of the Bantu. That means that within a very short space of time that service is already available to 48.8 per cent of the population.

Take our overseas transcription service. I want the hon. member to listen so that he can talk sense next time. The object of the overseas transcription service is to give listeners over the whole world the best South African service possible. During the past year, the year about which the hon. member has so much to say, this service has been extended from 210 stations to 603 stations in spite of a politically hostile world. What do these people say about the technical quality of these programmes? I quote what Brazil says—

What does the International Broadcasting Service say about the technical service of our Broadcasting Corporation? They say—

But the hon. member says all the listeners are dissatisfied with this service. Let us get the correct picture. When I have given these figures I want the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove not to talk such nonsense in this House in future. Surely one learns what the views of listeners are from the correspondence which is received. What does that correspondence say? The hon. member for Orange Grove must not allege that they are people who write to say thank you for one or other invitation they have received. Out of a total of 141,704 letters 259 were unfavourable, i.e., .18 per cent. Ignore those letters in connection with invitations and competitions and you find that 14,028 letters of criticism or congratulation were addressed to the S.A.B.C. of which 259 were unfavourable, i.e., 1.8 per cent. It may be said that the Afrikaans programme is to the taste of the Afrikaans-speaking public and that there are more complaints about the English programme. I also have the figures in connection with the English programme. Out of a grand total of 150,797 letters 296 were unfavourable, i.e., .19 per cent. If I ignore all those letters in connection with competitions, etc. I find that out of the 5,396 letters by listeners to the English programme only 296 were unfavourable, i.e., 5.4 per cent. The hon. member’s attack has been exaggerated out of all proportion whereas he has no ground for it at all. The hon. member is the only person who is dissatisfied with the programmes and it is left to him to keep the discussion of this Vote going every year. I want to tell him that the country and the listeners are sick of his pettiness in this connection.

I now come to the so-called one-sidedness of the programmes. If the programmes are as one-sided as the hon. member suggests how is it possible that I find the following names amongst the names of people who have appeared before the microphone of the B-programme, A-programme and Springbok Radio: Professor N. P. van Wyk Louw, Mr. Anton Murray, Ds. W. J. de Klerk, the Rev. Roy Briggs, Dr. J. B. Webb, Professor Hahlo, Professor Sutton, Professor Grové, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Professor Sabin, Sir Donald Walton. These are people who represent all political views; they are the friends and the enemies of the Government. They were all given an opportunity of appearing before the microphone. Their talks concerned all spheres of life. But the hon. member continues with his pettiness and says it is one-sided. The public no longer believes him and we are sick and tired of his continually repeating things which are not true.

Mr. Chairman, it is the specific task of the S.A.B.C. to give an image of South Africa. It has to try to the best of its ability to create an image which is truly South African and it is achieving success throughout the world. I again wish to quote. Iran is not our best friend, politically speaking, and what do they say—

There is at least goodwill in that sphere. What does Australia say—

What does Brazil say—

This is clear proof that overseas countries are beginning to see South Africa in the light in which we should like them to see us and in the light in which every loyal South African would like South Africa to be seen; not a distorted image but an honest image. This image is provided by the S.A.B.C. and they are praised for it. In spite of that the hon. member annually makes a vehement attack on the S.A.B.C. It is very clear what the policy of the S.A.B.C. is locally and that is to give the news factually and truthfully. I want to ask the hon. member to mention specific instances where the news have been incomplete, not factual, not objective, and not true. If he cannot give such specific examples he dare not speak in this debate.

We have Radio Bantu about which I can say a great deal. The Bantu radio service is already available for 61½ hours per week in five different Bantu languages. 80,000 letters are received per month from Bantu, 98 per cent of which express praise and gratitude for the wonderful programmes and the excellent service in their own language. But even that does not satisfy the hon. member for Orange Grove. Mr. Chairman, just think of the service Fanis Rautenbach renders South Africa every morning! His whole programme is really a tonic to everybody who listens to it because even if you got out of bed on the wrong side after a quarter of an hour of his jokes and dry sense of humour, you are immediately in a good mood and you go to work in a completely different frame of mind. That service of the S.A.B.C. is really a tonic. I think everybody is aware of the value of the S.A.B.C. and the service it renders. Not only the Nationalist Party realize that. The S.A.B.C. is definitely partial but not partial in favour of this party, Mr. Chairman, but partial in favour of the Republic of South Africa. And when it is partial in favour of the Republic of South Africa it nauseates that hon. member who does not want to be loyal.

Order! Before the hon. member sits down I want to ask him to withdraw what he said about the hon. member for Orange Grove being a stray dog.

I withdraw those words, Sir.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Orange Grove said the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) talked like a stray dog.

Will the hon. member for Orange Grove also withdraw those words?

I withdraw them, Sir.

It appears from the reaction of the hon. the Minister that until such time as there is a change in the Cabinet and until such time as another person occupies the post of Minister of Posts and Telegraphs there is little hope of having television introduced in South Africa. The hon. the Minister seems to have developed such a biased attitude towards the introduction of television that it would appear that there is very little hope of the introduction of television until there is also a change of Government. The whole question of television and the attitude of the hon. the Minister cause a great deal of concern to South Africa. I think it can safely be said that this Minister is the Dr. No of South Africa. He has adopted an attitude of being opposed to lotteries, of refusing to refund the money and in addition to that there is an emphatic “no” to the introduction of television in spite of the fact that South Africa is the most advanced and the wealthiest country in Africa. In spite of this fact it would appear that we will be the last country in Africa to have television. Countries far poorer than South Africa and far more backward than South Africa have introduced television which is the most modern medium of education.

Hon. members opposite turn a completely blind eye to any of the advances which we find in the modern world to-day. I think it is a great pity that the Government adopts that attitude. In regard to other emphatic “Noes” we have had from the hon. the Minister in this House I wish to deal with the question of concessionary radio licences to social pensioners. We know the licence has been increased from R3.50 to R5.50. We know from the latest report of the S.A.B.C. that there has been an increase in the number of listeners. Since 1962 to 1963 that number increased by 88,725 and to-day there are 1,153,524 licensees. If you look at the financial position you find that the revenue from licence fees has increased from R4,800,000 to R5,500,000. Similarly when you look at the profits made by the Corporation you find that it was R390,000 in 1962 and in 1963 those profits had increased to R673,784. So it would appear that the Corporation is in a sound financial position.

In spite of this fact the hon. the Minister has refused to grant a concessionary radio licence to those persons who can ill afford to pay the increased licence fee. When this matter was taken up with the S.A.B.C. in 1962 the Board of Governors refused the request that concessionary radio licence fees of R1 per annum be granted to social pensioners. However on 20 February 1963 I was advised by the head of the secretarial department of the S.A.B.C. as follows—

This is the point where the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs came into the picture. In spite of repeated questions to the hon. the Minister he has refused to grant authority for these revised regulations to come into operation. I wrote a letter to the hon. the Minister in 1963 and the reason why I wrote that letter was because the Minister had stated that he was unable to grant this concessionary radio licence fee to social pensioners because of financial and administrative difficulties. When I asked the hon. the Minister to give some indication as to what those difficulties were he stated in a reply to my letter that there were some 545,000 social pensioners of all races and therefore that “the financial sacrifice would be a considerable amount of revenue which it could hardly afford at the time”. First of all, Sir, the hon. the Minister gave the figure of social pensioners of all races. I wonder how many of the 300,000-odd Bantu social pensioners who receive R3 per month have radios and would thereby benefit by a concessionary radio licence. I think the figure given by the Minister is out of all proportion to the real number of people involved. The hon. the Minister goes on in this letter of his to say that abuse could arise from such concessions in the case where children lived with parents who received social pensions. The letter then goes on to say—

These were the reasons why the hon. the Minister was evidently not prepared to accept the revised regulations of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. who are prepared to grant this concession to these people who cannot afford to pay the full licence fee. In spite of the fact that the Board of Governors has made this recommendation the hon. the Minister seems to be trying to find administrative and financial difficulties in spite of the fact that the financial position of the S.A.B.C. has improved because of the increase in the licence fees. As far as the administrative difficulties are concerned I have submitted to the hon. the Minister suggestions how they can be overcome on two occasions. The first occasion was early this year when, in reply to a question, he said no emphatically that he was not prepared to reconsider his decision. My first letter to him somehow got lost in the post. It seems a pity that a letter to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs does not seem to find its destination. However, I wrote to the Minister a second time and suggested ways and means whereby this concession could not be abused. I suggested that social pensioners, either living alone or as a couple, must make special application to be granted this concessionary radio licence of R1 per annum; such application to be supported by a certificate by a minister of religion, a commissioner of oaths, a magistrate or a justice of the peace saying that those persons are living alone or as a couple, where one or other spouse is a social pensioner, and therefore qualify for such a licence.

To emphasize the point as to how it affects a number of these people and the difficulties that are involved a concessionary licence is granted to people who are living in homes for the aged which are receiving some form of subsidy, and which are on the S.A.B.C. panel of churches administering old-age homes. There is an institution in my own constituency which has been built by an organization which is completely self-supporting. They raised the funds themselves; they get no assistance at all from any public bodies. This organization provides accommodation to these old people at a reduced amount. Because those old-age pensioners are not living in a home which is receiving a subsidy they have to pay the full licence of R5.50 per annum. [Time limit.]

I do not have enough time to reply to all the statements made here to-night. Hon. members should therefore forgive me if I do not reply to everything. I understand the Vote has to be disposed of before seven o’clock tonight. I shall begin by replying to a few of the outstanding questions. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) says the Government is very unreasonable in its attitude in refusing to grant concessionary radio licences to social pensioners. May I remind the hon. member that the S.A.B.C. is a business organization and as such it has to see to it that its accounts balance, and that it does not burden one section at the expense of another. One does not expect a shop to charge different prices for the ordinary person and the person who is financially less privileged. One does not expect a cinema to charge the less privileged person less for admission than the ordinary person. The principle is that, if there are certain people who are less privileged, certain departments are entrusted with the task of looking after their interests. If the hon. member pleads for concessions in connection with licence fees to certain persons, I think it is his duty to direct his request to the Department of Social Welfare. At the present time the S.A.B.C. is already granting concessions to a fairly large number of people as regards licence fees. To date they have already granted as many as 9,000 such concessions. We have calculated that if concessions were to be given to all social pensioners, as the hon. member for Umbilo proposes, it will amount to no less than R1,500,000 per annum. Not only that, it will also give rise to many abuses, particularly so in the case of the Bantu where the aged people usually live with their children. The result is that it is not the aged person who receives the benefit but the family, which may be able to afford the licence.

I have indicated how that problem can be overcome.

We have considered it, but the difficulties are so great that we really do not see our way clear to doing so. Surely the hon. member has never asked that the Post Office should grant lower postal tariffs to the pensioners, for in his own mind that has not been in keeping with business principles, but it certainly is in keeping when he makes such a request of the institution which has been specially established to look after the interests of those people, namely the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Omaruru and Middelland pleaded for better radio services in South West Africa. I should like to tell hon. members that this is something which has been bothering us for years, and as hon. members know, the S.A.B.C. has repeatedly tried to improve these services. The Broadcasting Corporation has for some time been trying to use directional antennae for instance. That brought about an improvement, but not to the extent we had hoped. The S.A.B.C. has now sent some of its experts to South West Africa and the matter has been fully investigated. Of course the ideal solution is the establishment of FM stations all over South West Africa, because it means, in the first place, that you will have disturbance-free services, and also that there could be many services. However, it is extremely expensive to provide an FM service in a country like South West Africa, because it would mean that stations or towers will have to be erected every 35 or 60 miles apart. We have estimated that to cover South West Africa with FM services will probably cost as much as it will cost to provide the rest of South Africa with this service. We then tried to find alternative solutions. It is not possible to put up powerful medium-wave stations in South West Africa, because of the disturbances that will be experienced. It would appear, therefore, that the service for the whole of South West Africa will have to be provided by means of short-wave stations. That will require powerful transmitters. The S.A.B.C. is now considering these measures. So we are hoping that within the foreseeable future we shall be able to erect those powerful transmitters which will provide South West Africa with adequate coverage. At the same time, however, we feel that it will also be very desirable for us to cover a certain portion of South West Africa with FM services, and that such service, as the hon. member for Middelland has suggested, should partly be a commercial service. The idea is that Windhoek at least could be provided with such a service, which could then also be partially financed by commercial flashes. This service will not be similar to the commercial service in South Africa, but only a service in which advertisement flashes will be included. These are measures which are being considered at the present time, and I hope it will be possible to bring about a considerable improvement in the radio services of South West Africa in the foreseeable future.

We are continually experiencing attacks in connection with television. I shall try, in the time still at my disposal, to explain briefly to the House the problems we have in respect of television. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) must not assume that this side of the House is not aware of the fact that there are certain advantages attached to television. However, the problems arising from it at the present time seem almost insoluble and I shall try to bring these home to hon. members briefly. Television is kept going largely by means of films, whether by means of videotape or the ordinary films. Most of the stations in the world are largely served with films. Those so-called live recordings, that is to say, when something is recorded and transmitted immediately, in most countries constitute only a small percentage, and in many countries it does not exist at all. The reason is obvious. It is tremendously expensive to lay on the land-lines and to know always where the films have to be taken. It is extremely difficult too to arrange programmes on this basis. The result is that at the present time it has become almost standard practice—in some cases up to 95 per cent—that no live television films are exhibited. In other words, television is actually a bioscope imported into the home. It is no good us laughing at that. It merely shows ignorance. On television one sees what most people see in the bioscopes. Now this question arises: Let us forget for a moment about television itself. Will anyone of us, as sensible people, prefer to bring into our homes a bioscope which is on during all hours of the day? Will we do that? We shall not do so, in the first place because it will bring about unpredictable consequences. It will simply mean that you will completely undermine the domestic atmosphere and the feeling of belonging together, as we see elsewhere in the world today. Now it is a fact that wherever you have television in the world, you find this fact which cannot be argued away, that the child, when he gets home, cannot get away from the television set. If you try to do so, there are such strained relations between parents and child that the whole family is broken up. But it is not only the child who tends to sit in front of the television set all day. The adults, when they return home, also sit in front of the television set most of the time. One is always reading in the newspapers what is happening, and one experiences it oneself when one proceeds overseas. When one visits people, they are all sitting in front of the television set, and they serve one a plate of food on one’s lap. It is a fact that the relationship between parent and child only exists physically. The child sits in the house, and so does the parent, but that is all. Spiritually they are completely separated from one another and the parent no longer has time to talk to the child. The child just watches television and does not wish to be disturbed. The child does not even have time to think, and every child has its problems, and there is no time even for the parents to encourage the child when it is faced with problems. In other words, television has become, in the Western world, the greatest destroyer of the family. [Interjections.] Let me just tell hon. members what Stuart Cloete said. He has just returned from overseas, and he made this statement. Permit me to read to you his version of the position. He says this—

The first point I wish to make is that by the establishment of television, you break up family life, and when you do that, if there is no discipline over the children, one gets what one sees in the newspapers all over England, about the Mods and the Rockers, and that crime is being promoted. Licentiousness prevails all over. In other words, the first problem in regard to the introduction of television is the destruction of the family.

That, however, is not the only problem one has. The second problem to which Stuart Cloete also referred, is this: When the child is at home, he watches these films and we know that in the circumstances in which one is watching them, one is in a very susceptible state; it is twilight, and one is with one’s family, and one sees how one crime after another and one act of violence after another is committed. We know the effect on the child’s mind is enormous. We do not take our children to the cinema every day to watch films depicting crimes of violence. We try to keep life clean for them until they have been formed, but that is not what happens when one is sitting in front of the television set and watches that type of film. That is one’s second problem. The child is exposed to pictures of violence and immorality and sadism—all those things one would have liked to keep away from a child. But then hon. members come along with the argument that one can stop it; it need not be so. But let us analyse the position fully, whether one can stop it. Every television system is an expensive system, and it must be paid for. It is paid for either by advertisements or by licence fees or otherwise it is paid for by means of State subsidies. Let us in the first place take the system existing in America, which is maintained by means of advertising fees. The exhibition of television films is terrifically expensive, and it means that the tariffs for the exhibition of those films are colossal. An advertiser is willing to pay that tariff only if he has a very big audience. The television companies have discovered that in order to get big audiences, the lowest and worst type of film has to be exhibited—films of violence, murder and finally, films depicting how the murders and crimes of violence are committed. When one exhibits these, one attracts large audiences. The result of this in America has been unavoidable—you can hardly stop it—that the quality drops to the lowest level. The films exhibited to young people and children are of the worst kind, the kind to which Stuart Cloete referred. In England the position is slightly different. In England they have imported through the Independent Television Authority what they call “spots”. The whole programme is not bought by a contractor; he merely buys the time when he desires to have his advertisement exhibited, and the Independent Television Authority and its subsidiaries then themselves provide the programme. But for the rest the principle is exactly the same, for in order to attract the advertisers, the quality of the films and programmes will have to be as low as possible. Although the position in England is slightly better than in America, it is still extremely unsatisfactory. In England the position is so bad that during recent years a few commissions of inquiry were appointed; first there was the Himmelweit Commission, and recently there was the Pilkington Commission. Authoritative persons and organizations expressed their great concern to these commissions. The witnesses openly expressed their strongest disapproval of television. Teachers, ministers of religion, the National Union of Teachers, the Education Institute of Scotland, the Association of Education Committees and numbers of other great educational organizations recorded their concern about the alarming situation in England. The Churches testified and almost every church denomination in England expressed disapproval of the situation. The women’s organizations and the child welfare bodies and other bodies all testified to the prejudicial effect of television: they testified how television lowered the morale and was breaking down the youth of England. Even city councils, the “municipal corporations”, appeared before the commission and expressed their concern. In their evidence you find words such as these: “We are appalled at the let-down;” “the abysmally low standard”, “the sights are set insultingly low”; “sensationalism, violence and depravity” “they deplore the violence, the verbal aggression and the degrading of sex”; “the all-round lowering of values and standards”, “the corruption of judgment”, “the exploitation of sex often linked with violence and sadism”. Expressions of this nature are to be found from beginning to end right throughout those reports. All these bodies expressed their disapproval of the position prevalent in England under this system.

Why did the commission recommend a third television network?

I have just dealt with the commercial television existing in America and in England. There is only one other form, which I cannot deal with at present, and that is when the State subsidizes television. I may deal with this on another occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I understand this is a convenient time to conclude.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Noes—66: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 34—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C.—“Telegraph, Telephone and Radio Services”, R27,700,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.